Posted on 05/14/2021 1:24:03 PM PDT by Paul46360
You arent dividing deaths by cases. If cases dropped in January it was because the virus was burning itself out in the vulnerable areas and people were staying home. There's no magic, it's the same ebb and flow that we have had since the beginning.
And as the vax administration grew the SARS decline curtailed.
And as people got back out last summer the COVID case decline curtailed. It's the same ebb and flow. The only thing that matters is how much people go out and spread.
Oh I’m waiting for you to actually post something other than your opinion. You refute by saying, “Nahhh...that’s not how it works. “ I’d like you to do more than opine off the top of your head and make it up as you go along.
Otherwise, I look up my links for people who matter - put some effort into etc.
America was attacked, the rest of the world was collateral damage. The attack allowed the anti-American party a huge opportunity to cheat and remove President Trump. President Trump created the vaccine program to limit the damage to the economy. He was not duped into approving a diabolical plan to sterlize or kill more people or anything else.
How do they differ? Current totals and tabular data is not normally considered to be a graph.
>> You aren’t dividing deaths by cases.
I didn’t intend to speak to rates of change nor the mortality relationships. I’m only pointing to the linear decline of both cases and fatalities that began early January 2021 — and then contrasted that decline with subsequent exponential vax administration. Ultimately, my point was to describe the time between the occurrences — that, it cannot be said the vax rollout caused the SARS downturn.
Yes, the virus ebbed, but people didn’t necessarily stay home — the Holidays were well underway at least a week prior.
Thus, we don’t yet have the macro statistics to show the vax has a meaningful value other than the anecdotal accounts.
Sanguine.
Sanguine.
There’s too much wrong with the entire plandemic for you to ‘prove’ the vaccines work.
First, and this is important, isolated samples are not available unless you have connections to the compromised CDC/NIH/Faucists. If you don’t have inside connections, or grant funds etc., you can’t get an isolated sample of the virus to study. If you were bought off by NIH, Wuhan, Bill gates etc. with funding etc., then you aren’t exactly an objective scientist.
Oh there are many who say that you can get isolated samples for research purposes, but they are not being truthful. I point out that if ‘everybody has isolated samples, why is no one actually using them?”
China admitted it did not use isolated samples of the virus to create the
covid genome it gave the world in Jan 2020. The ‘vaccine’ manufacturers did not use the live virus to make ‘vaccines’. The PCR test was created without the live virus. No actual live virus in play - what was used was software that can be useful in patching in missing pieces of Coronavirus genomic information in predictable viruses. But, since Covid-19 is a NOVEL coronavirus, China’s technique would not work to accurately produce the genome (can’t use generic information to piece together a novel CoronaVirus).
Now the CDC is using the PCR test which does not detect the virus nor does it detect those who actually have the disease. Also, the CDC had the PCR run at 45 cycles so test results had a false positive rate of 97%. Now that the vax is out, they lowered the cycles to produce lower false positives in order to pretend the vaccines are working. Why would they have to do that if the vaccines worked, though?
Oh there is research that says they work - Johns Hopkins and others receiving NIH funds -they claim to have an isolated sample to work with.
I believe that the CDC pattented the Covid-19 virus in order to control availability of samples, restrict the development of medications/vaccines it didn’t want developed, Hide the nature of the virus so accurate counter measures can’t be created, prevent an accurate test for the virus from being created.
The CDC patented SARS-1 back in 2003 and also patented all measures, means of testing etc. Back then they had to file a document to keep their patent private, but now there’s an automatic waiting period of minimum 18 months and I’m sure that our corrupt government will let them hide it longer - so no medications or alternatives to the vaccines, accurate tests that people try to develop will be able to use the true virus sample.
So think about it - the PCR doesn’t detect the virus and the ‘vaccine’ trials used the PCR and one symptom (which can overlap with many respiratory illnesses). Somehow this thing they created supposedly works on some collection of unknown viruses, because their trials are unable to identify the Covid virus in ANY of their subjects.
