A married Michigan couple who were fully-vaccinated against COVID-19 both died of the virus just one minute apart. Cal Dunham, 59, and wife Linda, 66, ‘gained their angel wings’ Sunday despite taking precautions against the virus and being inoculated against it, relatives said.The couple, who had undisclosed underlying health conditions, fell ill earlier this month during a family camping trip, the couple's grieving daughter Sarah Dunham said.
« First « Previous Comments 1,045 - 1,084 of 1,100 Next » Last » Search these comments
92% of Covid Deaths in 2022 Were Triple+ Vaxxed
💉 The Epoch Times ran a story yesterday headlined, “Biden Admin Concedes No Evidence Behind Recommendation for 6 COVID Booster Shots a Year.”Last November, Biden’s diverse Secretary of Health, a lawyer with no health background, Xavier Becerra, wrote in a social media post that people should get vaccinated whenever “it’s been over 2 months since your last dose.” The next day, he wrote “An updated COVID vaccine can help protect you from the worst outcomes of COVID. If it’s been over 2 months since your last dose, make a plan to get one now.” Becerra then posted several more items along the same lines.So the Functional Government Initiative (FGI) filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents supporting the statements, including all “scientific support” for the statement and internal communications related to the post.Predictably, the Biden Administration stonewalled the request, so FGI sued.In its latest response, the government admitted it had no evidence to support Mr. Becerra's recommendation. That’s Science! Specifically, Alesia Williams, an HHS official, said, "The department reviewed 1,263 pages of potentially responsive records captured in the agency’s search for this FOIA request. After a careful review of these records, I determined the 1,263 pages were not relevant to your request.”
Vaccinated Outbreak at CDC Conference Bigger Than ReportedThe COVID-19 outbreak among vaccinated people that broke out at a conference held by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was bigger than disclosed, according to files obtained by The Epoch Times.After the outbreak took place in April, the CDC reported results from surveys sent to attendees.The CDC said that 181 respondents reported testing positive for COVID-19.But that number was actually 183, according to the newly obtained files.The public health agency also failed to disclose that hundreds of attendees didn’t get tested; some 601 attendees who responded to the survey said they didn’t get tested for COVID-19, the files show, including 34 who reported experiencing COVID-like symptoms, being ill, or both.The CDC didn’t respond to a request for comment.Vaccinated Person Went to Emergency RoomIn a statement on the outbreak, which affected only vaccinated people, the CDC emphasized that no attendee reported being hospitalized.“None of the 181 people who reported testing positive were hospitalized,” the agency said.The agency didn’t mention that one of the vaccinated people suffered such severe symptoms that they went to the emergency room, according to the newly obtained files.The agency had claimed that, despite the outbreak, the survey results emphasize “the importance of vaccination for protecting individuals against severe illness and death related to COVID-19.” ...The failure to report the emergency room visit and note that hundreds of attendees did not get tested fits the CDC’s pattern of misleading on so-called breakthrough cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, or metrics among the vaccinated.The CDC’s now-former director, for instance, falsely said on television in the spring of 2021 that vaccinated people would not get sick or transmit COVID-19. The agency has acknowledged that data didn’t support those claims.
So, a person is better off relying on Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine - medications that cure Covid with an efficacy of 99%.
"If you have a reasonably effective immune system, do you really need anything?"
I'm a little torn on this issue. Do we really know that these medicines have an "efficacy of 99%" when we are talking about a disease that has a survival rate of 99.8xxx% ?
💉 The Epoch Times ran another fascinating jab story yesterday, headlined “First COVID Deaths Were Fully Jabbed, Australian State Records Reveal.”Remember — Australia arrived quite late to the covid party. Before cases started, the island nation locked down early and hard, and was widely and often touted by Establishment Media as a lockdown success story. That is, it was a success story until the “pandemic” Down Under began — after its vaccination campaign had already kicked off.A group of doctors suing the Australian government finally received some data in discovery. And guess what? It showed that the very first deaths from covid in Australia were almost all in fully vaccinated people. ...Think about this: Australia ordered some of the most draconian and punitive vaccine mandates in the world outside of China and North Korea. But at the time they ordered Ozzies to get jabbed or get fired and then go into house arrest, this data shows the Australian government already knew the jabs didn’t stop people from getting covid and dying from covid.So … what then could possibly justify the strict jab mandates, the mandates relentlessly pushed on all Australian networks by all those white-coated scientists and doctors as the “only way out of the pandemic?”Hmm?
A 10-point primer on why the mRNA Covid shots are different from and riskier than other vaccines...1: mRNAs are not vaccines in any traditional sense. They work in a very different way.2: Before 2020 mRNA biotechnology was - at best - several years from use outside clinical trials. The scientists working on it were struggling with the risks of repeated dosing.3: The two large clinical trials in 2020 from Pfizer and Moderna that led to the approval of the mRNAs did NOT show that they reduced deaths from Covid, or from other causes.4: mRNAs were not proven to work better or to be safer than - or even as safe as - traditional vaccines. They were not and have never been tested head-to-head against traditional vaccines.5: The clinical trials showed the mRNAs caused more and more severe side effects than most traditional vaccines, especially flu shots. Real-world experience confirmed the trial findings.6: The major clinical trials were effectively stopped in early 2021, and as a result we do not have long-term placebo-controlled safety data on the mRNAs.7: We also do not have long-term controlled data on their effectiveness. This gap matters less, though, since everyone now agrees that - at best - they worked against Covid infection or transmission for a few months in 2021.8: The evidence health authorities offer for their claims that the shots work against severe disease and death - even after they fail against infection - comes from “observational” studies. Those are hopelessly untrustworthy. The reason is that people are generally not vaccinated if they are on or near their deathbeds - and terminally ill people are obviously at very high risk of death from all causes, including Covid.In essence, the people who receive vaccinations cannot be compared to those who do not. Health authorities are well aware of this issue, but they ignore it, because it enables them to claim the vaccines work.9: The mRNAs appear to have zero or negative effectiveness against Omicron infection. Negative effectiveness means they may actually increase the risk of infection. Some studies show that the infection risk RISES with each additional dose.10: Data from many countries that used mRNAs shows the booster campaigns in early 2022 and late 2022/early 2023 coincided with increases in all-cause deaths. This correlation is particularly striking in the second campaign, because it cannot be attributed to Covid.
