Will you take the H5N1 bird flu vaccine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

The only problem with this is - well, everything.

The vast majority of those millions of people were murdered, my friend, murdered by the officially recommended NO-TREATMENT protocols established by our top-down friendly neighborhood WHO, CDC and NIH. Every hospital that followed those protocols had thousands and thousands of deaths, because those poor people were simply allowed to die... in other words, again, they were murdered.

This is extremely easy to prove by simply looking at areas where one of the most effective early treatments - Ivermectin - was administered in large amounts to an entire geographical area. This occurred in at least two locations, one in India, and one in Mexico. I don't have the links, but I absolutely remember reading about them, before it was all covered up by the MSM by simply ignoring it.

And don't get me started on the murderous psychopathic governors who knowingly sent covid positive people into nursing homes and hospitals, instead of isolating them.

You are of course free to be disingenuous and ridicule/ignore reality. Or, you could surprise everyone, actually exhibit a modicum of intellectual honesty, and address this extraordinarily narrative-destroying little factoid.

Sadly, I fear you are too blinded by your worship of these psychopaths to even consider this, but I choose to have hope..

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %.

Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

Only for those without a brain.

There is so much missing from your attempt at an analysis I'm not sure where to start, but I'll give it a shot...

First, you're forgetting that this was an ongoing trial, and an unknown number of those so-called vaccines were saline placebos. This was also admitted by tptb. I'm betting at least half were placebo, if not more, in the beginning, and even more now. This dramatically changes that number that your calculations is based on.

Then you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, unlike prior jabs, reporting in VAERS for these jabs has been systematically and actively suppressed by the medical establishment (politicians masquerading as hospital administrators), so the real numbers are more likely to be on the order of 500 to 1,000 times more.

Lastly, you conveniently neglected to contrast and compare this number with available historical data - meaning, numbers from other jabs.

So... you're assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and re-calculate, and I'll even allow a generous margin of error...

First, go back and compare the same figures for every other vaccine in VAERS, but feel free to pad those numbers by lumping in all vaccines over the last 30 years, all combined. Present those numbers.

Then, for each one individually, provide the number of vaccines that were pulled from the market, and how many VAERS reports resulted in them being pulled.

Last, go back and re-calculate based on a) the VAERS numbers being off by a factor of (only) 200, and b), that (only) half of deaths attributed to the virus/disease were not from the virus, but from the failure to make proper recommendations for preventative measures (sunshine/vitamin D, zinc, NAC, quercetin, vitamin C, etc etc) and early treatment protocols for those who developed serious symptoms.

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

"This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

So someone inserted - the narrative - into the summary, and you... eat it up.

Clearly, everyone who has actually tried to do something to prevent deaths from COVID-19 are actually all murderers, the only ones we can trust have done nothing to help and are just dumping blame on everyone else.

LOL

(Also, *hint: there were no cases of COVID-19 among the general public in New Zealand during Spring - September to November - 2020. Which means also there were no cases hospitalized in the same time-frame. It was a period between outbreaks which New Zealand had, famously, brought under control).

Since you are so pro gov/pro "vaxx", why don't you become a trial particpant for the swine flu vaxx and future covid "vaccines"? They are extremely safe and effective, so seems like a win-win.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

John Hopkins is quite wrong to use the recorded cases and fail even to make a comment about the total numbers of cases which have been estimated long time ago at different times in the pandemic. After 3+ years of exposure most of the human population has been infected at least once.

Johns Hopkins choose to use the CFR.

The CFR is a real world definite number based upon actual known and verified cases. Not a figure that is arrived at by dividing by an estimate.

I have no idea if everyone in the entire world has had COVID at least once. Neither does anyone else.

You are making the same mistakes by presenting the CFR instead of the IFR but the CFR is a poor measure how fatal this virus is. You have given a 2% I think earlier and others have given around 1%. The IFR however was very low to start with and around 0.15% (global average). Now it is probably the same as that of the flu or even lower.

What, subsequent to the administration of more than 13 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccines, the virus is now not as deadly as it originally was?

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

Similarly, databases of COVID vaccine adverse reactions from other countries also show vanishingly small numbers of severe adverse events when compared with the number of vaccine doses administered in each relevant region.

