|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
And this one. - A Type Of Blood Disorder Where The Red Blood Cells Burst Called Hemolytic Anemia
- Anemia
- A Decrease In Platelet Clotting
- Large Purple Or Brown Skin Blotches
- Decreased Blood Platelets
- Low Levels Of White Blood Cells
- Bleeding Within The Skull
- Bleeding
- Bronchospasm
- Stomach Or Intestinal Ulcer
- Blood Coming From Anus
- Damage To The Liver And Inflammation
- Bleeding Of The Stomach Or Intestines
- A Type Of Kidney Inflammation Called Interstitial Nephritis
- Inflammation Of The Skin Due To An Allergy
- Hives
- Blistering Of The Skin
- Seizures
- Wheezing
- Trouble Breathing
- A Significant Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Anaphylaxis
- A Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Angioedema
- A Rupture In The Wall Of The Stomach Or Intestine
- A Type Of Significant Allergic Skin Reaction Called DRESS Syndrome
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTry to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol), but if you are at the I.Q. to acquire that information online, you would also realise it proves nothing. All medicines have side effects. Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk. We are starting to see that now. Some people are slow in the uptake. Whereas countries like Japan, at government level, are recognising the risk. Over in Japan you have the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, called on Japanese doctors to implement ivermectin as an effective medication to combat COVID-19. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/japanese-medical-chairman-doubles-down-on-ivermectin-support/Here in Australia, our own Professor Thomas Borody from the University of Newcastle is advocating for Ivermectin. All we're saying is, even if your view aligns with the majority, there are other countries such as Japan, and other experts such as the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, and our own Professor from Newcastle University, who hold the opposite view on controversial issues. Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view? You realise, if history's lesson is to be learned, that in past repressive regimes, there have always been a segment of the population, who feel empowered because they align their views with repressive laws, they transfer that emotion into active-loathing of the minority of people who held the opposite view to the majority. We think it can never happen in western democracies like Australia. But human nature is the same through the ages, and there have always been people like that.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xTry to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Some people are slow in the uptake. Tell me about it.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xTry to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
You realise, if history's lesson is to be learned, that in past repressive regimes, there have always been a segment of the population, who feel empowered because they align their views with repressive laws, they transfer that emotion into active-loathing of the minority of people who held the opposite view to the majority. We think it can never happen in western democracies like Australia. But human nature is the same through the ages, and there have always been people like that. How about instead of the sociological evaluation, spend some time finding sources that aren't a. sensationalised, b. misleading, or c. agenda driven bullshit. Posting links to bogus, fake-news videos that claim to show "three footballers collapsing in a single game" will only further cement most peoples' opinion that anti-vaxxers are liars, idiots, or a mixture of both.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second. No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be. Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.) Also love the surge bit you've written..... ' Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Society contains people, who can look at those numbers, but still follow precisely what the Media tells them to speak. I am guessing, you do not count yourself among those Media-followers. They never do. There is a mental blindness. Those type of people always see themselves as independent thinkers. The trouble is, there are so many of such people, that when they laugh among themselves, they think being in the crowd mean they have good judgment.
For good measure, let's calculate the figures for Ivermectin:
Ivermectin - 196 per year.
And yet, the Media-followers will believe it when the Media tells them: Ivermectin is dangerous, and the vaccines are safe.
You will find online articles of doctors saying that Ivermectin is one of the safest ever drugs in history. But the Media portrays such as conspiracy and quacks. And the masses of people believe the Media.
When you find yourself part of the majority, you should not feel insulted when you are told you are part of the Masses.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Perhaps, once again, you should of read the disclaimer on the first page of YOUR source:
"VigiAccess cannot be used to compare the safety profiles of different medicinal products . For the same reasons explained in point 3, VigiAccess cannot provide sufficient context to make such comparisons possible."
The only reason you are mocked, John Smith, is because you set yourself up to be mocked.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Perhaps, once again, you should of read the disclaimer on the first page of YOUR source:
"VigiAccess cannot be used to compare the safety profiles of different medicinal products . For the same reasons explained in point 3, VigiAccess cannot provide sufficient context to make such comparisons possible."
The only reason you are mocked, John Smith, is because you set yourself up to be mocked.
he should just give up
gets owned with every post
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Perhaps, once again, you should of read the disclaimer on the first page of YOUR source:
"VigiAccess cannot be used to compare the safety profiles of different medicinal products . For the same reasons explained in point 3, VigiAccess cannot provide sufficient context to make such comparisons possible."
The only reason you are mocked, John Smith, is because you set yourself up to be mocked.
Hahaha. What a fucking clown.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Perhaps, once again, you should of read the disclaimer on the first page of YOUR source:
"VigiAccess cannot be used to compare the safety profiles of different medicinal products . For the same reasons explained in point 3, VigiAccess cannot provide sufficient context to make such comparisons possible."
The only reason you are mocked, John Smith, is because you set yourself up to be mocked.
Hahaha. What a fucking clown.
You have just given an example of how easy it is to lead the Masses along.
You realise, don't you, that those statements you quoted are just like legal disclaimers?
