Liberal Forum

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:37 am

That is the coldest and most reprobate thing I have read in this forum.
Though I would agree that if the fetus was jammed full of spike proteins from the jab - as women's ovaries are - it could be better off lost than born.

Not according to the CDC

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 9:37 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:37 am

That is the coldest and most reprobate thing I have read in this forum.
Though I would agree that if the fetus was jammed full of spike proteins from the jab - as women's ovaries are - it could be better off lost than born.

Did you actually look at the NEJM paper?

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:31 am

Attacking the messenger is the fallback of weak-minded people that are unable to refute truth.

No....

Determining the credibility of the messenger is essential.

 

Phoenix68.2.0 » 01 Dec 2021, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:32 am

August 11, 2021
."It's true that in January 2021, health authorities warned that because of the lack of testing in pregnant populations, the use of the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women was not recommended unless they were at risk of high exposure, such as healthcare workers. However, in August, due in part to new data on the safety of the vaccines and in part to a surge in infections caused by the delta variant, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urged all pregnant women to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Although the data is still incomplete, according to the CDC it suggests that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh any known or potential risks of vaccination during pregnancy."

The vaxx makers specifically excluded elderly, people with comorbidities and pregnant women from the trials because they knew it would screw their results. Yet the FDA issued EUA to vaxxes for pregnant women on the basis of the trial in the OP (because of the ridiculous conclusion?)
Vaccine makers trials for pregnant women are just now in the sign-up phase.
CDC is little more than a voice for Big Pharma, as are the FDA and CDC, because of regulatory capture.
The VAERS system only reflects about 1% of adverse reactions because it is so difficult and intimidating to use.
VAERS - Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System - less than 1% are reported

So the CDC is making that recommendation in spite of the fact that only 3 in 10,000 people under 70 years old will die of COVID, and that number includes fat diabetics with cancer.
Vaccine "hesitant" (pragmatic) VS vaccine blind obedient

And that doesn't even include 99+% effective treatment which would add a couple of zeros to the stat. Effectively taking it to zero risk.
Secret formula eradicates COVID in India state of 230 million people

The people that suffer from COVID were either too lazy or too stupid to plan and prepare in advance of infection. But even the vaxxed are in this group, or mostly in this group, at this point in time:
"The patients in the ICU of our hospitals in GZA....are ALL vaccinated." 100%
 
 
 

There is no financial incentive to make these claims about adverse reactions but there is huge financial incentive to disregard these claims.

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:48 am

The vaxx makers specifically excluded elderly, people with comorbidities and pregnant women from the trials because they knew it would screw their results.
Their trials for pregnant women are still in the sign-up phase.
CDC is nothing more than a voice for Big Pharma, as are the FDA and CDC, because of regulatory capture.
The VAERS system only reflects about 1% of adverse reactions because it is so difficult and intimidating to use.
VAERS - Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System - less than 1% are reported

So the CDC is making that recommendation in spite of the fact that only 3 in 10,000 people under 70 years old will die of COVID, and that number includes fat diabetics with cancer.
Vaccine "hesitant" (pragmatic) VS vaccine blind obedient

And that doesn't even include 99+% effective treatment which would add a couple of zeros to the stat. Effectively taking it to zero risk.
Secret formula eradicates COVID in India state of 230 million people

The people that suffer from COVID were either too lazy or too stupid to plan and prepare in advance of infection. But even the vaxxed are in this group, or mostly in this group, at this point in time:
"The patients in the ICU of our hospitals in GZA....are ALL vaccinated." 100%

Anyone who quotes VAERS has lost all credibility.   I could report to my doctor that I grew a second head as a side effect and he must report that to VAERS.  Lol

simplejack » 01 Dec 2021, 8:40 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:40 am

Go back to Idiotville, ya **** retard!!!

Was that ever-so intelligent and self-describing comment addressed to "New Zealand researcher Dr. Aleisha Brock and Dr. Simon Thornley, a senior lecturer in the University of Auckland’s Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, calculated the incidence of miscarriage in women vaccinated before 20 weeks gestation was actually 82-91% in a paper published in Science, Public Health Policy," that you quoted?
 
