Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2022, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 10:23 am

The author is a moron.

1) it's "versus"

2) A year ago TOTAL deaths were 1,655 (1319+336). This year there are 1545 (1,350+195). Unless you are 
@Vegas  , this CANNOT represent a 40% yoy INCREASE.

(For those to whom this needs be explained, and you know who you are....this is because this year's number is SMALLER than last year's..

Now nod)

I'll deal with your lack of numeracy skills later. 

4

Show where I alluded to not knowing who Shagpoke Whipple is?

Vegas » 04 Jan 2022, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:35 pm

I'll deal with your lack of numeracy skills later. 

4

Show where I alluded to not knowing who Shagpoke Whipple is?

No...you won't....because you're a coward.

Show where I alluded to not knowing who Shagpoke Whipple is?

After you tell everyone the real reason you don't answer questions 
 

supraTruth » 03 Jan 2022, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022, 6:53 pm

**** **** RNC SCUM PRANCING INTO STORES MASKLESS HAVE CONsequences!  ******* rCON TURDS CARE NOT WHO THEY MURDER!

You're such a pathetic little cretin.

The reality is, you got cheated. The "best part of you" ran down the crack of your Momma's butt and turned into a brown stain on the mattress!!

freeman » 04 Jan 2022, 12:27 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:27 pm

Isn't it funny

Not funny ha-ha, that's for sure...

 Pfizer received the biggest fine in U.S. history as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal with federal prosecutors for mis-promoting medicines (Bextra, Celebrex) and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to mis-branding the painkiller Bextra by promoting the drug for uses for which it was not approved.
    In the 1990s, Pfizer was involved in defective heart valves that lead to the deaths of more than 100 people. Pfizer had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. The company agreed to pay $10.75 Million to settle justice department charges for misleading regulators.
    Pfizer paid more than $60 Million to settle a lawsuit over Rezulin, a diabetes medication that caused patients to die from acute liver failure.
    In the UK, Pfizer has been fined nearly €90 Million for overcharging the NHS, the National Health Service. Pfizxer charged the taxpayer an additional €48 Million per year for what should have cost €2 million per year.
    Pfizer agreed to pay $430 Million in 2004 to settle criminal charges that it had bribed doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug Neurontin for indications for which it was not approved.
    In 2011, a jury found Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of the drug Neurontin. Pfizer agreed to pay $142.1 Million to settle the charges.
    Pfizer disclosed that it had paid nearly nearly 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals some $20 Million for speaking on Pfizer’s behalf.
    In 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 Million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales.
    Pfizer was sued in a U.S. federal court for using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs, without the childrens’ parents’ consent. Pfizer paid $75 Million to settle in Nigerian court for using an experimental antibiotic, Trovan, on the children. The company paid an additional undisclosed amount in the U.S. to settle charges here. Pfizer had violated international law, including the Nuremberg Convention established after WWII, due to Nazi experiments on unwilling prisoners.
    Amid widespread criticism of gouging poor countries for drugs, Pfizer pledged to give $50 million for an AIDS drug to South Africa. Later, however, Pfizer failed to honor that promise."
https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-cov ... ocumented/

 

And from a European journal:
"The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, outraged many Canadian health researchers. Pfizer has been a "habitual offender," persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The $2.3-billion settlement in September 2009 - a month before Dr. Prigent's appointment - set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research - unhindered by law or morality. Is that now the only mandate, Dr. Beaudet?"
Much more at the link:
https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/2875889

So once we learn their history includes suppressing trial results is it a little easier to see.....

"All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote)."
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/pe ... -raw-data/
Could Pfizer's vaccine's effectiveness be as low as 19% to 29%?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2021, 10:13:46 AM by admin »
 Logged
Over 200,000 Americans have died completely unnecessary, horrible, deaths from COVID-19. Do you have a plan in place to help your family dodge the average $73,300 COVID hospital bill, through prevention and a $20 EARLY treatment protocol? https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2022, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:29 pm

The only ones doing that are your resellers.

The author quoted the CEO.
I did embellish the prior post not realizing the forum page had turned. Maybe this will further help:

Isn't it funny how the same people who want to give Pfizer a pass for all of the non-vaccine deaths and permanent disabilities, while excusing away Pfizer's hiding of vaccine their trial data for the next 55 years, suggest that Pfizer wouldn't want to hurt their reputation by producing a harmful product. This even though Pfizer has been found guilty of crimes against humanity and many other crimes in the past, but still continue on, because the same caliber of morally bankrupt people ignore Pfizer's criminal history.
Are those that get the "jab" even aware of Pfizer's history of criminal conduct?