There is no authoritative credible statistical collection of the numbers of people who may have had asymptomatic or mild symptom COVID-19. This leads to the situation where guessing at estimates is just making stuff up, because there is no real hard data to support it.

Discarding the known credible data collections in favor of wild estimates of values formed in the dearth of actual data collection, is not how you do science, nor statistics, either.

A paper, even by someone who might normally be held in high regard, but who bases their work on estimates without the backing of strong evidential data, is a work of speculative fiction.

Well it's clearly wrong and misleading as they don't even acknowledge that these are the recorded cases when in reality almost the entire planet has been infected after three years of exposure.

But they do. It's in their 'sources' list.

The IFR of SARS-CoV-2 was 0.15% before any medical interventions and natural immunity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Conclusions: All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

1.5 to 2 billion infections estimated by February 2021. By February 2023 it's almost entire planet that has been infected.

And yes due to exposure the infection fatality rate should be much lower. It was always low to start with. Now it is as low as the flu or even much lower than that.

And yes there have been many papers that try to estimate the IFR of SARS-CoV-2 with the most important and cited paper the one by Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford who is probably the most cited paper in the world

John Ioannidis is highly cited, but is not the most cited in the world:

Highly Cited Researchers (h>100) according to their Google Scholar Citations public profiles - Webometrics

... and he is a person, not a paper.

, cited by another 548 scientists, and is published in one of the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation and has been accepted by almost the entire scientific community. It gives a median of around 0.23% for the IFR. Here it is:

apps.who.int...

Your assertion that "There is no authoritative credible statistical collection of the numbers of people who may have had asymptomatic or mild symptom COVID-19" is clearly false. Nobody uses the CFR to describe the mortality rates as it is very misleading.

You have listed a few academic papers, and not a single database or collection of statistical case-by-case data. Present the data of that collection and you will have proved your point. You have not come up with anything sufficient yet.

In terms of the current infection fatality rate

www.ft.com...

A combination of high levels of immunity and the reduced severity of the Omicron variant has rendered Covid-19 less lethal than influenza for the vast majority of people in England, according to a Financial Times analysis of official data

Pretty much the same picture for everyone else in the world.

The rest of the your text has no basis in anything and is just an unsubstantiated assertion.

In terms of the total number of infections

www.thelancet.com...(22)02465-5/fulltext

As of June 1, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had caused an estimated 17·2 million total deaths (6·88 million reported deaths), and an estimated 7·63 billion total infections and re-infections[/b.

Which proves me right as I have used common sense by implying that almost the entire human race has been infected.

In terms of the vaccines from the reply above:

insulinresistance.org...

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19.

Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue

InsulinResistance.org??

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

The only problem with this is - well, everything.

The vast majority of those millions of people were murdered, my friend, murdered by the officially recommended NO-TREATMENT protocols established by our top-down friendly neighborhood WHO, CDC and NIH. Every hospital that followed those protocols had thousands and thousands of deaths, because those poor people were simply allowed to die... in other words, again, they were murdered.

This is extremely easy to prove by simply looking at areas where one of the most effective early treatments - Ivermectin - was administered in large amounts to an entire geographical area. This occurred in at least two locations, one in India, and one in Mexico. I don't have the links, but I absolutely remember reading about them, before it was all covered up by the MSM by simply ignoring it.

And don't get me started on the murderous psychopathic governors who knowingly sent covid positive people into nursing homes and hospitals, instead of isolating them.

You are of course free to be disingenuous and ridicule/ignore reality. Or, you could surprise everyone, actually exhibit a modicum of intellectual honesty, and address this extraordinarily narrative-destroying little factoid.

Sadly, I fear you are too blinded by your worship of these psychopaths to even consider this, but I choose to have hope..

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %.

Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

Only for those without a brain.

There is so much missing from your attempt at an analysis I'm not sure where to start, but I'll give it a shot...

First, you're forgetting that this was an ongoing trial, and an unknown number of those so-called vaccines were saline placebos. This was also admitted by tptb. I'm betting at least half were placebo, if not more, in the beginning, and even more now. This dramatically changes that number that your calculations is based on.

