Theory^^^

reality...


https://m.facebook.com/724185394/posts/10159529802735395/

I don't know where he gets his figure of 90% vaccine efficacy. Reuters reported that "The effectiveness of the Pfizer .. vaccine ... [wane] from 88% [to 47%] six months after the second dose".

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-drops-after-6-months-study-2021-10-04/

I'm guessing many people are nearing their booster date, which means that many people's vaccine efficacy is around 47%, at least according to this Reuters article.

In short, this guy's comments are nothing new. If you see the DailyMail website, you will see a range of contradictory reports, depending on whether the experts go with the worst-case or best-case.

Here are two contradictory articles from the U.K. about Omicron:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10321139/Is-UK-heading-New-Year-lockdown-Professor-Neil-Ferguson-7-000-Omicron-deaths-DAY.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10321047/11-TIMES-fewer-Covid-patients-Omicron-ravaged-South-Africa-admitted-hospital.html

Time will tell.

Sajid Javid eloquently explains how the unvaccinated are damaging society

must watch

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1538300/Sajid-Javid-rant-unvaxxed-Britain-coronavirus-damage-Covid-19-vn

Umm, you grasp the fact that in the Omicron debate, there's one side planning for a worst-case-scenario, and those who see that the real world data gives an optimistic outlook.

The people you cite are the worst-case-scenario people. For example, Sajid Javid is saying you need to get your boosters every 3 months.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/29/covid-booster-jabs-to-be-offered-to-all-uk-adults-after-three-month-gap

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2021/nov/29/sajid-javid-outlines-changes-to-covid-vaccine-booster-programme-video

So you realise, don't you, that when you cite websites and experts, you have to make an evaluation of whether the worst case or optimistic case is the more likely to occur.

I'm citing people with credibility whereas you cite discredited quacks whose theories have all been debunked

Where does it say in those links you'll need a booster "every three months"?

Do a Google search for - boosters 3 months UK

If you follow alternate media, you would have seen this news long ago.

Australian Medicare, you’ll be happy to know, now has a separate code for claiming MRI scans to check for myocarditis associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Announced 16 December 2021. But there's an important catch.

http://www.mbsonline.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.nsf/Content/509C2159875B8BF7CA2587AD00175660/$File/Factsheet-cardiac-MRI-myocarditis-COVID-19-vaccination.16.12.21.pdf

You guys feel reassured that myocarditis is RARE. How rare? So rare, so extremely rare, that Oxford University said that in the Pfizer trials “myocarditis and pericarditis were not observed as adverse events”.

i.e so rare it was not observed.

Liar, liar, pants on fire ... as you'll see below.

However, the Oxford researchers admitted: “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

Why are they now admitting this? Because, in November 2021, the court forced Pfizer to reveal its trials data under Freedom of Information laws.

In response, Pfizer initially wanted to take 55 years to hand over the trials data completely.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/

But some genius at Pfizer must’ve realised that in 55 years, some of the 12 year olds who are being jabbed might still be alive. So, to ensure that everyone who got jabbed with be dead by then, Pfizer asked the court for permission to take 75 years to hand over the trials data. That way, less people alive to sue Pfizer, since, to have legal "standing" to bring a court case, you have to prove you were harmed by Pfizer.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/fda-asks-judge-to-further-delay-releasing-pfizer-jab-data-until-at-least-2096/?

I’m sure none of the true-Media-sycophants see anything suspicious with that. On this thread, check out the subsequent posts. You'll see a few fellas who are not deterred from their stance. They'll just keep powering along like Brett Holman in his prime, just keep running, just keep running.

What could Pfizer want to hide?

