Liberal Forum

Huey » 31 Dec 2021, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:02 pm

No stalker, I have already posted on the topic.  You psycho stalked me into this thread.  You do it, ******.

You are a sad waste of spent.  I’m out;

Again

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 6:04 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:04 pm

Again

Bv...yer a simple punk.

roadkill » 31 Dec 2021, 6:06 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:06 pm

Bv...yer a simple punk.

Address the math, pedoroad.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 6:08 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:08 pm

Address the math, pedoroad.

OK...Bv = Zero


 

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2021, 4:15 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 4:15 pm

Here is a study from JAMA about "post market safety events" in the first decade of this century, showing that 32% of new medications, after initially passing muster, were found to present dangers not known to regulators when they were approved: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2625319

Here's an NPR report on the same Yale study referenced above, which reads, "Seventy-one of the 222 drugs approved in the first decade of the millennium were withdrawn, required a "black box" warning on side effects or warranted a safety announcement about new risks, Dr. Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, and colleagues reported in JAMA on Tuesday. The study included safety actions through Feb. 28."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... a-approval

I suspect you didn't read JAMA


From 2001 through 2010, the FDA approved 222 novel therapeutics (183 pharmaceuticals and 39 biologics). There were 123 new postmarket safety events (3 withdrawals, 61 boxed warnings, and 59 safety communications) during a median follow-up period of 11.7 years


In the early stages of biologics there were 3 or fewer withdrawals.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 6:19 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:19 pm

I suspect you didn't read JAMA

From 2001 through 2010, the FDA approved 222 novel therapeutics (183 pharmaceuticals and 39 biologics). There were 123 new postmarket safety events (3 withdrawals, 61 boxed warnings, and 59 safety communications) during a median follow-up period of 11.7 years

In the early stages of biologics there were 3 or fewer withdrawals.

Move away from the Fauci doctrine...it means death.  

roadkill » 31 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm

Move away from the Fauci doctrine...it means death.

That must be why the unvaxxed die at an appreciably higher rate.


You're a moron, pedoroad..

Go wax the pedovan.
 

Results showed that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to contract the infection again, compared with those who had received one dose of the vaccine.



The findings appear to indicate increased protection from natural immunity over vaccine-conferred immunity. This may be due to a more extensive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 proteins, compared with the immune activation provided by the vaccine, the researchers suggest.



Infection disease experts warn that the findings should not be viewed as an excuse to forego vaccination. In an interview with MNT, Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, TN, said that the vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do.



“All the vaccines we have, Moderna, Pfizer, and [Johnson & Johnson], are very effective in preventing hospitalization — a severity of illness that requires admission to the hospital.”

The researchers behind the new study acknowledge several limitations. Since the Delta variant was dominant during the study period, the findings concerning natural immunity may not apply to infections with other variants of SARS-CoV-2.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... -the-study
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 31 Dec 2021, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 5:21 pm

Well you are preaching to the choir [PTTC]..but I'll bet you have some idea how many Unique Lurkers you have here on a typical day. Today being part of Xmas Vacation you would have more than the average amount..so I appreciate your efforts to spread the word with the hope that it might get through to SOMEBODY OUT THERE.

Someone is thinking outside the box. I like it.
 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm

I'll forgo comment on the highly subjective nature of your qualifications in favor of addressing a flaw in your "math".

My qualifications to do WHAT, precisely? Possess body autonomy?
Follow a protocol from peer reviewed studies?
Do my personal risk assessment personally?

Please - tell the board what qualifications you are snarking about - or it's just facile snarking.

Also, if you are going to put quotes around math, challenge the math. A general complaint about inputs isn't a challenge, It's a hail mary. A CHALLENGE would proffer a superior input. You're just trying to LOOK like you objected, it seems to me.

Do better.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm

A simple 1 in 5 has subsequent issues assumes that through the history of the study, means and variances remained constant.

OR, it is a rough number, settled on for convenience, and could be off by 50% in either direction and still be useful for the purpose to which it was put in my OP.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm

If the study covers more than 20 years, that may be unwarranted.

Pretty sure I made the point that it was a ten year study.

But the broader point - that vaxing carries risks, the same as not vaxing - has been elliptically sustained. 

I thank you for that.
 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 6:19 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:19 pm

I suspect you didn't read JAMA

From 2001 through 2010, the FDA approved 222 novel therapeutics (183 pharmaceuticals and 39 biologics). There were 123 new postmarket safety events (3 withdrawals, 61 boxed warnings, and 59 safety communications) during a median follow-up period of 11.7 years

In the early stages of biologics there were 3 or fewer withdrawals.