So are you asserting, on the authority of your great medical training, that any doctor and medical researcher who refers to VAERS, VigiACCESS and DAEN data is a F)*&#$ clown? You can saying that against me, but are you saying the same thing against qualified doctors who do the same?
This is a prime example of how people, stuck on the Media narrative, will use the slightest reason to knock back any evidence that goes against the narrative.
Remember, for your criticism against me to be valid, it must mean you also cast every doctor in the world, who makes an argument based the database data, as a F*&W#4 clown.
Not sure if you can appreciate the consistency of my argument?
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Perhaps, once again, you should of read the disclaimer on the first page of YOUR source:
"VigiAccess cannot be used to compare the safety profiles of different medicinal products . For the same reasons explained in point 3, VigiAccess cannot provide sufficient context to make such comparisons possible."
The only reason you are mocked, John Smith, is because you set yourself up to be mocked.
Hahaha. What a fucking clown.
You have just given an example of how easy it is to lead the Masses along.
You realise, don't you, that those statements you quoted are just like legal disclaimers?
So are you asserting, on the authority of your great medical training, that any doctor and medical researcher who refers to VAERS, VigiACCESS and DAEN data is a F)*&#$ clown? You can saying that against me, but are you saying the same thing against qualified doctors who do the same?
This is a prime example of how people, stuck on the Media narrative, will use the slightest reason to knock back any evidence that goes against the narrative.
Remember, for your criticism against me to be valid, it must mean you also cast every doctor in the world, who makes an argument based the database data, as a F*&W#4 clown.
Not sure if you can appreciate the consistency of my argument?
You're the fucking clown mate because every scintilla of evidence you try and provide as proof for your assertions is shot down within minutes.
You are beyond help. I think you have mental problems.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Perhaps, once again, you should of read the disclaimer on the first page of YOUR source:
"VigiAccess cannot be used to compare the safety profiles of different medicinal products . For the same reasons explained in point 3, VigiAccess cannot provide sufficient context to make such comparisons possible."
The only reason you are mocked, John Smith, is because you set yourself up to be mocked.
Hahaha. What a fucking clown.
Not sure if you can appreciate the consistency of my argument?
I for one truly appreciate the consistency. Lets look back at the past 2 months:
1. Claimed members of the FDA advisory said heart attacks happened 71 times more often following the vaccine. The man who said this was actually a doctor that was a member of the public, who was able to speak at during the panel meeting (so much for censorship).
2. Provided a link to a study claiming the rate of myocarditis in younger people was 1 in 1000. The paper had in fact been retracted by the authors after realising they had grossly underreported the number of people involved in the study. The real rate was actually 1 in 10,000.
3. Posts a list of 75 athletes that have allegedly died or had heart attacks following the vaccine. Even a quick glance at the the list shows it includes the likes of Cristian Eriksen, who was not even vaccinated.
4. Posts a video claiming to show "three players collapsing in a single game". The game showed was West Brom vs Bristol City, where no player collapsed at all.
5. Posts links to data obtained under freedom of information showing adverse event reporting by Pfizer following emergency authorisation, immediately assumes the 40k number is referring to the phase 2/3 trial participants. Clearly didn't bother actually reading what he had posted (the dates of the reports, male/female ratio and countries involved were a dead giveaway that they weren't the same numbers). Comes to the absurd conclusion that 1/38 phase 2/3 trial participants died.
6. Posts link claiming three Australian equestrian athletes have cardiac issues following the vaccine. A quick look at the article shows one of the examples used is actually English.
7. Tries to make comparisons of adverse reported events for different drugs, despite the dataset he is using clearly stating it cannot be used for that purpose.
Have I missed any?
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Try to guess what these listed side effects are for 'John'. - Bloody or black, tarry stools
- bloody or cloudy urine
- fever with or without chills (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- pain in the lower back and/or side (severe and/or sharp)
- pinpoint red spots on the skin
- skin rash, hives, or itching
- sore throat (not present before treatment and not caused by the condition being treated)
- sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
- sudden decrease in the amount of urine
- unusual bleeding or bruising
- unusual tiredness or weakness
- yellow eyes or skin
Probably Paracetemol (Panadol),
Why must you be so aggressive towards people who hold the opposite view?
Paracetomol was the first, aspirin the second.
No one is aggressive. Asking if you knew which products they were and what the side effects can be.
Pretty much on par with anything the vaccine can dish out. (Probaby worse.)
Also love the surge bit you've written..... 'Therefore, it only becomes an issue when there is a surge of side effects that is beyond what is acceptable risk.'
Do you understand what you wrote there? I doubt it. You keep posting up links of players with heart issues time and time again without any semblance of logic. What your feeble mind can't seem to comprehend is you need to be looking at are heart ailments happening now more than they were before. Statistics don't back you up.
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2021/11/111%20%28439%29.jpg
See the above graphic table.