Then you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, unlike prior jabs, reporting in VAERS for these jabs has been systematically and actively suppressed by the medical establishment (politicians masquerading as hospital administrators), so the real numbers are more likely to be on the order of 500 to 1,000 times more.

Lastly, you conveniently neglected to contrast and compare this number with available historical data - meaning, numbers from other jabs.

So... you're assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and re-calculate, and I'll even allow a generous margin of error...

First, go back and compare the same figures for every other vaccine in VAERS, but feel free to pad those numbers by lumping in all vaccines over the last 30 years, all combined. Present those numbers.

Then, for each one individually, provide the number of vaccines that were pulled from the market, and how many VAERS reports resulted in them being pulled.

Last, go back and re-calculate based on a) the VAERS numbers being off by a factor of (only) 200, and b), that (only) half of deaths attributed to the virus/disease were not from the virus, but from the failure to make proper recommendations for preventative measures (sunshine/vitamin D, zinc, NAC, quercetin, vitamin C, etc etc) and early treatment protocols for those who developed serious symptoms.

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

"This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

So someone inserted - the narrative - into the summary, and you... eat it up.

Clearly, everyone who has actually tried to do something to prevent deaths from COVID-19 are actually all murderers, the only ones we can trust have done nothing to help and are just dumping blame on everyone else.

LOL

(Also, *hint: there were no cases of COVID-19 among the general public in New Zealand during Spring - September to November - 2020. Which means also there were no cases hospitalized in the same time-frame. It was a period between outbreaks which New Zealand had, famously, brought under control).

Since you are so pro gov/pro "vaxx", why don't you become a trial particpant for the swine flu vaxx and future covid "vaccines"? They are extremely safe and effective, so seems like a win-win.

There is no need. There are no epidemics or pandemics of those diseases at this time.

a reply to: litterbaux

This happens in Asia with some family that lives too close to its birds every year. So no.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

John Hopkins is quite wrong to use the recorded cases and fail even to make a comment about the total numbers of cases which have been estimated long time ago at different times in the pandemic. After 3+ years of exposure most of the human population has been infected at least once.

Johns Hopkins choose to use the CFR.

The CFR is a real world definite number based upon actual known and verified cases. Not a figure that is arrived at by dividing by an estimate.

I have no idea if everyone in the entire world has had COVID at least once. Neither does anyone else.

You are making the same mistakes by presenting the CFR instead of the IFR but the CFR is a poor measure how fatal this virus is. You have given a 2% I think earlier and others have given around 1%. The IFR however was very low to start with and around 0.15% (global average). Now it is probably the same as that of the flu or even lower.

What, subsequent to the administration of more than 13 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccines, the virus is now not as deadly as it originally was?

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

Similarly, databases of COVID vaccine adverse reactions from other countries also show vanishingly small numbers of severe adverse events when compared with the number of vaccine doses administered in each relevant region.

There is no authoritative credible statistical collection of the numbers of people who may have had asymptomatic or mild symptom COVID-19. This leads to the situation where guessing at estimates is just making stuff up, because there is no real hard data to support it.

Discarding the known credible data collections in favor of wild estimates of values formed in the dearth of actual data collection, is not how you do science, nor statistics, either.

A paper, even by someone who might normally be held in high regard, but who bases their work on estimates without the backing of strong evidential data, is a work of speculative fiction.

Well it's clearly wrong and misleading as they don't even acknowledge that these are the recorded cases when in reality almost the entire planet has been infected after three years of exposure.

But they do. It's in their 'sources' list.

The IFR of SARS-CoV-2 was 0.15% before any medical interventions and natural immunity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Conclusions: All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

1.5 to 2 billion infections estimated by February 2021. By February 2023 it's almost entire planet that has been infected.

And yes due to exposure the infection fatality rate should be much lower. It was always low to start with. Now it is as low as the flu or even much lower than that.

And yes there have been many papers that try to estimate the IFR of SARS-CoV-2 with the most important and cited paper the one by Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford who is probably the most cited paper in the world

John Ioannidis is highly cited, but is not the most cited in the world:

Highly Cited Researchers (h>100) according to their Google Scholar Citations public profiles - Webometrics

... and he is a person, not a paper.