Please explain how this refutes anything my OP relied on. 
 
Edit - I just double checked, and yes - I said 20% were withdrawn, and then I ended up rolling with the 32% which had issues. That was an error on my part. I forgot to edit that before publishing.

I should EITHER have backed up the 20% claim. I was having difficulty finding an acceptable source - it is foolishness to roll with a source that is not reasonably neutral as to reportage of objective facts (unless one is using one's opponent's own lying media - in which case, fair dinkum).

I acknowledge that the facts do not sustain that claim in my OP, and I withdraw the 20% claim, relying instead on the fact that 32% were found to have serious issues - which in no way changes the reasonableness of my math.
 

SJConspirator » 31 Dec 2021, 4:31 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 4:31 pm

The vaxx is the most mysterious and terrifying thing to ever be pushed on this country. Think of all the sinister reasons they might want to inject us with mystery serum

To prime our bodies for some future event like mass Cloning?

To change our DNA , render us sterile in a bid to reduce global Population?

Anything is possible. And the oligarchs have absolute power, which means they are absolutely corrupt. To submit to the jab is to trust the devil himself

Funny you would put it like that. as the jab eerily resembles the Mark of the Beast in Revelations, which says something along the lines of, "...that no man might buy or sell, but that he have the Mark of the Beast."

'Course you're jew likely figures that was the deutsch mark...   
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 6:42 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:42 pm

Results showed that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to contract the infection again, compared with those who had received one dose of the vaccine.

The findings appear to indicate increased protection from natural immunity over vaccine-conferred immunity. This may be due to a more extensive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 proteins, compared with the immune activation provided by the vaccine, the researchers suggest.

Infection disease experts warn that the findings should not be viewed as an excuse to forego vaccination. In an interview with MNT, Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, TN, said that the vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do.

“All the vaccines we have, Moderna, Pfizer, and [Johnson & Johnson], are very effective in preventing hospitalization — a severity of illness that requires admission to the hospital.”

The researchers behind the new study acknowledge several limitations. Since the Delta variant was dominant during the study period, the findings concerning natural immunity may not apply to infections with other variants of SARS-CoV-2.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... -the-study

A newsletter about results in another country, from a fellow too lazy  or too uneducated to track down the original research and source his claims properly - not that israeli research likely will track with our own, which is what would have been relevant. 

It is also a goal post move so **** enormous that even you ought to be embarrassed by it. You've gone from, get vaxed, be safe to betha you're at least a little safer! Betcha! I don't have original research to back that up, but here's a newsletter! BETCHA!

And then there is THIS line in your REPORT on an ALLEGED study:

"The findings appear to indicate increased protection from natural immunity over vaccine-conferred immunity. This may be due to a more extensive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 proteins, compared with the immune activation provided by the vaccine, the researchers suggest."

If you're looking to get traded, verify that you're a free agent and go through the front office. People switch teams all the time, so you don't have to play coy. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2021, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 4:00 pm

This is PG thread and I'll not brook trolling - but I'm leaving it wide open in case those with other views wish to weight in PERTINENTLY. 

This is MY math - I stand ready to be corrected if anyone finds an error. 

1. 20% of all medicines approved by the FDA are subsequently withdrawn from the market - the majority, for safety concerns. Many of these end up in late night television commercials, soliciting clients for class action law suits: "Did you, or someone you love, take XYZ medication and have your butt hole prolapse or your liver sprout warts or your throat fall out? Call Dewey, Cheatum and Howe - you may be entitle to relief..."

2. The odds of a medication being withdrawn for health and safety reasons go up, when regulatory hurdles are waived to facilitate hasty deployment. 

3. My odds of dying from Covid are placed at 3 in 10 thousand, just for being an American. If you get more granular, my odds go up a bit for being over 45, but down a bit for having an extremely good immune system. Not being chronically D-deficient lowers my odds significantly, as, IMO, does my command of the Ivermectin Protocol.


Are there any obvious flaws in my math or logic, dear reader?
 

Yes, there are flaws in your logic.

And that is one simple one. Your vax status, even if you catch this crap- which I have and since I was fully vaxxed, had a very mild case- you are not just putting yourself at risk, but also others too since your "shedding" virus at a much higher rate (10,000 to 1 higher) and possibly infecting those who are not as immune system strong as you might be.

Vaccinations of any kind are a 2 way street. You help yourself with protection, and also help others as well. I can assure you that unvaxxed are the ones who did die in massively greater numbers, experienced much worse cases, and will have far more medical issues in the future than vaxxed people will have.