Aspirin - 184,481 reports of side effects over 53 years
Tylenol - 169,359 reports of side effects over 53 years
Covid-19 vaccines - 2,457,386 in 1 year
You can go to the W.H.O. website and check the data yourself
http://vigiaccess.org/
There comes a point where those, who do the greatest mocking, are the greatest … [fill in the blank]
If we convert the above figures to all being per year, it works out to:
Aspirin - 4,380 per year
Tylenol - 3,159 per year
Covid-19 vaccine - 2,457,386 per year
Perhaps, once again, you should of read the disclaimer on the first page of YOUR source:
"VigiAccess cannot be used to compare the safety profiles of different medicinal products . For the same reasons explained in point 3, VigiAccess cannot provide sufficient context to make such comparisons possible."
The only reason you are mocked, John Smith, is because you set yourself up to be mocked.
Hahaha. What a fucking clown.
Not sure if you can appreciate the consistency of my argument?
I for one truly appreciate the consistency. Lets look back at the past 2 months:
1. Claimed members of the FDA advisory said heart attacks happened 71 times more often following the vaccine. The man who said this was actually a doctor that was a member of the public, who was able to speak at during the panel meeting (so much for censorship).
2. Provided a link to a study claiming the rate of myocarditis in younger people was 1 in 1000. The paper had in fact been retracted by the authors after realising they had grossly underreported the number of people involved in the study. The real rate was actually 1 in 10,000.
3. Posts a list of 75 athletes that have allegedly died or had heart attacks following the vaccine. Even a quick glance at the the list shows it includes the likes of Cristian Eriksen, who was not even vaccinated.
4. Posts a video claiming to show "three players collapsing in a single game". The game showed was West Brom vs Bristol City, where no player collapsed at all.
5. Posts links to data obtained under freedom of information showing adverse event reporting by Pfizer following emergency authorisation, immediately assumes the 40k number is referring to the phase 2/3 trial participants. Clearly didn't bother actually reading what he had posted (the dates of the reports, male/female ratio and countries involved were a dead giveaway that they weren't the same numbers). Comes to the absurd conclusion that 1/38 phase 2/3 trial participants died.
6. Posts link claiming three Australian equestrian athletes have cardiac issues following the vaccine. A quick look at the article shows one of the examples used is actually English.
7. Tries to make comparisons of adverse reported events for different drugs, despite the dataset he is using clearly stating it cannot be used for that purpose.
Have I missed any?
@sydneyfc1987, I challenge you to refute these citations:
The Mainstream’s insistence that the Pfizer vaccines are safe, is generally based on Pfizer’s vaccine trials:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
However, two days ago on 14 December 2021, researchers from Oxford University said: “Although myocarditis and pericarditis were not observed as adverse events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine trials, there have been numerous reports of suspected cases following vaccination in the general population.”
The Oxford researchers concluded: "the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
Notice that TGA only acknowledges recognised side effects that are stated on their Information Sheet. Notice that myocarditis and pericarditis are not listed on the official Product Sheet.
https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/cmi-comirnaty-bnt162b2-mrna.pdf
This is the method that TGA uses to refuse to give financial compensation to vaccine-victims, by saying it will not give compensation to any afflictions that are not on the official Product Sheet:
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/melbourne-mechanic-suffers-stroke-two-days-after-pfizer-vaccine-doctors-say-cause-unknown/news-story/9832c32659dce2118dccfb7d68f8ebbd
However, in November 2021, Pfizer was literally forced to divulge its trials data, by a Court order under Freedom of Information laws.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ Here is one of the first Pfizer documents, forced out of them by Freedom of Information:
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
At page 16 of the above Pfizer document - that was meant to be secret and never see the light of day - it admits:
myocardial infarction;
Arrhythmia; Cardiac failure;
Cardiac failure acute;
Cardiogenic shock;
Myocardial infarction;
Number of cases: 1403 (3.3% of the total PM dataset), of which 241 are medically confirmed and 1162 are non-medically confirmed.
On page 23, the Pfizer document admits that stroke is a know side effect, and it states: “Number of cases: 275 (0.6% of the total PM dataset), of which 180 medically confirmed and 95 non-medically confirmed;”
So, just this week, when the Australian Media tells you there is no risk of myocarditis, but Oxford University says there is - and Pfizer’s own document, forced out of them by Freedom of Information, admits that there is …
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vaccinating-children-will-help-to-protect-everyone-in-the-community-20211210-p59glv.html
What are you going to do?
If you look back over the past 100 years when several European countries were taken over by fascist totalitarian governments, there were a large number of ordinary citizens who sided with the totalitarian rulers. These seemingly ordinary citizens were the ones who tormented their fellow citizens who were in the minority. And they did it, because they never questioned the narrative that the totalitarian rulers were feeding them.
Hence, when we see many instances of heart problems in top footballers and athletes, do you at least admit there is a possibility of this being linked to the vaccines? Or do you give it zero possibility?
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
And, ladies and gentlemen, he's made a fool of himself once again. Absolutely incredible: https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-comirnaty-addition-safety-information-about-myocarditis-and-pericarditis-product-informationJuly 2021: "The Product Information (PI) used by healthcare professionals for COMIRNATY has been amended to include safety related information on myocarditis and pericarditis. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle while pericarditis is inflammation of the lining around the heart. There are many potential causes of myocarditis and pericarditis, including as a complication in people who are infected with COVID-19 or some other viruses. Very rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been observed following vaccination with COMIRNATY. These cases have primarily occurred within 14 days following vaccination, more often after the second vaccination, and more often in younger men. The changes to the Australian PI follow similar updates by the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration."