, cited by another 548 scientists, and is published in one of the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation and has been accepted by almost the entire scientific community. It gives a median of around 0.23% for the IFR. Here it is:

apps.who.int...

Your assertion that "There is no authoritative credible statistical collection of the numbers of people who may have had asymptomatic or mild symptom COVID-19" is clearly false. Nobody uses the CFR to describe the mortality rates as it is very misleading.

You have listed a few academic papers, and not a single database or collection of statistical case-by-case data. Present the data of that collection and you will have proved your point. You have not come up with anything sufficient yet.

In terms of the current infection fatality rate

www.ft.com...

A combination of high levels of immunity and the reduced severity of the Omicron variant has rendered Covid-19 less lethal than influenza for the vast majority of people in England, according to a Financial Times analysis of official data

Pretty much the same picture for everyone else in the world.

The rest of the your text has no basis in anything and is just an unsubstantiated assertion.

In terms of the total number of infections

www.thelancet.com...(22)02465-5/fulltext

As of June 1, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had caused an estimated 17·2 million total deaths (6·88 million reported deaths), and an estimated 7·63 billion total infections and re-infections[/b.

Which proves me right as I have used common sense by implying that almost the entire human race has been infected.

In terms of the vaccines from the reply above:

insulinresistance.org...

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19.

Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue

InsulinResistance.org??

Good that you admit you don't have any valid arguments other than personal opinions and inadequate and insufficient reading and cherry picking of information. None of what you have said is true.

The IFR before any medical interventions was quite low of the order of 0.15% at a global average rate. Now it is much lower and even lower than the flu.
You are incorrect as the sources I presented show clearly and prove that the IFR is quite low and that the number of infected is almost the entire population of the planet. I know you are in a denial...

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

The only problem with this is - well, everything.

The vast majority of those millions of people were murdered, my friend, murdered by the officially recommended NO-TREATMENT protocols established by our top-down friendly neighborhood WHO, CDC and NIH. Every hospital that followed those protocols had thousands and thousands of deaths, because those poor people were simply allowed to die... in other words, again, they were murdered.

This is extremely easy to prove by simply looking at areas where one of the most effective early treatments - Ivermectin - was administered in large amounts to an entire geographical area. This occurred in at least two locations, one in India, and one in Mexico. I don't have the links, but I absolutely remember reading about them, before it was all covered up by the MSM by simply ignoring it.

And don't get me started on the murderous psychopathic governors who knowingly sent covid positive people into nursing homes and hospitals, instead of isolating them.

You are of course free to be disingenuous and ridicule/ignore reality. Or, you could surprise everyone, actually exhibit a modicum of intellectual honesty, and address this extraordinarily narrative-destroying little factoid.

Sadly, I fear you are too blinded by your worship of these psychopaths to even consider this, but I choose to have hope..

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %.

Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

Only for those without a brain.

There is so much missing from your attempt at an analysis I'm not sure where to start, but I'll give it a shot...

First, you're forgetting that this was an ongoing trial, and an unknown number of those so-called vaccines were saline placebos. This was also admitted by tptb. I'm betting at least half were placebo, if not more, in the beginning, and even more now. This dramatically changes that number that your calculations is based on.

Then you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, unlike prior jabs, reporting in VAERS for these jabs has been systematically and actively suppressed by the medical establishment (politicians masquerading as hospital administrators), so the real numbers are more likely to be on the order of 500 to 1,000 times more.

Lastly, you conveniently neglected to contrast and compare this number with available historical data - meaning, numbers from other jabs.

So... you're assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and re-calculate, and I'll even allow a generous margin of error...

First, go back and compare the same figures for every other vaccine in VAERS, but feel free to pad those numbers by lumping in all vaccines over the last 30 years, all combined. Present those numbers.

Then, for each one individually, provide the number of vaccines that were pulled from the market, and how many VAERS reports resulted in them being pulled.

Last, go back and re-calculate based on a) the VAERS numbers being off by a factor of (only) 200, and b), that (only) half of deaths attributed to the virus/disease were not from the virus, but from the failure to make proper recommendations for preventative measures (sunshine/vitamin D, zinc, NAC, quercetin, vitamin C, etc etc) and early treatment protocols for those who developed serious symptoms.