Oh and I think people would benefit from knowing that claims that the vaccine is 95% effective means that instead of lasting immunity, some dishonest vaccine manufacturers claim that the non vaccinated got sick at a rate of .93 of one percent and the vaccinated got sick at a rate of .045% during the 2 months they evaluated for illness.
All the illnesses that happened after the 2 month vaccine trial period, due to some unknown collection of viruses they can’t identify, don’t count so the efficacy is even lower than they brag about.
And, there are now drug protocols that are 85% effective and according to Dr. McCullough who specializes in treating vulnerable Covid-19 patients, developed (with a team) one of these successful protocols, yeah he says that immunity lasts an average of 17 years.
So compare 2 months of questionable ‘success’ reducing some kidn of disease or other with 17 years of immunity. Now add up the number of vaccines people have to get in a an attempt to make their partial immunity ‘last’. Yeah the risks of vaccines, and their limited efficacy, are no where near the benefits of getting the disease naturally and using medications to help the vulnerable to recover.
We don’t need fake vaccines or repeated, subscriptions to fake vaccines. We don’t have to outsource the immune system and if we did, the CDC, Pfizer, Moderna etc. cannot be trusted to handle the job. Period.
Logical fallacy, Naked Appeal to Authority
Also:
Logical fallacy: Non Sequitur.
You’re welcome.
Not sure why.
So think about it - the PCR doesn’t detect the virus and the ‘vaccine’ trials used the PCR and one symptom (which can overlap with many respiratory illnesses).
Lots of people died from those respiratory illnesses last illness plus pandemic policies that destroyed businesses and deferred medicall care. As a result 511,000 more deaths in 2020 than in 2019.
Yeah the risks of vaccines, and their limited efficacy, are no where near the benefits of getting the disease naturally and using medications to help the vulnerable to recover.
Many of the dead beg to differ so I will speak for them. They got COVID and missed out on the 99% survival. The vaccines have 99.99% safety (100 million divided by 5,000 deaths) even assuming the all the deaths in VAERS are from the vaccines instead of the small fraction that are not just coincidental. If you get a breakthrough after being vaccinated you have a 99% chance of survival, same as unvaccinated COVID. No better, no worse. But you also have 10 or more times less chance of getting COVID based on trials and even better odds based on real world numbers on breakthrough infections.
You are also implying that vaccinated people won't be given medications which is silly. In short, you have absolutely no data, just theories from youtube or somewhere. If they are somewhere written down in coherent text, then please provide a link
Dr. Peter McCullough testified before the Texas senate and other official panels that the CDC's policy was to deny medications like HCQ and Ivermectin to sick patients. The disease is highly treatable when caught early. But by withholding ALL treatments in the early days, many physicians were telling patients to go home (ill, without treatment) and come back when they needed hospitalization.
To this day, the CDC is not in the business of identifying for doctors the best treatments - the CDC let people sicken to the point of needing ventilators and die without ever allowing these FDA approved medications to be reasonably applied ("right to try") or give them the same EAU they would later given to these barely tested Covid-19 vaccine experiments.
Sadly, with a PCR test known to have greater than 90% false positives, those with other illnesses testing postive for Covid-19 were denied treatment.
Even now Dr. McCullough says that the CDC is committed to vaccines as THE answer to Covid-19 and this was after doctors spent a lot of time waiting for the CDC to advise on treatments.
Since NO TREATMENTS were forthcoming, Dr. McCullough and others turned their attention to creating safe, effective treatmentn protocols that cut the death rate in the highly vulnerable group by 85%. Dr. Zelenko's protocol cuts the death rate among the vulnerable equally well. There are treatment protocols but the CDC pretended in 2020, and pretends now, that no treatments are available and vaccines are the only answer.
I said " Yeah the risks of vaccines, and their limited efficacy, are no where near the benefits of getting the disease naturally and using medications to help the vulnerable to recover."
You replied: Many of the dead beg to differ so I will speak for them. They got COVID and missed out on the 99% survival.
