Coronainsanity

[Spartanmack]

the data youre reading is abut a month old. This is no longer a gay disease you only get if a dude bangs another dude. do better...

Pay attention. I never said it was a gay disease, I said it was a sexaully transmitted disease because it is. You're doing exactly what I'm criticizing the idiots in California of doing. The idea that they declare the monkey pox outbreak a state of emergency in California and tell people to mask up but don't warn against participating in promiscuous sex or say "hey, maybe this leather fetish orgy weekend thing isn't such a good idea" because of some identity politics nonsense, then try to shame people for pointing out that behavior (promiscuous sex, not gay sex) is always risky but now particularly risky because of an outbreak of an STD, is the height of hypocrisy. I would say do better, but at this point I'm not sure you're capable of it.

 

[Spartanmack]

Because Gay people haven't stopped sleeping with each other. But the data will tell you it's now short term airborne. Lives on surfaces etc.

Hmmm, where have I heard that before? I hope you're wiping down your groceries. If you do that, wear a mask and try to avoid having sex with multiple partners, especially ones you don't know you'll greatly reduce your chances of getting monkey pox.

And what data tell you that? Are you sure it's data and not CNN telling you that?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Because Gay people haven't stopped sleeping with each other. But the data will tell you it's now short term airborne. Lives on surfaces etc.

Sure.

Sometimes a person gets struck by lightning.

It?s rare but it happens.

Sometimes a duffer on a public golf course hits a hole in one.

It?s rare but it happens.

Every now and then, a duffer on a public golf course hits a hole in one, then immediately after swinging gets struck by lightning, and actually dies before the ball goes in the hole.

It?s rare but it happens.

 

[Spartanmack]

Denmark bans use of COVID vaccines for people under 18 years old. Sounds like those Danish boys need to get their national health bureaucrats closer ties to big pharma. Bunch a pastry making anti-science freaks.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Denmark bans use of COVID vaccines for people under 18 years old. Sounds like those Danish boys need to get their national health bureaucrats closer ties to big pharma. Bunch a pastry making anti-science freaks.

It?s a good idea.

 

[Spartanmack]

It?s a good idea.

If you don't believe in "science" maybe...

 

[Spartanmack]

Democrat mega donor Stever Kirsch fed up w/ party over vaccine lies...

https://news.yahoo.com/democrat-megadonor-explains-why-hes-012021928.html

 

[mhughes0021]

What Lie? Vaccines do for your body what they always did. Why havent you started a FLu vaccine thread? Theres a milion different strains of the flu and a shot rarely prevents illness. Did your mom used to get wasted on Corona or something and beat you as a child? Whats the reason for posting 200 pages worth of bullshit?

 

[Spartanmack]

What Lie? Vaccines do for your body what they always did. Why havent you started a FLu vaccine thread? Theres a milion different strains of the flu and a shot rarely prevents illness. Did your mom used to get wasted on Corona or something and beat you as a child? Whats the reason for posting 200 pages worth of bullshit?

How many people have been gotten myocarditis or died from the flue vaccine? Does the flu vaccine cause fertility issues? Are deaths from all causes up 40% from pre-flu vaccine days? Is there an orchestrated campaign by the media, big pharma and our government overlords to shout down if not ruin anyone who asks about the vaccines potential role in any of this? That's probably why there isn't a thread about flue vaccines (also, there isn't a thread dedicated to the COVID vaccines either).

I'll ignore the personal attacks - trust me it's as ineffective as it is stupid - that's the only bullshit here. Rather than recognize that these are legitimate concerns and questions that more people should be asking - and more importantly, people involved should be answering, you resort to ad hominem. Maybe you're mad because you don't want to think you made a mistake getting vaccine? I assume you think it's clever - it's not. I think Bob could write something funnier if he were still posting here.

 

[mhughes0021]

How many people have been gotten myocarditis or died from the flue vaccine? Does the flu vaccine cause fertility issues? Are deaths from all causes up 40% from pre-flu vaccine days? Is there an orchestrated campaign by the media, big pharma and our government overlords to shout down if not ruin anyone who asks about the vaccines potential role in any of this? That's probably why there isn't a thread about flue vaccines (also, there isn't a thread dedicated to the COVID vaccines either).

I'll ignore the personal attacks - trust me it's as ineffective as it is stupid - that's the only bullshit here. Rather than recognize that these are legitimate concerns and questions that more people should be asking - and more importantly, people involved should be answering, you resort to ad hominem. Maybe you're mad because you don't want to think you made a mistake getting vaccine? I assume you think it's clever - it's not. I think Bob could write something funnier if he were still posting here.

I don't have myocarditis... I've been jabbed 4 times now with corona vaccines. Never had covid. Daughter hasn't had covid. Yup... I'm totally good with my decisions.