💉 A new pre-print study published yesterday, titled “Forensic Analysis of the 38 Subject Deaths in the 6-Month Interim Report of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial.” It had thirteen authors.The first six deaths from Pfizer’s trial. Notice any pattern?The authors described their new study as being the first analysis of the original data from the main Pfizer vaccine clinical trial (44,000 participants) to be conducted by a group unaffiliated with Pfizer. Their analysis was enabled by the court-ordered release of Pfizer’s internal test data, which the FDA infamously tried to suppress for 75 years.What they found, unsurprisingly, and what was missed by federal regulators and the vaccine approval committee, was a significantly-higher rate of death in the vaccine group compared to the placebo:Our analysis revealed inconsistencies between the subject data listed in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer trial site administrators. Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls. This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer.The authors reviewed each of the 38 deaths, and found Pfizer hijinx all over. Here’s one example (edited for brevity):Subject 11621327 was found dead shortly after receiving Dose 1 of the Pfizer vaccine on September 10th. His body was found at home (with lividity) on the 13th of September when the police performed a welfare check. “According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease.” The cause of death listed in the 6-Month Interim Report is “Arteriosclerosis”… autopsy results were not provided or available. Based only on the medical documentation in the CRF, there is no basis for ascribing the subject’s death to advanced atherosclerosis or concluding that the death was unrelated to the vaccine… It is likely that the subject died within a day or two of vaccination. This was a clear indication that his death could have been related to the Pfizer vaccine and this should not have been ruled out without a more rigorous investigation. In our opinion, this diagnosis was premature and an egregious misjudgment of the evidence at hand.An “egregious misjudgment” is one way of putting it.After noting the unusually low overall number of deaths in the overall trial, which itself raises suspicion, and the very high (5%) number of “discontinued” patients, the authors dropped the biggest bomb: the Pfizer trial data does not show that any lives were saved by the “safe and effective” jabs:To state that vaccine saved lives, Pfizer should have shown a reduction in all-cause mortality due to a decrease in COVID-19 mortality in the vaccinated arm of the trial. Figure 1 does not support any such claim for Weeks 1 – 20 and, in fact, speaks against this conclusion in the weeks following Week 20 in which the Placebo cumulative plot is distinctly below that of the BNT162b2 vaccinated.In other words, fewer people should have died in the injection group than in the placebo group, but the exact opposite happened. How the vaccine committee missed this is anybody’s guess. Well, we have some pretty good guesses.Here’s the link to the study.https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202309.0131/v1
“There’s a new mRNA covid-19 vaccine coming… there’s essentially no evidence for it… Not only that, there are a lot of red flags. So something you don’t hear much about, but we’ll be talking more about, is there are multiple studies now from around the world — Brazil, Australia, United States — that show that over time these vaccines, these mRNA covid-19 products, actually INCREASE your chances of contracting COVID-19.That’s not normal.”
The probability of reinfection increased with time from the initial infection (odds ratio of 18 months vs 3 months, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.08) (Figure) and was higher among persons who had received 2 or more doses compared with 1 dose or less of vaccine
That is completely boring, and I wouldn’t have covered it except for an odd little nugget of interesting information buried halfway down the story. You see, last year’s jab innovation turned out not to have been so much of an innovation after all. It looks less like dynamite and more like a wet noodle:Unlike the bivalent shots from last fall, the latest mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna are monovalent, meaning they are designed to protect against just one variant: XBB.1.5… Initial data from preprint studies has suggested that the bivalent formula from last year was no more effective against BA.4 and BA.5 than the original vaccine it replaced because of so-called “immune imprinting” bias.“Our immune system, when we have seen something, is biased to seeing that again,” Dr. Ho said. “So if you include the original components, the immune system will react mostly to the original component and not to the new version of the virus.”Ho, ho, Dr. Ho! We fooled ‘em again! Suckers.But there it was, in 12-point type, straight from the New York Times’s own ghastly orifice: The Bivalent experiment failed. It’s back to the monovalent drawing board. And, how do you like that, they do know about “immune imprinting” after all. When they want to. ...Anyway, you should be able to get injected with Big Pharma’s latest lab experiment later this week, if for some insane reason you actually want the awful thing, which offers tons of risk and no benefit.
It is possible that a degree of 'herd immunity' has been achieved. Yet, using p<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance, the bivalent-vaccinated group had a slightly but statistically significantly higher infection rate than the unvaccinated group in the statewide category and the age ≥50 years category. However, in the older age category (≥65 years), there was no significant difference in infection rates between the two groups.
So people under 50 were more like to get infected if they took the death jab.And it made no difference for people over 50.
"Is it weird that only a screenshot was captured instead of the entire article? https://archive.ph/C8KvZ
« First « Previous Comments 1,045 - 1,084 of 1,100 Next » Last » Search these comments