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
It took me 5 seconds to show the the TGA has recognised rare cardiac inflammation following MRNA vaccination since July this year. John Smith, you need to stop embarrassing yourself with these basic gaffs if you want anyone to listen to you.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Keep up the good work Syd. And he's still banging on about football players dying.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIt took me 5 seconds to show the the TGA has recognised rare cardiac inflammation following MRNA vaccination since July this year. John Smith, you need to stop embarrassing yourself with these basic gaffs if you want anyone to listen to you. I am in debt to you for the clarification that TGA now acknowledges myocarditis. https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&id=CP-2021-CMI-02443-1&d=20211216172310101But the above TGA updated Information Sheet (ARTG ID 377111), that I downloaded minutes ago, still does not acknowledge "stroke" -- even through it is stated in the Pfizer document revealed under Freedom of Information. https://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?query=comirnaty&collection=tga-artg&profile=recordhttps://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfYou have genuinely been able to catch me on some of my slip ups - such as the AU and UK equestrians (which I slipped up in saying they were all Australians), but - if you and I are on a shared quest for truth - then you should not dismiss the entire message, just for some minor slip-ups. Myocarditis isn't just something that appears in 14 days, and if not, is never there. With elite athletes, their level of exertion can cause flare-ups of damage that is inflicted by these vaccines.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIt took me 5 seconds to show the the TGA has recognised rare cardiac inflammation following MRNA vaccination since July this year. John Smith, you need to stop embarrassing yourself with these basic gaffs if you want anyone to listen to you. You have genuinely been able to catch me on some of my slip ups - such as the AU and UK equestrians (which I slipped up in saying they were all Australians), but - if you and I are on a shared quest for truth - then you should not dismiss the entire message, just for some minor slip-ups. I don't dismiss the message. I look forward to more peer reviewed data on the subject, especially before I get my booster dose in a few months. I just become incredibly suspicious and wary to trust those who push the anti-vax narrative when you and other anti-vaxxers show, time and time again, an inability to interpret data and propensity to sensationalise events/ flat out lie. Ever hear the phrase once bitten twice shy? You're up to around eight now, and many aren't "minor slip ups" but flat out lies and gross misinterpretations.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
anti-vaxxers and misinformation go hand in hand
not only are they a physical danger to us all, but their words also inhibit the success of the vaccine rollout
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSecondly what evidence do you have that they're sweeping things under the carpet? The basis of almost all Johnsmith's rubbish in this post is that they're not hiding anything and reporting every death and every major side effect even when they haven't determined it was caused by the vaccine or not. McJules, you asked for evidence that they're sweeping things under the carpet. They’re sweeping cases of vaccine-damage under the carpet by mis-classifying the deaths and damage from vaccines as if those were suffered by unvaccinated people. This was pointed out by Professor Martin Neill of Queen Mary University of London. https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814360702136332The way the U.K. and U.S. authorities do it is by re-defining “vaccinated” as a person had their vaccine for more than 14 days after the jab. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlThe Australian TGA defines “vaccinated” as a person has their jab at least 7 days ago. This means, an American or British person who had their jab for 1-13 days is officially defined as unvaccinated, and an Australia who had a jab for 1-6 days is officially defined as unvaccinated. This is extremely pertinent because, according to Pfizer’s data in the following document - revealed in November 2021 under Freedom of Information, the median latency time of ALL the major side effects is less than 5 days from the jab. You can see this by search for the latency times in this Pfizer document. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfThis means that all the cases of vaccine-damage reported by whistleblower doctors and nurses, the authorities can technically report to the public that these were unvaccinated people, according to their definitions. I realise why they set 7 days and 14 days, because it takes some time for the vaccine to generate antibodies. But at the same time, these definitions are allowing the authorities to sweep the vaccine damage cases into the unvaxed category. If you don’t believe Professor Martin Neill from Queen Mary University of London, see with your own eyes this chart where the vaccinated are defined as “more than 14 days”. So where do they put the figures for vaccinated less than 14 days? They stick it in the unvaccinated category. See the right-most column in the chart below. Notice it defined vaxed as greater than 14 days. What about less than 14 days? 