 

[mhughes0021]

How many people have been gotten myocarditis or died from the flue vaccine? Does the flu vaccine cause fertility issues? Are deaths from all causes up 40% from pre-flu vaccine days? Is there an orchestrated campaign by the media, big pharma and our government overlords to shout down if not ruin anyone who asks about the vaccines potential role in any of this? That's probably why there isn't a thread about flue vaccines (also, there isn't a thread dedicated to the COVID vaccines either).

I'll ignore the personal attacks - trust me it's as ineffective as it is stupid - that's the only bullshit here. Rather than recognize that these are legitimate concerns and questions that more people should be asking - and more importantly, people involved should be answering, you resort to ad hominem. Maybe you're mad because you don't want to think you made a mistake getting vaccine? I assume you think it's clever - it's not. I think Bob could write something funnier if he were still posting here.

I don't dig thru data all day like you do. But remember when deaths from all causes was down like 50% when covid hit. It seems only natural that deaths from all causes goes back up to pre covid levels now that everyone is back doing their thing. Why you'd attach all those deaths to a vaccine seems really dumb.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I don't dig thru data all day like you do. But remember when deaths from all causes was down like 50% when covid hit. It seems only natural that deaths from all causes goes back up to pre covid levels now that everyone is back doing their thing. Why you'd attach all those deaths to a vaccine seems really dumb.

Really?

Ya don?t say?

Have you ever even spent 30 seconds double checking any of the shit you post?

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't dig thru data all day like you do.

That's obvious - your ignorance of the facts explains why your posts are so far off the mark. I think you may be the only one who doesn't realize that.

But remember when deaths from all causes was down like 50% when covid hit. It seems only natural that deaths from all causes goes back up to pre covid levels now that everyone is back doing their thing. Why you'd attach all those deaths to a vaccine seems really dumb.

I'm not attaching all those deaths to the vaccine. I've clearly said (a couple times) that people should be asking the questions and studying the cause of the spikes, but we don't. I even said long COVID could be the cause (see post #5952 on page 596) and in the post you quoted (#5989), I said the cause(s) should be investigated and talked about people being shouted down and attacked for asking legitimate questions about the vaccines potential role. Why you would say I'm attaching all those deaths to the vaccine seems really dumb - but not at all surprising.

While we're at it, do you have any data to back up your claim that deaths from all causes were down "like 50%" or did you just pull that out of your ass? It probably wouldn't take all day to dig it up. Anyway, if it was just a rebound from down 50%, then we'd expect those deaths to be up closer to 100% YoY. That's how it works - if you go down by 50% one year, you have to go up 100% the next year to get back to your pre-covid level. But it's not just a 40% increase in deaths from all causes, there's also the 200-300% increase in diagnoses of several serious medical conditions like cancers, blood clots, myocarditis, heart attacks, miscarriages, fertility issues, etc, etc. It's not just a bounce back, something is causing that and it should be investigated.

 

[Spartanmack]

Safe and effective...only 44% of pregnant women in the Pfizer trial lost their babies. That's less than half - 3x the high end of the normal range of 10-15%, but still, less than half!!!

Trial documents released in April revealed that Pfizer had to hire 1,800 additional full-time employees in the first half of 2021 to deal with ?the large increase? of adverse reactions to its COVID vaccine. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine was made available under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on Dec. 11, 2020. By February of 2021, the company was seeing so many safety signals, including in pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, it had to immediately hire 600 employees to process the data.

That seems inconsistent with what we were told about VARS reporting - these things weren't harming anyone, right?

How about this bit here...

?Pfizer took those deaths of babies?those spontaneous abortions and miscarriages?and recategorized them as recovered/resolved adverse effects,? Wolf told Bannon. ?In other words, if you lost your baby, it was categorized by Pfizer as a resolved adverse event, like a headache that got better."

These people have no shame...shockingly this is NOT being widely reported by the big Pharma controlled, in-the-bag for Democrats major news outlets.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Safe and effective...only 44% of pregnant women in the Pfizer trial lost their babies. That's less than half - 3x the high end of the normal range of 10-15%, but still, less than half!!!



That seems inconsistent with what we were told about VARS reporting - these things weren't harming anyone, right?

How about this bit here...



These people have no shame...shockingly this is NOT being widely reported by the big Pharma controlled, in-the-bag for Democrats major news outlets.

Damn.

Glad I didn?t get the Pfizer shot, and wasn?t a pregnant woman at time I didn?t get it.

 

[sggatecl]

Safe and effective...only 44% of pregnant women in the Pfizer trial lost their babies. That's less than half - 3x the high end of the normal range of 10-15%, but still, less than half!!!



That seems inconsistent with what we were told about VARS reporting - these things weren't harming anyone, right?

How about this bit here...



These people have no shame...shockingly this is NOT being widely reported by the big Pharma controlled, in-the-bag for Democrats major news outlets.