Even in the first instalment of the trials data, the document admitted that myocarditis occurred in “3.3% of the total PM dataset, of which 241 are medically confirmed and 1162 are non-medically confirmed”

Recall that Oxford University told us that Pfizer had said initially that “myocarditis and pericarditis were not observed as adverse events”

You can read that for yourself at page 16 of the document below. And it says that the onset range was from <24 hours to 21 days. That’s probably why Australian Medicare only allows you to claim for a MRI scan if your myocarditis happened within 21 days. Because anything after 22 days, Medicare can legally claim that it wasn’t due to the vaccine, since Pfizer trials data - forced out of them under Freedom of Information, said 21 days.

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

In other words, Pfizer lied.

Hence, if you're going to do a Medicare claim for an MRI for myocarditis associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, make sure it is for an event that happened 21 days or less -- otherwise, Medicare will probably say it was not due to the vax.

Remember, this is only the first few documents to come out of the court order Pfizer revealed under Freedom of Information. If you want to wait 75 years to get hold of everything, you gotta make sure you eat your Weeties.

There’ll come a point where some of you will start to wonder, but there’ll always be a holdout few who are so far gone, they’ll believe everything the Media tells them, even trusting the life of their children. That’s how much they trust the Media.



Video link here:

https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/live-stream-event-physicians-alerting-parents

Dr Robert Malone is one of the pioneer inventors of the MRNA vaccine that most of you guys took. A vaccine expert is not "anti-vax". For the sake of your children, even if you are so hardened and indoctrinated, at least click the ABOVE video link and listen to him. I'm writing this because I care for the children of Australia, and of the world.

A few months ago, Dr Robert Malone warned about "Antibody Dependent Enhancement" - the vaccinologists worst nightmade -- is happening. He said, in the past, when ADE happens, it causes more deaths among the vaccinated than unvaccinated.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/righfqyyjUKq/

BTW, this is how you can spot the true Media-groupies. They're the ones who label someone like Dr. Robert Malone - one of the pioneer inventors of the MRNA vaccine -- they call him an "anti-vaxer".

back to credible doctors...

Infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm is predicting a viral blizzard...

https://twitter.com/OutFrontCNN/status/1471635562738200590?s=20

My friend cesspit, in view of that, may I offer a friendly tip. This medical article claims that with a Vitamin D blood level of 125 nmol/L there’s virtually zero chance of dying from Covid.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541492/

Okay, admittedly the headline is sensationalised, and they use disclaimers. But it does agree with what Dr Ian Brighthope in Melbourne said, that a person with Vitamin D levels of around 120 nmol/L would, at most get mild symptoms from Covid.

https://rumble.com/voqyxv-how-to-end-the-pandemic-in-just-6-short-weeks.html

Last year, there was a study that showed no deaths for people who had above 85 nmol/L admittedly for an earlier variant.

https://entirewellbeing.com/vitamin-d-and-covid-19/

Many doctors recommend 6,000 IU
Dr Zelenko recommends during a pandemic 5,000 IU
Many articles recommend as being the upper limit 4,000 IU
FLCCC recommends 1,000 to 3,000 IU
Standard recommendation by Mainstream 1,000 IU

Hence, there is no consensus about the ideal amount per day, and the only way to test it is to take a blood test. Also, it's not the best to cram with high doses of Vitamin D, and ideally it should be built up over many months. But in a dangerous pandemic, some people recommend taking 10,000 IU weekly for a very short period. Do your research. The Mainstream says 1,000 IU is enough, but the above shows many doctors recommend far more. Of course there are dangers of too much Vitamin D supplements in a short time, but you weigh that up with, as you said, a blizzard of Omicron.

You might think the above is nonsense, but as for me, I felt it's worth doing since the risk is low, and the benefits are high. You do your own research.

Best way to get Vitamin D is from the sun. The app DMinder helps you calculate the amount of D you're getting from the sun, and tells you the number of minutes after which burning starts.

Just stop mate. No one cares, no one will change their mind. You're just spamming the board with garbage. 

On ya bike.

Im asking you where it says we'll be getting a booster "every three months" ie: four shots a year. 