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSecondly what evidence do you have that they're sweeping things under the carpet? The basis of almost all Johnsmith's rubbish in this post is that they're not hiding anything and reporting every death and every major side effect even when they haven't determined it was caused by the vaccine or not. McJules, you asked for evidence that they're sweeping things under the carpet. They’re sweeping cases of vaccine-damage under the carpet by mis-classifying the deaths and damage from vaccines as if those were suffered by unvaccinated people. This was pointed out by Professor Martin Neill of Queen Mary University of London. https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814360702136332The way the U.K. and U.S. authorities do it is by re-defining “vaccinated” as a person had their vaccine for more than 14 days after the jab. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlThe Australian TGA defines “vaccinated” as a person has their jab at least 7 days ago. This means, an American or British person who had their jab for 1-13 days is officially defined as unvaccinated, and an Australia who had a jab for 1-6 days is officially defined as unvaccinated. This is extremely pertinent because, according to Pfizer’s data in the following document - revealed in November 2021 under Freedom of Information, the median latency time of ALL the major side effects is less than 5 days from the jab. You can see this by search for the latency times in this Pfizer document. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfThis means that all the cases of vaccine-damage reported by whistleblower doctors and nurses, the authorities can technically report to the public that these were unvaccinated people, according to their definitions. I realise why they set 7 days and 14 days, because it takes some time for the vaccine to generate antibodies. But at the same time, these definitions are allowing the authorities to sweep the vaccine damage cases into the unvaxed category. If you don’t believe Professor Martin Neill from Queen Mary University of London, see with your own eyes this chart where the vaccinated are defined as “more than 14 days”. So where do they put the figures for vaccinated less than 14 days? They stick it in the unvaccinated category. See the right-most column in the chart below. Notice it defined vaxed as greater than 14 days. What about less than 14 days? Professor Martin Neill is a professor in computer science I'll remember to ask the IT guy next time I need a prescription #debunked
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSecondly what evidence do you have that they're sweeping things under the carpet? The basis of almost all Johnsmith's rubbish in this post is that they're not hiding anything and reporting every death and every major side effect even when they haven't determined it was caused by the vaccine or not. McJules, you asked for evidence that they're sweeping things under the carpet. They’re sweeping cases of vaccine-damage under the carpet by mis-classifying the deaths and damage from vaccines as if those were suffered by unvaccinated people. This was pointed out by Professor Martin Neill of Queen Mary University of London. https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814360702136332The way the U.K. and U.S. authorities do it is by re-defining “vaccinated” as a person had their vaccine for more than 14 days after the jab. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlThe Australian TGA defines “vaccinated” as a person has their jab at least 7 days ago. This means, an American or British person who had their jab for 1-13 days is officially defined as unvaccinated, and an Australia who had a jab for 1-6 days is officially defined as unvaccinated. This is extremely pertinent because, according to Pfizer’s data in the following document - revealed in November 2021 under Freedom of Information, the median latency time of ALL the major side effects is less than 5 days from the jab. You can see this by search for the latency times in this Pfizer document. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfThis means that all the cases of vaccine-damage reported by whistleblower doctors and nurses, the authorities can technically report to the public that these were unvaccinated people, according to their definitions. I realise why they set 7 days and 14 days, because it takes some time for the vaccine to generate antibodies. But at the same time, these definitions are allowing the authorities to sweep the vaccine damage cases into the unvaxed category. If you don’t believe Professor Martin Neill from Queen Mary University of London, see with your own eyes this chart where the vaccinated are defined as “more than 14 days”. So where do they put the figures for vaccinated less than 14 days? They stick it in the unvaccinated category. See the right-most column in the chart below. Notice it defined vaxed as greater than 14 days. What about less than 14 days? Professor Martin Neill is a professor in computer science I'll remember to ask the IT guy next time I need a prescription #debunked I hope every fair-minded person can see how closed-minded you are. This is a matter of statistical analysis. Below is the citation for the research paper, published on Research Gate, where the flaw in the statistical analysis was revealed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination Here is the CDC web article that defines "vaccinated" as more than 14 days:  which comes from this link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlEven if you disagree with these university professors on an issue of statistical analysis, it just sounds like a senseless person to crow and whoop that it is "debunked". What you're doing is very common in the way human beings argue. They think that if they can find one criticism, then they've debunked. You see this type of one-dimensional arguments between spouses and partners. One partner says something, and the other partner thinks that, just because they can think of something to answer back, then automatically they've won. Generally, human beings tend to argue like that. i.e. just because you found out that Professor Martin Neill is a professor in electrical engineering, you sneer and say it is debunked. That's very shallow thinking. Furthermore, the research paper had 8 academic authors, from several disciplines, including the pharmaceutical field - which is relevant to an issue of how statistical data is used to frame public policy.