I was always taught that the burden of proof lay with the person making the assumption/declaration/accusation but it's the era of Trump and shit slinging so here we are. I'll do my best to break it down piece by piece, especially for those that can't be bother to read beyond a headline.

Now, it firstly lists all the adverse events that happened in this table here.

It then lists all the SERIOUS adverse events in THIS table.

What Dr Naomi Wolf (PhD in English Literature, haven't you used that against people in the past? *Tisk tisk* Stay in your lane Dr Wolf!) hasn't realized is that the events listed in the serious events table have ALREADY been listed in the adverse events table because the serious adverse events are a subset of ALL adverse events. So what she's done has counted 11 in one and 11 in the other. She doubled it up to 22. So we have 11 and not 22. You can verify this (not that we're into verifying anything around here lol) by checking the unique ID on the left.

Now the number 50 comes from this table here

And the table DOES in fact contain 50 entries. But this is not the total number of pregnancies that occured during the trial. We know this for two reasons. First, if we look for the people that miscarried in this table, we see that only three of them are included. One on this page:

And two on this page:

So obviously not everyone who was pregnant is included in this table. In fact, if we divide the numbers of miscarriages that are actually in the pregnancy table by the number of pregnancies in the table we get 6% which is LESS than a typical miscarraige rate of about 10-15%.

Secondly, the table heading is 'Listing of subjects reporting pregnancy after dose 1'. So obviously those who inadvertantly got pregnant before dose 1 aren't included in the table. Likely they are in a different table, in a different released document that I have no desire to look up for you to further reduce the number of 6%. It stands on it's own just fine for my point to be made.

 

[sggatecl]

Here's a systematic review of 27 different studies which included 117,552 COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant people, almost exclusively with mRNA vaccines.

Not only did it find no evidence of a higher risk of miscarraige or other adverse events amongst vaccinated people, those who were vaccinated were LESS likely to have still births. I welcome you to dispute my source as I've done yours.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy

 

[tomdalton22]

Damn.

Glad I didn?t get the Pfizer shot, and wasn?t a pregnant woman at time I didn?t get it.

Now that abortion is going to be illegal, maybe instead of the morning after pill you just give the broad a Pfizer shot

 

[mhughes0021]

Ya, youre not allowed to use facts and accurate data on this thread. Sorry. Youre only allowed to manipulate data so it sounds like bullshit. "Pfizer kills babies" is a way sexier headline than all the factual data you provided. If you can read it while having a dumb ass face like Tucker Carlson then you REALLY have talent.

 

[Spartanmack]

I was always taught that the burden of proof lay with the person making the assumption/declaration/accusation but it's the era of Trump and shit slinging so here we are. I'll do my best to break it down piece by piece, especially for those that can't be bother to read beyond a headline.

Now, it firstly lists all the adverse events that happened in this table here.

It then lists all the SERIOUS adverse events in THIS table.

What Dr Naomi Wolf (PhD in English Literature, haven't you used that against people in the past? *Tisk tisk* Stay in your lane Dr Wolf!) hasn't realized is that the events listed in the serious events table have ALREADY been listed in the adverse events table because the serious adverse events are a subset of ALL adverse events. So what she's done has counted 11 in one and 11 in the other. She doubled it up to 22. So we have 11 and not 22. You can verify this (not that we're into verifying anything around here lol) by checking the unique ID on the left.

No, I don't do that - in fact I frequently reject the "argument from authority" where someone tries to use credentials (or lack of) to make or disprove a point. In this case, Wolf is identified as a journalist reviewing data - nothing requiring an MD or biology or chemistry degree. She was also identified as a feminist which probably should have been an indicator to take a closer look at her work. Which I did and noticed she made 2 errors. You already pointed out the first mistake. Her second was an error of ommission. She excluded two "incomplete abortions" which are a type of spontaneous abortion included in the 10-15% number. However, it's not clear that including already pregnant women would result in a number less than the 6% of women who miscarried after getting pregnant after their first dose.

It should also be noted that your 6% number is not to be relied upon. We know this because the dates of reporting pregnancy are included in the table you highlighted. The overwhelming majority of women reporting pregnancy after their first dose (72%) were from November 2020 or later. The study cutoff was mid March 2021 with data presented to the FDA in April. Presumably you're aware the human gestation period is 40 weeks. More than half the women in that sample (58%) were in the study for less than half that period. In fact, the earliest any woman reported pregnancy after the first dose was August 19th - she would have been 7 months pregnant when the study cutoff. That means none of them were pregnant long enough to get to full term. I wonder how many of those women delivered early. That would be interesting to know.

Now it's not clear to me that the studies you referenced in your next post don't suffer from this same problem, but as they say, the burden of proof is on the person making the assumption/declaration/accusation.

Insert clever meme about telling your editor to check his sources next time (bit sexist of you, by the way). You can pick up your mic now, the floor is yours.