 
 

simplejack » 01 Dec 2021, 8:35 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:35 am

IOW women still have periods after covid vax. These trumpalopes get dumber every **** day.

And speaking for women, you are well aware that women and their husbands, simply love their miscarriages! It's surely one of the greatest joys of pregnancy!
 
 

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:53 am

Was that ever-so intelligent and self-describing comment addressed to "New Zealand researcher Dr. Aleisha Brock and Dr. Simon Thornley, a senior lecturer in the University of Auckland’s Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, calculated the incidence of miscarriage in women vaccinated before 20 weeks gestation was actually 82-91% in a paper published in Science, Public Health Policy," that you quoted?

So one paper.   You agree medical advice should never be taken from a single study.....right?

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:07 am

I thought this deserved its own thread for young women to note, and particularly defenders of Big Pharma and the government agencies they "own", through regulatory capture.
Excerpts:
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/study ... id-vaccine

"Study Shows That Up To 8 In 10 Women Had A Miscarriage After Getting The Covid Vaccine Before The Third Trimester"

"One particular finding – that related to miscarriages – has been seemingly overlooked (and perhaps even intentionally hidden, as some claim, since corrections were made to the report). But first, it’s important to keep in mind that miscarriages are defined as “the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week.” The general rate of miscarriages in the U.S. ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 26%, depending on the medical publication."

"However, this study is focusing specifically on how the Covid vaccine impacts pregnancy, including by trimester. So to more precisely calculate the miscarriage rate, we have to remember that miscarriages, by definition, occur before the 20-week gestation mark. This means that all 700 women who received the vaccine in the third trimester must be excluded from the calculation because they were already past being able to have a technical miscarriage. So really, 104 out of 127 women experienced a miscarriage. This means the miscarriage rate of women who received the vaccine in the first or second trimester is actually 81.9%, or 8 out of 10 women – way, way above the national average."

Gotta ask yourself - if 80% of vaccinated women are miscarrying, how can this not be headline news?

If you follow the links, you find yourself at The Epoch Times.

@Huey  's favorite source.

Gotta ask yourself - why is this the only reference to the paper on which the headline is based?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/c ... rnley-says
 
 

Vegasgiants » 01 Dec 2021, 9:57 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:57 am

So one paper.   You agree medical advice should never be taken from a single study.....right?

Thornley & Brock has been withdrawn.

Blackvegetable » 01 Dec 2021, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 10:00 am

Thornley & Brock has been withdrawn.

So not even one paper.  

This is just fake news then
 

FJB » 01 Dec 2021, 8:45 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:45 am

WOW Sorry you feel that way.

These icy cold comments are absolutely appalling, aren't they?
Yet isn't it funny how nobody has taken on the OP and what happens when you take the study - that was responsible for issuing EUA of vaxxes in pregnant women - and break it down into trimesters.
 

Vegasgiants » 01 Dec 2021, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 10:01 am

So not even one paper.  

This is just fake news then

Yup.


Again.


Damn, these people are **** stupid.
 

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 10:01 am

These icy cold comments are absolutely appalling, aren't they?
Yet isn't it funny how nobody has taken on the OP and what happens when you take the study - that was responsible for issuing EUA of vaxxes in pregnant women - and break it down into trimesters.

Because the "logic" is ****.

PFAUCI====PFIZER MONSTER====PFIZER BILLIONS$$$$$$$$$

FJB » 01 Dec 2021, 9:26 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:26 am

I gave you the answer, you couldn't accept it.

Everyone is entitled to his or hers opinion. That is the big problem with the left, you can't handle someone's opinion.

as I said...

Omicron420 » 01 Dec 2021, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 10:05 am

PFAUCI====PFIZER MONSTER====PFIZER BILLIONS$$$$$$$$$

Taking another Epoch Times plug, BucketMouth?

FJB » 01 Dec 2021, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 9:08 am

1st Amendment

Unfortunately it only applies to the political left along with Big Pharma and their minions and censors.
 

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 10:11 am

Unfortunately it only applies to the political left along with Big Pharma and their minions and censors.

You posted fake news