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSecondly what evidence do you have that they're sweeping things under the carpet? The basis of almost all Johnsmith's rubbish in this post is that they're not hiding anything and reporting every death and every major side effect even when they haven't determined it was caused by the vaccine or not. McJules, you asked for evidence that they're sweeping things under the carpet. They’re sweeping cases of vaccine-damage under the carpet by mis-classifying the deaths and damage from vaccines as if those were suffered by unvaccinated people. This was pointed out by Professor Martin Neill of Queen Mary University of London. https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814360702136332The way the U.K. and U.S. authorities do it is by re-defining “vaccinated” as a person had their vaccine for more than 14 days after the jab. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlThe Australian TGA defines “vaccinated” as a person has their jab at least 7 days ago. This means, an American or British person who had their jab for 1-13 days is officially defined as unvaccinated, and an Australia who had a jab for 1-6 days is officially defined as unvaccinated. This is extremely pertinent because, according to Pfizer’s data in the following document - revealed in November 2021 under Freedom of Information, the median latency time of ALL the major side effects is less than 5 days from the jab. You can see this by search for the latency times in this Pfizer document. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfThis means that all the cases of vaccine-damage reported by whistleblower doctors and nurses, the authorities can technically report to the public that these were unvaccinated people, according to their definitions. I realise why they set 7 days and 14 days, because it takes some time for the vaccine to generate antibodies. But at the same time, these definitions are allowing the authorities to sweep the vaccine damage cases into the unvaxed category. If you don’t believe Professor Martin Neill from Queen Mary University of London, see with your own eyes this chart where the vaccinated are defined as “more than 14 days”. So where do they put the figures for vaccinated less than 14 days? They stick it in the unvaccinated category. See the right-most column in the chart below. Notice it defined vaxed as greater than 14 days. What about less than 14 days? Professor Martin Neill is a professor in computer science I'll remember to ask the IT guy next time I need a prescription #debunked I hope every fair-minded person can see how closed-minded you are. This is a matter of statistical analysis. Below is the citation for the research paper, published on Research Gate, where the flaw in the statistical analysis was revealed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccinationHere is the CDC web article that defines "vaccinated" as more than 14 days: which comes from this link: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlEven if you disagree with these university professors on an issue of statistical analysis, it just sounds like a senseless person to crow and whoop that it is "debunked". What you're doing is very common in the way human beings argue. They think that if they can find one criticism, then they've debunked. You see this type of one-dimensional arguments between spouses and partners. One partner says something, and the other partner thinks that, just because they can think of something to answer back, then automatically they've won. Generally, human beings tend to argue like that. i.e. just because you found out that Professor Martin Neill is a professor in electrical engineering, you sneer and say it is debunked. That's very shallow thinking. Furthermore, the research paper had 8 academic authors, from several disciplines, including the pharmaceutical field - which is relevant to an issue of how statistical data is used to frame public policy. you can always find quacks on the internet who will agree with you however the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and experts in the field is against you
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSecondly what evidence do you have that they're sweeping things under the carpet? The basis of almost all Johnsmith's rubbish in this post is that they're not hiding anything and reporting every death and every major side effect even when they haven't determined it was caused by the vaccine or not. McJules, you asked for evidence that they're sweeping things under the carpet. They’re sweeping cases of vaccine-damage under the carpet by mis-classifying the deaths and damage from vaccines as if those were suffered by unvaccinated people. This was pointed out by Professor Martin Neill of Queen Mary University of London. https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814360702136332The way the U.K. and U.S. authorities do it is by re-defining “vaccinated” as a person had their vaccine for more than 14 days after the jab. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlThe Australian TGA defines “vaccinated” as a person has their jab at least 7 days ago. This means, an American or British person who had their jab for 1-13 days is officially defined as unvaccinated, and an Australia who had a jab for 1-6 days is officially defined as unvaccinated. This is extremely pertinent because, according to Pfizer’s data in the following document - revealed in November 2021 under Freedom of Information, the median latency time of ALL the major side effects is less than 5 days from the jab. You can see this by search for the latency times in this Pfizer document. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfThis means that all the cases of vaccine-damage reported by whistleblower doctors and nurses, the authorities can technically report to the public that these were unvaccinated people, according to their definitions. I realise why they set 7 days and 14 days, because it takes some time for the vaccine to generate antibodies. But at the same time, these definitions are allowing the authorities to sweep the vaccine damage cases into the unvaxed category. If you don’t believe Professor Martin Neill from Queen Mary University of London, see with your own eyes this chart where the vaccinated are defined as “more than 14 days”. So where do they put the figures for vaccinated less than 14 days? They stick it in the unvaccinated category. See the right-most column in the chart below. Notice it defined vaxed as greater than 14 days. What about less than 14 days? Professor Martin Neill is a professor in computer science I'll remember to ask the IT guy next time I need a prescription #debunked What you're doing is very common in the way human beings argue. They think that if they can find one criticism, then they've debunked. You see this type of one-dimensional arguments between spouses and partners. One partner says something, and the other partner thinks that, just because they can think of something to answer back, then automatically they've won. Generally, human beings tend to argue like that. You really are a knob. I win
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSecondly what evidence do you have that they're sweeping things under the carpet? The basis of almost all Johnsmith's rubbish in this post is that they're not hiding anything and reporting every death and every major side effect even when they haven't determined it was caused by the vaccine or not. McJules, you asked for evidence that they're sweeping things under the carpet. They’re sweeping cases of vaccine-damage under the carpet by mis-classifying the deaths and damage from vaccines as if those were suffered by unvaccinated people. This was pointed out by Professor Martin Neill of Queen Mary University of London. https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1466814360702136332The way the U.K. and U.S. authorities do it is by re-defining “vaccinated” as a person had their vaccine for more than 14 days after the jab. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.htmlThe Australian TGA defines “vaccinated” as a person has their jab at least 7 days ago. This means, an American or British person who had their jab for 1-13 days is officially defined as unvaccinated, and an Australia who had a jab for 1-6 days is officially defined as unvaccinated. This is extremely pertinent because, according to Pfizer’s data in the following document - revealed in November 2021 under Freedom of Information, the median latency time of ALL the major side effects is less than 5 days from the jab. You can see this by search for the latency times in this Pfizer document. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfThis means that all the cases of vaccine-damage reported by whistleblower doctors and nurses, the authorities can technically report to the public that these were unvaccinated people, according to their definitions. I realise why they set 7 days and 14 days, because it takes some time for the vaccine to generate antibodies. But at the same time, these definitions are allowing the authorities to sweep the vaccine damage cases into the unvaxed category. If you don’t believe Professor Martin Neill from Queen Mary University of London, see with your own eyes this chart where the vaccinated are defined as “more than 14 days”. So where do they put the figures for vaccinated less than 14 days? They stick it in the unvaccinated category. See the right-most column in the chart below. Notice it defined vaxed as greater than 14 days. What about less than 14 days? Professor Martin Neill is a professor in computer science I'll remember to ask the IT guy next time I need a prescription #debunked They think that if they can find one criticism, ehem Jonny boy boy that's not exactly accurate now is it? I believe we're up to eight, including your complete ignorance to the fact that your own government recognises myocarditis/pericardidts as possible side effects of the vaccines. Let's use a football analogy here: You have a first choice goal keeper. They make fuck up once but otherwise, they are rock solid. You can trust them to make the important saves in the big games or They fuck up 8 times in around 2 months. Would you trust that keeper anymore or would you start looking elsewhere?