They could have cut their chances of dying by 85% or better if all those clamoring for Ivermectin, HCQ/AZ had been allowed to take it when they needed it. At least those drugs have been FDA approved and well tolerated for decades, unlike telling paitents to wait (die) until a vaccine is available a year later.
Most deaths correctly or incorrectly attributed to Covid-19 didn't have to occur, and as I said, only 5% of 'Covid-19' deaths are from Covid-19 alone. Others dying have an average of 4 co-morbidities which points to the fact that many died from other causes. The CDC falsely inflated statistics to include "died with Covid-19 postive test" to become "died from Covid-19, even if presumed and not tested".
The vaccines have 99.99% safety (100 million divided by 5,000 deaths) even assuming the all the deaths in VAERS are from the vaccines instead of the small fraction that are not just coincidental.
This, of course, is a monstrous lie.
The FDA normally does not get involved in determinations of safety but as the public began asking about clots etc., the CDC had untrained, unnamed medical staff from the FDA meet with some at the CDC and reviewed death reports. They declared NONE were a result of the vaccine and they did so in too short of a time period to have actually reviewed the deaths. Rubber stsamped deaths and then people like you go around making false assertions as to vaccine safety. DISGUSTING.
But the public is organizing, doctors are speaking out, and they are being threatened for it.
If you get a breakthrough after being vaccinated you have a 99% chance of survival, same as unvaccinated COVID.
I don't see any links or statistics and if you ever bothered to post them, we'd find out we have to rely on Moderna or the CDC or Fauci or others lying to the public.
No better, no worse.
Actually, WORSE. ADE sensitizes the vaccinated who can become more severely ill than if they had never been vaccinated. And then the program expects peole to be vaccinated over and over again, compounding their risk of ADE. And you are ignoring other harms caused by the vaccines (heart attacks, strokes, paralysis) that no one is identifying. yes, I know VAERS includes some records of some events after vaccination not caused by vaccination.
But there's no real explanation for why Covid-19 negative effects dwarfs data for all other vaccines in VAERS, a 30 year old database. I'll put some table data from VAERS at the link below. There's no whitewashing what these vaccines are doing to people - even if the CDC rubber stamps all harm as unrelated.
But you also have 10 or more times less chance of getting COVID based on trials and even better odds based on real world numbers on breakthrough infections.
NOPE. Those trials lasted two months. Pfizer said unvaccinated had .93% chance of contracting Covid-19 and vaccinated had .045 chance FOR 2 MONTH TRIAL PERIOD. They aren ot counting Covid at 2 months and a day, 2 months and 2 days etc. The data is intentionally distorted.
You are also implying that vaccinated people won't be given medications which is silly.
Are you aware that there are lawsuits ongoing demanding that a patient be allowed to take ivermectin? Why should vaccinated people get medications not given to unvaccinated? Haven't you noticed that the CDC has no plan for medications/treatments and is still blocking the use of medications to keep the EUA active for the vaccines, which relies on there BEING no treatments available?
You are nothing but distortion, assertion. I see no links and no real effort. You're here to try discredit and distract but the public is seeing through your kind.
In short, you have absolutely no data, just theories from youtube or somewhere. If they are somewhere written down in coherent text, then please provide a link
You are not funny. The CDC has closed ranks with big tech to censor and threaten those who try to publish work and when they resort to video presentations your kind sneers that they aren't legitimate.
The level of concerted censorship and information management (i.e. patents) took years to plan.
You're the one with no links and baseless assertions. Let's see you exert yourself instead of just giving me homework that you yourself would never do.
No one heeds your lying anymore.
Shouldn’t have done so much.
Nope. It isn't even consistent from one thread to the next.
In addition, you can easily find numerous links to numerous governments, hospitals, universities, etc. world from a wide variety of news sources who have obtained and studied full samples of the virus - these are obtained every single time someone gets a test and is positive for it. They don't have to "go through" anyone in the CDC or Fauci to get them. I have posted this to him before and he continues to claim otherwise. We are far from the only country and institutions with these capabilities. The CDC has a lot of influence but it is certainly not all powerful controlling every country and institution in the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.