Posted on 07/28/2021 4:12:44 PM PDT by norsky
Rumble — EXCLUSIVE! Karen Kingston, a former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, came forward with indisputable documentation that should be shared with the ENTIRE WORLD!
The inoculation being referred to as 'COVID Vaccines' is a poisonous death sentence, and nobody should subject themselves to the shots.
Karen also confirms that graphene oxide, hydrogel is in the shot, used for possible tracking patient.
DEADLY SHOTS! Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Poison in COVID 'Vaccine'
GasDr
I do so hope you reply to post #95
and at least maybe, just maybe,
you can help to justify the loss of
friends and family, who as you, have
put faith in a untested, rushed to
market, experimental concoction being
injected. Try and tell HDJ he doesn’t
know what he’s talking about. I
look forward to your reply.
I don’t care what’s in the vaccines.
They’re killing and maiming human
beings.
Read the WHOLE comment.
I was responding to this comment by another FReeper:
“I love the argument — make an outlandish argument and then demand that it is verified...”
to which I replied:
“A technique used by a growing number of FReepers. Pretty intellectually lazy. Luckily, many of us keep a list of the posters that do this so we can either ignore, or call out their laziness.
I believe that making claims, then expecting others to do the research to validate those claims comes close to acting in bad faith.”
-see https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3980064/posts?page=110#110
So you don’t get on my lazy list because of a viewpoint disagreement.
You do get on my lazy list if you make a claim and then expect others to do the research to prove your claim. Especially zany claims.
Re: 179 - If a someone makes a claim then expects others to do the research to prove their claim, then yes, you will make my list for being lazy. Intellectually lazy.
Folk! The List Keeper/Monitor
LOL!!!
Let's do it this way: The article you cite on archive.vn which you allege proves that Covid vaxes are all useless is attributed to "The Lancet".
Good! Now I have something concrete - the name of a journal one can usually trust. Of many 1000's of articles published from all kinds of sources and locations worldwide, they've been forced to retract only the tiniest number of them. And yes, their biggest booboo was to publish a letter (note the difference between a letter and research) from a couple of dozen scientists in the very first days of Covid (Feb 2020) that poohpoohed the possibility that Covid came from a lab and not wildlife. So yes, sometimes they publish what they later learn is crap, but overall, given the volume of what they publish, they've got a pretty good record.
And the important thing here is that you are citing The Lancet as your authority on the efficacy of the vaccines.
Are you SURE you want to do that? Yes? Certain?
Ok, don't say I didn't warn you. Because instead of looking at your dubious link that purports to show something from The Lancet, I'll just go directly to The Lancet website to see if they have any articles about how well the vaxes are doing in the UK.
And no, I did not cherry-pick. I took the first article I found. It happens to be a study of how the vaxes are working for Scots and comes from the U of Edinburgh. This article is from late April --- Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study
Highlights below are my own. Notice they studied the results of the very earliest vaccine rollout - of 12/8/20 - 2/2/21 - when only the most vulnerable - namely the elderly (average age reported in this wave of vaccines was 65 yrs old) were being vaxxed in the UK and the US. A 91% reduced rate of covid-related hospital admissions for the entire elderly population, with an 83% reduced rate for the subset demographic of those over 80 years is a pretty damned good efficacy rate for a study of 1.3 million Scots.
The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19.
Methods
...... hospital admission patient records for 5.4 million people ......
Findings
Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65.0 years (SD 16.2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination).
........ [tons more details deleted]
So there we have it. Your article from an archive in Vietnam that purports to speak for the Lancet, versus my article from the Lancet itself. Your article says it works 0.8% of the time. Mine says that in the first roll-out available for study in Scotland, it's at 91%.
Sorry Charlie, but your evidence has underwhelmed me. I will take my article chosen randomly from the horse's mouth any day of the week, over your (no doubt copy/pasted from some conspiracy website) article from origins unknown that purports to speak for that same horse.
Totally busted. 🤣
Re: 186 - Really good research. Thanks for putting in the effort for the issue at hand.
My guess is his answer will be lame, with some excuse for why he can't simply give us a simple link to the actual original "peer-reviewed article in The Lancet" ... and why it instead has to be a "copy" or a "summary" or a "list of major take-aways" from that Lancet article and has to be hosted on a non-Lancet server.
If you google the URL he publishes, you'll find it only occurs in various FR postings from this same guy. Ie he's the only one quoting it, and nobody else (on the first 30 links anyway). So I suspect it's either that he gets ad revenue if you click on it, or else it's a carefully constructed Potemkin Village that hides far more truth than it reveals. I'm not going to click on his link. If there really truly is a Lancet article as he claims, then he can give us a link that looks like this: .... .thelancet.com/..... If he does, then the article exists and we can read it for ourselves. If he doesn't, then he can't find it because it doesn't really exist.
It’s more than h/she keeping a list. He mentioned “we”, so there or others (or he’s acting alone in his list keeping and is simply a KooK). In my experience h/she PM’d me and interjected himself into a thread spat. If he PMs you my advice is to chase him away and warn him to keep everything on the open forum. He’s not to be trusted.
“The Pegylated lipids contain graphene oxide.
—
Pegylated lipids chemical representation CH3O(CH2CH2OO)N
Graphene Oxide chemical representation GO or (RGO)
There does not appear to be any GO in the Pegylated lipids
I have no way of knowing one way or another. Who would I need to "believe"? The CDC? WHO? The Xiden adminstration? The media?
The same folks who said it's safe to riot last summer, but you have to wear masks now, but the "vaccine" works and is safe?
I don't "believe" anybody at this point. Therefore I observe.
Yes, but how did the Lancet study arrive at the conclusion that it works? Did they use the same test as everyone else gets?
But if was that test, the inventor says you cannot tell one thing from another, as it was not designed to indicate that conclusion.
Hi. I PM’d you back in April to which you replied back politely and we both agreed about the topic at hand. I appreciated your informed responses.
You’re free to disclose my emails to anyone you like.
As noted prior, I (and others - believe that or not) have taken to keeping a list of posters who make claims but who refuse to provide references or citations for such claims. The growth of “prove the claim that I made” posters is detrimental because it leads to zany claims being made about any number of subjects without providing evidence to support those claims. It’s intellectual laziness.
Why make a list? Because there are so many posters who engage in that behavior about topics such as vaccinated individuals becoming magnetized, or military tribunals being held in the White House, or mass arrests of journalists taking place, or military firefights with the CIA, or advocating the overthrow of the USG, etc. The list helps to remind who is lazy and to take care regarding any claims they make.
Thread “spats” are fine, it’s part of the healthy discussion about topics. But more and more these threads chase away discussion by making personal comments about posters with which there are disagreements. Especially the COVID-19 threads. So any nuggets are useful information get overwhelmed by the vitriol.
Your unsolicited PM to me contains another poster's name, so no, I won't release it to the board. Also, in the future please keep all conversation with me on the open forum, no more PMs. About your (and others) list keeping and collaboration, please don't include me in any such group. I'll discuss whatever I post man-to-man, even if sometimes it means defending myself from innuendo and blatant misinformation.
Will do!
Other than the two PMs, we have had no other communication of that type. As you request, we will keep it that way.
graphene oxide.
Exactly. We have no way of knowing, but what we do know is that they have demonstrated a high degree of untrustworthiness.
Speaking out just put a target on her.
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.