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
and there you have it
end thread
COVID-19
·
1 hour ago
There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are related to reported incidents of athletes collapsing, regulators and fact-checkers say
Reuters and Snopes independently verified various video clips in which athletes fainted, the fact-checking organizations report. They both found that some of the videos involved people who had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. In many of the cases, the athlete in question collapsed due to causes such as dehydration and overheating, Reuters and Snopes say. Some of the videos also featured athletes who had not received the COVID-19 vaccines, both report.
"Reuters presented the posts to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the British regulator for drugs and vaccines, which said there is currently no supporting evidence to back up such claims." – Reuters
"Reuters has investigated each clip shown in the two videos relevant to this fact check. There were 64 cases in total and at least 19 were related to reasons separate to COVID-19 vaccines. Within that 19, some individuals had not received a jab, while others were down to other medical conditions such as low blood pressure, heat exhaustion, historical heart issues or COVID-19 infection-induced myocarditis." – Reuters
"Others occurred too early in the global vaccine rollout, while one was a death from six years earlier." – Reuters
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xand there you have it
end thread
COVID-19
·
1 hour ago
There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are related to reported incidents of athletes collapsing, regulators and fact-checkers say
Reuters and Snopes independently verified various video clips in which athletes fainted, the fact-checking organizations report. They both found that some of the videos involved people who had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. In many of the cases, the athlete in question collapsed due to causes such as dehydration and overheating, Reuters and Snopes say. Some of the videos also featured athletes who had not received the COVID-19 vaccines, both report.
"Reuters presented the posts to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the British regulator for drugs and vaccines, which said there is currently no supporting evidence to back up such claims." – Reuters
"Reuters has investigated each clip shown in the two videos relevant to this fact check. There were 64 cases in total and at least 19 were related to reasons separate to COVID-19 vaccines. Within that 19, some individuals had not received a jab, while others were down to other medical conditions such as low blood pressure, heat exhaustion, historical heart issues or COVID-19 infection-induced myocarditis." – Reuters
"Others occurred too early in the global vaccine rollout, while one was a death from six years earlier." – Reuters
Sadly, you give a person time enough to speak, and he cannot help reveal his inner soul. The Masses contain people, like you, that actual believe that "fact checkers" actually check facts. The sign of delusion is when Facebook itself admits that their "fact checkers" are merely stating opinions, these Media-followers will still insist on believing that the fact-checkers are merely checking facts. In spite of Facebook saying it is merely their opinion. TELL ME: if you have studied a scientific discipline at university level, you know that, on any given issue, there are differences of opinion from qualified scientists and doctors. How then, can a fact-checker come along and say their side is the only factual truth? Don't you realise it is the Media dominating with their viewpoints, and shutting down the opinion of the other side? It's all opinion. And when Facebook is forced, for once, to admit that in Court, they agree it's nothing more than opinion. But the compliant masses trust it as "fact check" because Facebook tells you it is a fact check. That, comrade, is how easy it is to push the flock through the gate, to use a ScoMo expression. https://www.bitchute.com/video/nlxLtcuyhNhl/Here are Facebook's own admissions: From page two of Facebook’s court filing (emphasis ours): "Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice— which, as a public figure, he must. For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile." "Facebook’s supposed “fact check” operation is actually a vehicle for opinion, and is not, as claimed, based on fact." https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/12/14/fact-check-facebook-fact-checks-are-opinions-not-facts/"Facebook admits the truth: ‘Fact checks’ are really just (lefty) opinion" https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/"Facebook admits in court that its “fact checkers” are just truth censors" https://medicalcensorship.com/2021-12-19-facebook-admits-court-fact-checkers-truth-censors.html
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xand there you have it
end thread
COVID-19
·
1 hour ago
There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are related to reported incidents of athletes collapsing, regulators and fact-checkers say
Reuters and Snopes independently verified various video clips in which athletes fainted, the fact-checking organizations report. They both found that some of the videos involved people who had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. In many of the cases, the athlete in question collapsed due to causes such as dehydration and overheating, Reuters and Snopes say. Some of the videos also featured athletes who had not received the COVID-19 vaccines, both report.