The same corporate reprobates that were responsible for determining the "safety" of the non-vaccines are the same corporations that stand to profit from them while enjoying complete exemption from liability. No formula for disaster there, eigh?

These same idiots will run out and take Merck's new (cancer causing?) 30% effective COVID drug without hesitation, in spite of the half a million people Merck killed (though likely many more) with VIOXX.

Yet without hesitation these same blind fools defame the CEO of a $100 billion insurance company that has been around since 1877 for simply presenting an actuarial.

 

freeman » 04 Jan 2022, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:52 pm

The author quoted the CEO.
I did embellish the prior post not realizing the forum page had turned. Maybe this will further help:

Isn't it funny how the same people who want to give Pfizer a pass for all of the non-vaccine deaths and permanent disabilities, while excusing away Pfizer's hiding of vaccine their trial data for the next 55 years, suggest that Pfizer wouldn't want to hurt their reputation by producing a harmful product. This even though Pfizer has been found guilty of crimes against humanity and many other crimes in the past, but still continue on, because the same caliber of morally bankrupt people ignore Pfizer's criminal history.
Are those that get the "jab" even aware of Pfizer's history of criminal conduct?

The same corporate reprobates that were responsible for determining the "safety" of the non-vaccines are the same corporations that stand to profit from them while enjoying complete exemption from liability. No formula for disaster there, eigh?

These same idiots will run out and take Merck's new (cancer causing?) 30% effective COVID drug without hesitation, in spite of the half a million people Merck killed (though likely many more) with VIOXX.

Yet without hesitation these same blind fools defame the CEO of a $100 billion insurance company that has been around since 1877 for simply presenting an actuarial.

Maybe this will further help:

Why?

It's got nothing to do with anything.

The author quoted the CEO.

Not much.

I filled in the blanks.

From the same CEO.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2022, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:39 pm

No...you won't....because you're a coward.

After you tell everyone the real reason you don't answer questions

You are the last little dancing ballerina to be scolding folks about ducking questions, fruity. 

The one time you finally got cornered into an honest answer, you jerry-rigged a photoshop out of embarrassment to cover your tracks.   

Blackvegetable » 29 Dec 2021, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 2:02 pm

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 1:59 pm

How many human sexes does the field of biology recognize, fruitcake?

I have no idea, and don't give a ****.

 
 

Cannonpointer » 04 Jan 2022, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:51 pm

And from a European journal:
"The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 

"All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote)."
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/pe ... -raw-data/
Could Pfizer's vaccine's effectiveness be as low as 19% to 29%?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2021, 10:13:46 AM by admin »
 Logged
Over 200,000 Americans have died completely unnecessary, horrible, deaths from COVID-19. Do you have a plan in place to help your family dodge the average $73,300 COVID hospital bill, through prevention and a $20 EARLY treatment protocol? https://www.covidtreatmentoptions.com/

Doshi:

My calculations were of vaccine efficacy against an endpoint of “covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result” (i.e. irrespective of what is causing those covid-19 symptoms, whether that be SARS-CoV-2 or something else).
 
 

Cannonpointer » 04 Jan 2022, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:56 pm

You are the last little dancing ballerina to be scolding folks about ducking questions, fruity. 

The one time you finally got cornered into an honest answer, you jerry-rigged a photoshop out of embarrassment to cover your tracks. 

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2022, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:59 pm

Oh, look! A PHOTOSHOP! How cute.

Most of us prefer what we can VERIFY, fruity - with snapbacks intact.

Blackvegetable » 29 Dec 2021, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 2:02 pm

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 1:59 pm

How many human sexes does the field of biology recognize, fruitcake?

I have no idea, and don't give a ****.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2022, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:59 pm

Doshi:

My calculations were of vaccine efficacy against an endpoint of “covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result” (i.e. irrespective of what is causing those covid-19 symptoms, whether that be SARS-CoV-2 or something else).

How lovely. 

PS enjoy your early death, fruitcake. Yours was not destined to be a long life, but, rather, a stupid and short one.

Blackvegetable » 29 Dec 2021, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 2:02 pm

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 1:59 pm

How many human sexes does the field of biology recognize, fruitcake?

I have no idea, and don't give a ****.

 

Cannonpointer » 04 Jan 2022, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 1:04 pm

Oh, look! A PHOTOSHOP! How cute.