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

"This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

So someone inserted - the narrative - into the summary, and you... eat it up.

Clearly, everyone who has actually tried to do something to prevent deaths from COVID-19 are actually all murderers, the only ones we can trust have done nothing to help and are just dumping blame on everyone else.

LOL

(Also, *hint: there were no cases of COVID-19 among the general public in New Zealand during Spring - September to November - 2020. Which means also there were no cases hospitalized in the same time-frame. It was a period between outbreaks which New Zealand had, famously, brought under control).

Since you are so pro gov/pro "vaxx", why don't you become a trial particpant for the swine flu vaxx and future covid "vaccines"? They are extremely safe and effective, so seems like a win-win.

He can't do that. He wants healthy and young people to participate. His arguments that there is no epidemic or pandemic so he doesn't need to participate is just nonsense.

a reply to: chr0naut


From the source in the last page

A combination of high levels of immunity and the reduced severity of the Omicron variant has rendered Covid-19 less lethal than influenza for the vast majority of people in England, according to a Financial Times analysis of official data

Pretty much the same picture for everyone else in the world.


From the Lancet

As of June 1, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had caused an estimated 17·2 million total deaths (6·88 million reported deaths), and an estimated 7·63 billion total infections and re-infections

Clearly it is almost the entire human population planet that has been infected by now and clearly the IFR is as low as that of the flu or even lower. It was always low despite the attempts to present it otherwise. Trying to insinuate that somehow the most cited person in the field of epidemiology may not be correct, Dr John Ioannidis, is just a desperate attempt.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Clearly, everyone who has actually tried to do something to prevent deaths from COVID-19 are actually all murderers, the only ones we can trust have done nothing to help and are just dumping blame on everyone else.

LOL

After all of that logic and reason, that's all ya got? Color me surprised.

So I guess you never heard about all of the Doctors and Medical Organizations that were actually treating many many people and not losing a single one - like the FLCCC for just one example?

Get help.

It all Depends if Biden is gonna tell me it's gonna keep me safe from getting the virus or not, then I will know my decision 🤷‍♂️

I found this video tonight.

twitter.com...

We need to stand up for what's right.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Clearly, everyone who has actually tried to do something to prevent deaths from COVID-19 are actually all murderers, the only ones we can trust have done nothing to help and are just dumping blame on everyone else.

LOL

After all of that logic and reason, that's all ya got? Color me surprised.

So I guess you never heard about all of the Doctors and Medical Organizations that were actually treating many many people and not losing a single one - like the FLCCC for just one example?

Get help.

The FLCCC is a fringe group who have tried unsuccessfully to promote dubious and discredited 'cures' for numerous conditions since April 2020, the date they were founded.

They, of course, claim that they have a longer pedigree and greater acceptance than that, but that is as bogus as their claims.

Their paper outlining their "MATH+" protocol was retracted because it misrepresented mortality figures to make it appear that their protocol was effective.

"Bad MATH+? Covid treatment paper by Pierre Kory retracted for flawed results". Retraction Watch.

Similarly, the "America's Frontline Doctors" organization is a pseudo-religious right-wing political organization.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
The FLCCC is a fringe group who have tried unsuccessfully to promote dubious and discredited 'cures' for numerous conditions since April 2020, the date they were founded.

They, of course, claim that they have a longer pedigree and greater acceptance than that, but that is as bogus as their claims.

Their paper outlining their "MATH+" protocol was retracted because it misrepresented mortality figures to make it appear that their protocol was effective.

Yes, the hospitals own internal review makes that claim giving the journal the excuse to retract the paper.

And, as always, and unsurprisingly, you choose to make specious, vacuous and denigrating claims about extremely well proven and established medicines and science and Doctors, and worse you choose to continue to put your faith in the same powers that be that have been proven to be liars and con artists. I'll continue to choose to believe rational, sane people.

Similarly, the "America's Frontline Doctors" organization is a pseudo-religious right-wing political organization.

And again unsurprisingly, you toss in a refernce to some other organization whose founder indeed has some serious issues in a vain attempt to create some kind of 'association' thereby trying to tarnish the reputations of other Doctors and an organization that has nothing whatsoever to do with the organization in question.