"Reuters presented the posts to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the British regulator for drugs and vaccines, which said there is currently no supporting evidence to back up such claims." – Reuters
"Reuters has investigated each clip shown in the two videos relevant to this fact check. There were 64 cases in total and at least 19 were related to reasons separate to COVID-19 vaccines. Within that 19, some individuals had not received a jab, while others were down to other medical conditions such as low blood pressure, heat exhaustion, historical heart issues or COVID-19 infection-induced myocarditis." – Reuters
"Others occurred too early in the global vaccine rollout, while one was a death from six years earlier." – Reuters
Sadly, you give a person time enough to speak, and he cannot help reveal his inner soul. The Masses contain people, like you, that actual believe that "fact checkers" actually check facts. The sign of delusion is when Facebook itself admits that their "fact checkers" are merely stating opinions, these Media-followers will still insist on believing that the fact-checkers are merely checking facts. In spite of Facebook saying it is merely their opinion. TELL ME: if you have studied a scientific discipline at university level, you know that, on any given issue, there are differences of opinion from qualified scientists and doctors. How then, can a fact-checker come along and say their side is the only factual truth? Don't you realise it is the Media dominating with their viewpoints, and shutting down the opinion of the other side? It's all opinion. And when Facebook is forced, for once, to admit that in Court, they agree it's nothing more than opinion. But the compliant masses trust it as "fact check" because Facebook tells you it is a fact check. That, comrade, is how easy it is to push the flock through the gate, to use a ScoMo expression. https://www.bitchute.com/video/nlxLtcuyhNhl/Here are Facebook's own admissions: From page two of Facebook’s court filing (emphasis ours): "Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice— which, as a public figure, he must. For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile." "Facebook’s supposed “fact check” operation is actually a vehicle for opinion, and is not, as claimed, based on fact." https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/12/14/fact-check-facebook-fact-checks-are-opinions-not-facts/"Facebook admits the truth: ‘Fact checks’ are really just (lefty) opinion" https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/"Facebook admits in court that its “fact checkers” are just truth censors" https://medicalcensorship.com/2021-12-19-facebook-admits-court-fact-checkers-truth-censors.html but the fact checkers in this case were Reuters and Snopes NOT facebook
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xand there you have it
end thread
COVID-19
·
1 hour ago
There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are related to reported incidents of athletes collapsing, regulators and fact-checkers say
Reuters and Snopes independently verified various video clips in which athletes fainted, the fact-checking organizations report. They both found that some of the videos involved people who had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. In many of the cases, the athlete in question collapsed due to causes such as dehydration and overheating, Reuters and Snopes say. Some of the videos also featured athletes who had not received the COVID-19 vaccines, both report.
"Reuters presented the posts to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the British regulator for drugs and vaccines, which said there is currently no supporting evidence to back up such claims." – Reuters
"Reuters has investigated each clip shown in the two videos relevant to this fact check. There were 64 cases in total and at least 19 were related to reasons separate to COVID-19 vaccines. Within that 19, some individuals had not received a jab, while others were down to other medical conditions such as low blood pressure, heat exhaustion, historical heart issues or COVID-19 infection-induced myocarditis." – Reuters
"Others occurred too early in the global vaccine rollout, while one was a death from six years earlier." – Reuters
Sadly, you give a person time enough to speak, and he cannot help reveal his inner soul. The Masses contain people, like you, that actual believe that "fact checkers" actually check facts. The sign of delusion is when Facebook itself admits that their "fact checkers" are merely stating opinions, these Media-followers will still insist on believing that the fact-checkers are merely checking facts. In spite of Facebook saying it is merely their opinion. TELL ME: if you have studied a scientific discipline at university level, you know that, on any given issue, there are differences of opinion from qualified scientists and doctors. How then, can a fact-checker come along and say their side is the only factual truth? Don't you realise it is the Media dominating with their viewpoints, and shutting down the opinion of the other side? It's all opinion. And when Facebook is forced, for once, to admit that in Court, they agree it's nothing more than opinion. But the compliant masses trust it as "fact check" because Facebook tells you it is a fact check. That, comrade, is how easy it is to push the flock through the gate, to use a ScoMo expression. https://www.bitchute.com/video/nlxLtcuyhNhl/Here are Facebook's own admissions: From page two of Facebook’s court filing (emphasis ours): "Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice— which, as a public figure, he must. For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile." "Facebook’s supposed “fact check” operation is actually a vehicle for opinion, and is not, as claimed, based on fact." https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2021/12/14/fact-check-facebook-fact-checks-are-opinions-not-facts/"Facebook admits the truth: ‘Fact checks’ are really just (lefty) opinion" https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/"Facebook admits in court that its “fact checkers” are just truth censors" https://medicalcensorship.com/2021-12-19-facebook-admits-court-fact-checkers-truth-censors.html but the fact checkers in this case were Reuters and Snopes NOT facebook This guy cannot see the broad principle. Someone, help him.
|
|
|
|