Most of us prefer what we can VERIFY, fruity - with snapbacks intact.

How about a link?

Cannonpointer » 04 Jan 2022, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 1:05 pm

How lovely. 

PS enjoy your early death, fruitcake. Yours was not destined to be a long life, but, rather, a stupid and short one.

**** *******.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jan 2022, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:39 pm

No...you won't....because you're a coward.

After you tell everyone the real reason you don't answer questions

6

Yes...I will. I will be dealing with all of your lies once I checkmate you one at a time. 

Because you demand others to answer your 500 questions a day. **** you. 

Show where I alluded that I didn't know who Whipple is.
 

Beekeeper » 04 Jan 2022, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 12:49 pm

You're such a pathetic little cretin.

The reality is, you got cheated. The "best part of you" ran down the crack of your Momma's butt and turned into a brown stain on the mattress!!

Do u think this productive, u TYPICAL hypocritical low-life piece of ****?  RNC SCUM ARE NATURALLY ******* SCUMMY mouth punks.

Neo » 03 Jan 2022, 9:57 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2022, 9:57 pm

Masks do **** to slow an aerosol virus, particularly in indoor settings with crowds.

Not true, if worn properly with your big *** nose covered.

supraTruth » 04 Jan 2022, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 3:00 pm

Not true, if worn properly with your big *** nose covered.

Very true. You are trying to stop a 1 micron virus attached to a 5 micron vapor particle with a 10 micron net. Simple **** physics says that is a fools errand. 
 

supraTruth » 04 Jan 2022, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 3:00 pm

Not true, if worn properly with your big *** nose covered.

"A December 2020 comprehensive study confirmed Fauci's January 28th 2020 assertion that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is infinitesimally rare. Furthermore, some 52 studies - all available on NIH's website - find that ordinary masking (using less than an N-95 respirator) doesn't reduce viral infection rates, even - surprisingly - in institutional settings like hospitals and surgical theaters. Moreover, some 25 additional studies attribute to masking a grim retinue of harms, including respiratory and immune system illnesses, as well as dermatological, dental, gastrointestinal, and psychological injuries. 14 of these studies are randomized peer-reviewed placebo studies. There is no well constructed study that persuasively suggests masks have convincing efficiency against COVID-19 that would justify the harms associated with masks." - Robert Kennedy Jr. - The Real Anthony Fauci
 
 
 

Neo » 04 Jan 2022, 3:02 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2022, 3:02 pm

Very true. You are trying to stop a 1 micron virus attached to a 5 micron vapor particle with a 10 micron net. Simple **** physics says that is a fools errand.

N95s (and some KN95s) are a type of respirator, filtering out both larger and smaller particles you inhale. Cloth masks, on the other hand, largely prevent the wearer from expelling respiratory droplets (though some are more effective than others).There are two factors to consider: layers and fit. N95 and some KN95 masks have five layers of protection. A medical mask has three. And some cloth masks only have one.You’ll also want to keep an eye out for gaps as you wear them. N95 and KN95 masks generally offer the closest fit, and therefore the better seal. Double masking, with a medical mask covered by a cloth mask improves the fit against most people’s faces for those options.What’s the difference between KN95 and N95 masks?N95 masks are the pinnacle of the face-covering world. They’re the ones used by medical professionals who are on the front line of COVID, as they’re especially effective in blocking airborne viruses, filtering out at least 95% of very small particles.KN95 masks are largely imported from China and aren’t approved for use in medical settings, since they’re not regulated by U.S. officials. But a well-fitted KN95 is still more effective in stopping the virus than a cloth or disposable surgical mask.What is a NIOSH-approved mask?N95 masks have been around for years. And since 2018, the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) has worked with the Food and Drug Administration to approve the respirators. (KN95 masks are not regulated, so don’t carry NIOSH approval.)It’s an ever-changing list of approved manufacturers, so, regardless of whether the sales listing boasts “NIOSH approved,” you’ll want to confirm that with the agency—since some companies that were once approved no longer are, but haven’t updated their marketing.Find the extensive list of NIOSH-approved N95 masks at the organization’s website.Can I buy an N95 mask now?It was almost two years ago when many retailers refused to sell N95 masks to nonmedical personnel, reserving them for frontline workers. Things have changed since then.You can now purchase an N95 mask fairly easily via Amazon and other sites. Just be prepared to pay a bit more for them. (And you’ll want to avoid the ones that have a ventilator, as health officials discourage use of those.)