You've provided two links claiming the British government have said that.  All they seem to reference is moving the 3rd jab from 6 months to 3.   

Ok, the 4th, that was my hyperbole.

But the UK government is saying the 3rd is due 3 months after the 2nd.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/29/covid-booster-jabs-to-be-offered-to-all-uk-adults-after-three-month-gap

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/09/covid-omicron-variant-live-updates/

Even if the information about Vitamin D is just half of what is claimed in the medical paper, it's still beneficial. Why not do it, if it can't hurt. A bottle of Vitamin D tablets from the supermarket is cheap, around $14 on special at Coles and Woolies.

The medical paper below stated: “the lower threshold for healthy vitamin D levels should lie at approximately 125 nmol/L … which would save most lives, reducing the impact even for patients with various comorbidities.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541492/

One disadvantage about Vitamin D is it would bring zero profits for Big Pharma compared to a dose of Molnuprivir at US$700, which even the New York Times says has a risk of damaging your DNA. NYTimes said: "Some laboratory studies suggest that molnupiravir can insert errors in DNA, which could in theory harm a developing fetus, sperm cells or children."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/health/merck-covid-pill-pregnancy-risk.html

And yet the Australian TGA gives provisional approval for US$700 Molnupiravir, but bans far safer Ivermectin.

https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release/tga-grants-provisional-determination-merck-sharp-dohmes-antiviral-covid-19-treatment-molnupiravir

vitamin D has been thoroughly debunked as a COVID treatment
just Google it

There are medical experts on both sides of every debate.

The difference between you and me is:

- for something with minimal risk, but great promise (Vitamin D) I am easily convinced to take it.
- for something labelled by some doctors as the most deadly vaccine in history -- with broken promises of stopping transmission and hospitalisation -- I am wary.

Whereas, for the most deadly vaccine in history, according to some doctors -- you gladly take it because of your unceasing trust in the Media and Government doctors.

Nobody disputed that.  

You said "every three months" which is false. 

the overwhelming scientific consensus vs discredited quacks and assorted conspiracy theorists

which side does the sane person choose...

There are two types of followers:

1 - Those that mindlessly follow the consensus, no questions asked, even when things are going wrong.

2 - Those that usually follow the Consensus. But when they notice things going wrong, they re-evaluate. They test the data. They are open to a change of strategy. They are not intimidated by the mindless-followers. Most of all, are willing to challenge the Consensus.

These experts that I'm persuaded by, they didn't all start out against the MRNA vaccines. They were concerned at the rushed MRNA vaccine roll-out, compared to previous vaccines. But they started sounding the warning bells when they started to see the damage data.

The mindless, no-questions-asked follower can look at this data, and -- without a second thought - will fight you to insist this data means nothing. Why? Because the Mainstream tells you it is safe. Full steam ahead.



The mindless, no-questions-asked follower can see this graph. Rather than questioning, they will fight you. Any medical expert who questions this is labelled a quack and conspiracy-theorist. The Masses are mobilised as a mob to silence those that question the narrative. How are the Masses mobilised? By use of slogans such as "conspiracy", "quack". They mindlessly use the labels handed out to them by the Media, without thinking that the people they are so quick to insult are actually experts in the field.



Through history, the vast majority of people are like this. There is no shame in being in the majority of people who act like this. Usually, the Consensus often gets it right.

The way each person thinks is usually formed since young, and so it is probably too late for a person to shift their style of thinking. It's just that when a whistleblower warns that there are icebergs ahead, it is often that the powerful and those in authority insist on going full speed ahead. And the Masses down in the cargo hold just follow what the Consensus says. And if the Titanic hits an iceberg, well, that's how it has been for the last few thousand years of human history.

So when you make up a lie like the UK Government plans to give a booster shot "every three months", which category do you fall into?

Seems to me you are so mindlessly set in your beliefs you are willing to resort to any tactics to push your narrative.  No questions asked, even when things are going wrong.  