You are consistent, I'll give you that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
The FLCCC is a fringe group who have tried unsuccessfully to promote dubious and discredited 'cures' for numerous conditions since April 2020, the date they were founded.

They, of course, claim that they have a longer pedigree and greater acceptance than that, but that is as bogus as their claims.

Their paper outlining their "MATH+" protocol was retracted because it misrepresented mortality figures to make it appear that their protocol was effective.

Yes, the hospitals own internal review makes that claim giving the journal the excuse to retract the paper.

And, as always, and unsurprisingly, you choose to make specious, vacuous and denigrating claims about extremely well proven and established medicines and science and Doctors, and worse you choose to continue to put your faith in the same powers that be that have been proven to be liars and con artists. I'll continue to choose to believe rational, sane people.

Similarly, the "America's Frontline Doctors" organization is a pseudo-religious right-wing political organization.

And again unsurprisingly, you toss in a refernce to some other organization whose founder indeed has some serious issues in a vain attempt to create some kind of 'association' thereby trying to tarnish the reputations of other Doctors and an organization that has nothing whatsoever to do with the organization in question.

You are consistent, I'll give you that.

It's in the title of the FLCCC group: "Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance". They didn't exist before the pandemic. No-one official ever adopted their snake-oil protocols. The papers they published were lies. Figure it out.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
It's in the title of the FLCCC group: "Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance".
They didn't exist before the pandemic.

Ummm... now you're pretending my entire response was about one tiny detail that I am well aware of and wasn't disputing (that the FLCCC was created in April of 2020 in response to the PlanScamdemic)? In fact I know far more about them than you do, for one simple reason: you're incapable of reading anything at all about them because you have TDS, which means you're incapable of reading, hearing or seeing anything without it passing through the MSM filter you voluntarily chose to adorn your brain with.

Dude, your parting shot:

Similarly, the "America's Frontline Doctors" organization is a pseudo-religious right-wing political organization.

was just a pathetic attempt to conflate two completely different and totally unrelated organizations - the FLCCC and American Frontline Doctors - to try to smear and tarnish the impeccable reputations of anyone associated with the first one with the admittedly insane baggage carried by the Founder of the second.

I now also note that I failed to properly address your prior slander of those extraordinarily brave men and women, so I'll do so now:

They, of course, claim that they have a longer pedigree and greater acceptance than that, but that is as bogus as their claims.

The pedigrees of all of the amazing Doctors and Nurses at the FLCCC who chose to ignore the ridiculous and insane 'NO-TREATMENT-UNTIL-THEY'RE-ALMOST-DEAD' officially recommended treatment protocols coming from your petty-tyrant-wanna-be-gods at the CDC, NIH, WHO and wherever else, are indeed very long and very impressive, impeccable, and speak for themselves - unless of course you have TDS, in which case you're handicapped by the aforementioned MSM filter.

On the other hand - and in spite of the massively voluminous evidence that is coming out daily (hourly even) exposing the corruption of the aforementioned officials and the massive damage their official recommendations caused - you and others like you continue to excuse and defend, and even actively support this abhorrent criminal mafia that has taken over our government and who were and are collectively responsible for the murders, both over the last few years and that are still ongoing - of hundreds of thousands of your very own fellow Americans, and millions of people around the world.

No-one official ever adopted their snake-oil protocols.

Just one of the countless and easily disprovable lies coming from you.

Snake oil? The treatments they recommended not only use long and well established medicines that are extraordinarily well researched and proven for treatment of certain things. Your nasty, snide remark also ignores the long and well established tradition and practice that Medical Doctors have been engaging in with their patients since time immemorial, that being 'off label' use of existing medications/devices using informed consent. The legitimacy and.or legality of this practice was never, ever questioned before Covid.

The papers they published were lies.

Yeah... except they weren't, although your petty-tyrant-wanna-be-gods did figure out a way to censor them.

I'll just leave you with your own words to ponder...

"Figure it out". You're out of excuses my friend. You have to own it and get help while you still can.

Will you take the H5N1 bird flu vaccine

No, I plan to eat a lot of birds instead of taking a vaccine. Just like I avoided covid19 by eating bats.