Vaccines are NOT DESIGNED TO PREVENT YOU FROM CATCHING ANY DISEASE YOU HAVE BEEN VAXXED AGAINST, but designed to give your immune system a head start in combating the disease with the least amount of symptoms and with far better outcomes that unvaxxed have. This is true with ALL vaccines.

Chances are, you had the Omicron variant that that does have milder symptoms and better outcomes than the others.
 
 

Beekeeper » 31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm

Yes, there are flaws in your logic.

And that is one simple one. Your vax status, even if you catch this crap- which I have and since I was fully vaxxed, had a very mild case- you are not just putting yourself at risk, but also others too since your "shedding" virus at a much higher rate (10,000 to 1 higher) and possibly infecting those who are not as immune system strong as you might be.

All of that is opinion, which you articulate in a manner that conveys you believe to be fact. As to mild cases, I and my family have proved the peer reviewed research which shows MILDER cases when Ivermectin is used.

Beekeeper » 31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm

Vaccinations of any kind are a 2 way street. You help yourself with protection, and also help others as well. I can assure you that unvaxxed are the ones who did die in massively greater numbers, experienced much worse cases, and will have far more medical issues in the future than vaxxed people will have.

Your facile assurances are propaganda- based. You spew opinions as if they are objective facts.

Beekeeper » 31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm

Vaccines are NOT DESIGNED TO PREVENT YOU FROM CATCHING ANY DISEASE YOU HAVE BEEN VAXXED AGAINST,

Yes, they are.

Beekeeper » 31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm

but designed to give your immune system a head start in combating the disease with the least amount of symptoms and with far better outcomes that unvaxxed have. This is true with ALL vaccines.

If you have zero symptoms, did you get the disease? If so, I have had the flu for the past 45 years and not known it. I guess I also "had" polio.

Comparing the way that I "had" polio and "had" flu to the way you pukers get the **** beat out of you by covid is appropriately ****. You're on your game. Only in the politicized world of medicine that you infest is the "no vax COMPLETELY prevents the disease" an excuse for that fact that yours DOESN'T. They lied to you when they said, ""Okay, okay, it doesn't prevent it like we said - but it would be even WORSE if you hadn't played the lab rat." ANd instead of being incensed at being played YET AGAIN, you are obediently parroting their tripe.

Beekeeper » 31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 7:56 pm

Chances are, you had the Omicron variant that that does have milder symptoms and better outcomes than the others.

You are welcome to that opinion. Let's recount how stupid you are. WATCH:

https://i.postimg.cc/WzgP78Df/vaccine-facts-or-hoax.jpg
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 6:08 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 6:08 pm

Address the math, pedoroad.

Binary code math or relative divide and conquer consensus possibilities nobody can define real serving reality by any franchise of wishing tomorrows better than ancestries delivered so far actually transferring DNA results to statistical averaged interpretations playing 7 degrees of separation between 16 great great grandparents and each arriving great great grandchild forward in ever changing people populating the moment here.

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2021, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 4:00 pm

3. My odds of dying from Covid are placed at 3 in 10 thousand, just for being an American. If you get more granular, my odds go up a bit for being over 45, but down a bit for having an extremely good immune system. Not being chronically D-deficient lowers my odds significantly, as, IMO, does my command of the Ivermectin Protocol.

Little issue with your math. For those under 70 there is indeed an average 3 in 10,000 risk of death from COVID, but that includes obese diabetics with cancer. So if a person isn't obese and doesn't have comorbidities they would have maybe a 10 times lower risk? That would make it an average 3 in 100,000 risk of death for relatively healthy folks under 70.
But that doesn't take into account early outpatient treatment with a multi-drug/nutraceutical therapy that includes HCQ or IVM that have been shown to be 99+% effective in treatment of elderly and high-risk individuals ever since March of 2020, if started within 3-5 days from presentation of symptoms. So add a couple more digits and that would make it more like 3 in 10,000,000 chance of a healthy person dying of COVID, particularly if they have been keeping up their levels of vitamin D, and zinc along with an ionophore like quercetin to get their cells locked and loaded in advance of infection.
 

SJConspirator » 31 Dec 2021, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 4:18 pm

sound logic.  I would add that the decision is even more astute when you account for the 5% chance that the vaxx is simply a cocktail of Xanax and estrogen to make us more docile and compliant

That would only be a temporary relief from the bitchy citizens.