Yeah I'm done talking to this reprobate.

Uses 'mindless' a lot which is pretty much the perfect description for him.

Karama would be this flog ending up in ICU.

Two types of people:

1) Those who are so beholden to their narrative, they will pounce on errors of semantics, and when they find an error - rather than seeing the big picture -- they will mock you for the slightest slip-up. e.g. if I see there is an ice-berg ahead, you'll mock me because there are actually icebergs (plural) ahead -- and thereafter will refuse to listen to anything else you say. For them, they find any error, they feel triumphant. These type of people are not searching for truth. They're trying to catch you when you slip up.

2) Those who are searching for truth -- and, even if the opponent slips on some points, they still check to see if the other side contains some truth.

For example, just because you are whooping and crowing because you caught me on saying the boosters are due every 3 months, rather than just the 3rd -- you feel so emboldened by that, you walk away from the data in the graphs and tables that I cited.

You feel more satisfaction at finding flaws in my sentences -- and feel that, once you find some errors, you just ignore the big warning signs.

if you make a significant mistake about one part of your narrative, how can we trust anything else you say?

the Premier confirmed today that 26 of the 33 in ICU are unvaccinated

with a rate of 90% vaccinated that proves one thing

omicron is highly infectious and no laughing matter

They aren't 'errors of semantics' or 'flaws in your sentences' though. There is a clear pattern of you misrepresenting sources in order to create a sensationalised headliners in your post.   

So yeah. Mandatory masks on public transport going forward. This was the only thing that was going to stop an explosion of cases once opening up right?

Told you it was a pointless restriction

NSW today with masks required on public transport. NSW today without masks required on public transport. Case numbers would be identical

Got my booster today, Moderna, at one the local pharmacies. The guy has been swamped since the last week when they lowered the booster interval from 6 to 5 months. 

This I don't understand about you lot:

1) Covid Vaccines: new technology MRNA never before made it far in previous trials; Pfizer Phase 2 combined with Phase 3 instead of separate; historical high deaths and side effects on VAERS, VigiAccess and DAEN databases; efficacy wanes faster than initially expected; now 3rd booster required; now 3rd booster now needed 3 months; vaccines don't work to stop Omicron; massive profits for Big Pharma forever with lifetime of boosters AND YET, you keep following the narrative.

2) Ivermectin: numerous doctors prove it works in their real-world treating of many thousands of people; agglomeration of peer-reviewed trials show efficacy of 67% (which compares well with waning vaccine); VigiAccess and DAEN database show minimal historical side effects compared to historical highs for Covid vaccines; won a Noble Prize for use in humans; said to be one of the safest medicines in history, as seen from VigiAccess data; but zero profits for Big Pharma because out of patent; two Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Goa used Ivermectin, and those 2 states crushed Delta; Japan doctors praised Ivermectin and Japan crushes Delta; AND YET when the Media tells the masses that Ivermectin is horse medicine, and does not work, you keep following their narrative.

The peer-reviewed clinical trials of Ivermectin, see this website:

https://ivmmeta.com/

As I see it, human nature does not change over 6,000 years of recorded human history. Just as in the Roman Empire, the masses can be manipulated by bread and circuses. e.g. you are suckered in by the term "anti-vax", even when told that the doctors and scientists, who are warning of these specific MRNA vaccines, have, for the entire careers, been pro-vax. And yet, even when you are given correction on that point, you continue to slander the other side using the Media's instructions to you to call them "anti-vax".

Your collective comments about Vaccines versus Vitamin D and Ivermectin show that: (1) you are easily persuaded to overlook signs of danger, and (2) just as easily persuaded to ignore things that are relatively safe.

Remember, there are many doctors and scientists on both sides of the debate -- so just by you citing those who side with your narrative does not mean it is "debunked".

We should play a game.

Without pressing Ctrl-F yet, guess how many times the word "media" shows up on every page dicksnap here posts in.

I checked the last 2 pages for you