On the protocol, two weeks ago I stayed in a sleezy motel and woke up in the middle of the night blowing and sneezing without ceasing for an hour. A little while after waking up in the morning nearly continuous sneezing and blowing started and continued all day, filling the trash can up with used kleenex. Sick as a dog, but all in my nose. Took 24mg ivermectin, 50mg zinc, 500mg quercetin, 15,000 units vitamin D.
Zero trace - not the slightest hint of a runny nose the next day. No other symptoms. But mind you I have been prophylaxing with 1-5,000 units of vitamin D, 25mg zinc and 250mg quercetin along with multi-vitamin and more, on most days, ever since April of 2020.

Less than a week after that motel stay, we drove cross-country over 3 days to spend Christmas with full-term-pregnant daughter, son-in-law and 2-2/3-year old grandson. Nobody vaxxed or face-masking and they don't expose him to kids that are masked because they don't want his mind bent, his development retarded or his immune system compromised by rebreathing his own refuse.
Grandson spent time with a bunch of snot-nosed kids the morning after we arrived and later on was drinking water from the straws in both of our insulated aluminum water containers. Later in the day the kid complained once about a little sore throat, sneezed a few times and had a bit of a runny nose.
That night my wife and I both woke up in the night with a little sore throat but plenty of sneezing and running nose. My wife never gets sick and I probably haven't seen her as sick as she got on maybe 2 or 3 other occasions in our 35 years of marriage.
Since I had taken the ivermectin 2 weeks prior and I wasn't that sick, I settled for 50mg zinc with 500mg quercetin and 10,000 units vitamin D in morning + multiple vitamin in the morning. 50mg zinc with 250mg quercetin and 5,000 units zinc evening. After a couple days it seemed to be lagging a bit so I took 24mg (dose and a half at my weight) ivermectin this morning along with the rest. Sniffled a little more today but it looks like it's over.
Wife never got sick in the sleazy motel 2 weeks ago so she didn't take anything back then. So this time she took 24mg ivermectin (double dose at her body weight) 3 days ago, 50mg zinc, 500mg quercetin, 15,000 units vitamin D, daily. Seemed to be lingering so she took another 24mg ivermectin this morning. Currently she's a little more sniffly than me, but I suspect we will both be fine tomorrow.
This is the cold and flu remedy we will take from now on. We've never wanted to compromise our immune systems with flu shots let along the leaky, non-vaccines Big Pharma has been extending the pandemic and killing people with. But then I'm a relatively healthy 71 years old so not at much risk of dying of flu to begin with. My wife is lots healthier than I am.

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2021, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 4:00 pm

This is PG thread and I'll not brook trolling - but I'm leaving it wide open in case those with other views wish to weight in PERTINENTLY. 

This is MY math - I stand ready to be corrected if anyone finds an error. 

1. 20% of all medicines approved by the FDA are subsequently withdrawn from the market - the majority, for safety concerns. Many of these end up in late night television commercials, soliciting clients for class action law suits: "Did you, or someone you love, take XYZ medication and have your butt hole prolapse or your liver sprout warts or your throat fall out? Call Dewey, Cheatum and Howe - you may be entitle to relief..."

2. The odds of a medication being withdrawn for health and safety reasons go up, when regulatory hurdles are waived to facilitate hasty deployment. 

3. My odds of dying from Covid are placed at 3 in 10 thousand, just for being an American. If you get more granular, my odds go up a bit for being over 45, but down a bit for having an extremely good immune system. Not being chronically D-deficient lowers my odds significantly, as, IMO, does my command of the Ivermectin Protocol.

So I was faced with rolling the dice on a 20% chance of an adverse outcome from the jab - and that number is conservative, since the jab was passed in haste through the waiver of ordinary hurdles. Or I could buck the tiger's odds on a disease that had a 3 in 10k chance of ending me. 

I felt lucky. I rolled the dice based on my own optimism and confidence in my ability to fight back against a virus through intelligent supplementation and intelligent course of treatment. In the end, I got my secret, perverse wish, and was blessed with a case of Covid19. It hit harder than I thought it would - I was impressed. But it had no staying power against the Ivermectin regime and my other supplement strategies. I got my first symptoms on Monday, and today, I am well. And - as I shall soon prove, - I have antibodies which will be a blessing to my society, Now that I have these antibodies, I intend to resume giving plasma, so that I can help to spread herd immunity to my countrymen.

Are there any obvious flaws in my math or logic, dear reader?

Spot on!!!  Same here.  I couldn't match or better it.  And you should write commercials.