8 hours ago, owl sees all said:

 

Kary Mullis stated many times that the PCR test was not a diagnostic one. Which is isn't. He died mysteriously in 2019. Convenient that; for the jab pushers.

 

The whole covid narrative seemed to be driven by PCR test results.

Kary is knowingly pulling wool over the eyes of the technically challanged. He says PCR was not developed as a diagnostic tool. BFD. The best way to show what he is doing is by analogy. The integrated circuit and CPUs were not developed for mobile communication. But every mobile phone uses them. ICs were made to measure temperates in oil wells. CPUs were invented to control traffic lights. And a new fool is made everyday.

These same 24% thought a horse medicine promoted by a con man would cure them of covid... 

1 hour ago, frantick said:

Maybe it's a silly poll, but when medical professionals aren't actively searching for a vaccine connection, people are left with unanswered questions. 

My sister died last month. Sure, she was all of 69. Her father lived to 91; her mother still alive at 90. Blood clot in the leg, up to her lungs, stopped her heart. Of course, at one point the doctor mentioned many clots in the lungs as they tried to keep her alive, so who knows. A couple months since last vaccine, so, of course, no mention on the autopsy. 

 

This is my anecdotal data. But glad I didn't trust my government ... to also recommend a "cure". 

 

It is all my feelings, my uneducated opinion, and I admit no "scientific" facts to prove any of it. 

 

How's this:

 

This is my anecdotal data. But glad I didn't trust my government who MAY have had a hand in the accidental, or purposeful release of the virus using my tax dollars, to also recommend a "cure". 

 

10 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yes, and almost as many (42%) say that, if there was a major class-action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies for vaccine side effects, they would be likely to join the lawsuit.

And here in Norway, I am not even close to knowing anyone who died from covid. I don't think I know anyone who didn't get vaccinated, and certainly no one who died from it. Strange how geographics matter...

That shows you how reliable polls are. 

Unless many of them know the same person, about 8 million people died from a reaction to the vaccine , which is about 8 times more of people that died from covid. 

In fact in 2021 there were 3.5 million total deaths  in the US and in 2022 3,2 million

So if one is to believe this 24% of responders.to the poll. More people died from a reaction to the vaccine than there were total deaths during the pandemic from an couse!!!

And what's even worse, many  of those people that  died from a reaction to the vaccine in 2019 voted for Biden in 2020.

Oh wait a second there was no vaccine in 2919. then it must had been the lizard people that killed them then.. 

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

Were they closed.........?    😲

Thanks for proving my point.

1 hour ago, frantick said:

My sister died last month. Sure, she was all of 69. Her father lived to 91; her mother still alive at 90. Blood clot in the leg, up to her lungs, stopped her heart. Of course, at one point the doctor mentioned many clots in the lungs as they tried to keep her alive, so who knows. A couple months since last vaccine, so, of course, no mention on the autopsy. 

 

First of sorry for your loss. That's sad to read. But as you wrote it there is not a shred of hint that the death was due to a vaccine.

 

1 hour ago, frantick said:

It is all my feelings, my uneducated opinion, and I admit no "scientific" facts to prove any of it. 

 

Well it is understandable that you'd want to know the reason for your sisters death. I think it's your right even. But it seems unlikely that it was due to the vaccine. There is a higher chance that she contracted Covid-19 and that caused it. mRNA vaccines from Biontech or Moderna are not known whatsoever to cause blood clots. There are rare side-effects from Astra-Zeneca or J&J vaccines. But blood clots due to Covid-19 are much more common.

 

Quote

Blood clotting is a well-recognized complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It has also been identified as an extremely rare side effect of certain COVID-19 vaccines. The risk with vaccines is exceedingly low and individuals are at a significantly higher risk of developing a blood clot from COVID-19 infection than following COVID-19 vaccination.

 

Data from the beginning of the pandemic indicated that the incidence of blood clots in COVID-19 illness ranged anywhere from 5 to 40 percent, varying with individual risk factors and severity of illness.

 

The Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccines have not been shown to increase the risk of blood clots in multiple studies. However, two COVID-19 vaccines are associated with an extremely rare syndrome known as vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). It was discovered in March 2021 in connection to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and then later with the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. In rare cases—2 to 20 per million—antibodies that the body produces as a side effect of the vaccine lead to uncontrolled activation of platelets. This causes both low platelet counts and blood clots to form.

 

https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/2022/09/blood-clotting-covid-19-and-vaccines

6 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Long-term Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccine? What We Know

"To answer this question, scientists study the available evidence, and while the rules of science do not allow scientists to say that long-term effects can never happen, the evidence is strong that these vaccines will not cause long-term harm.

...

Vaccine history

The history of vaccines shows that severe effects following vaccination can occur. But when they do, these effects tend to happen within two months of vaccination."

 

https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine

 

Yep, a 4 February 2021 article, approx 1.5 month after the roll-out of the covid-vaccines in US which started 14 December 2020.

And then using the 'safety history' argument of traditional vaccines, and apply it to the mRNA covid-vaccines that use a totally different platform, is rather disingenuous. 

Next one please...

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yep, a 4 February 2021 article, approx 1.5 month after the roll-out of the covid-vaccines in US which started 14 December 2020.

And then using the 'safety history' argument of traditional vaccines, and apply it to the mRNA covid-vaccines that use a totally different platform, is rather disingenuous. 

Next one please...

mRNA vaccines have been used and studied on humans for over a decade. They are nothing new. Next one please...

 

1 hour ago, BKKKevin said:

These same 24% thought a horse medicine promoted by a con man would cure them of covid... 

Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug. But calling it a horse medicine only shows lack of understanding.

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

And then using the 'safety history' argument of traditional vaccines, and apply it to the mRNA covid-vaccines that use a totally different platform, is rather disingenuous. 

 

The answer is the same, either way, even for mRNA vaccines:

 

5 Reasons We Know The COVID-19 Vaccines Don't Have Long-Term Health Effects

February 1, 2022

 

"2. Neither mRNA technology—nor viral vector technology—is new. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was created using viral vector technology, which has already safely been used in Ebola vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were created using messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology, which has been used for about 10 years in cancer treatment, with no long-term effects detected."

 

AND

 

"5. The mRNA vaccines might feel futuristic, but their ingredients actually are not. Almost all of the ingredients in the COVID-19 vaccines are ingredients found in foods: fats, sugars and salts, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

 

https://www.henryford.com/blog/2022/02/5-reasons-we-know-the-covid-vaccines-dont-have-longterm-effects

10 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug. But calling it a horse medicine only shows lack of understanding.

Fact Check-Animal Ivermectin should not be used on humans

The FDA has not approved ivermectin (for emergency use or otherwise) for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans.

48 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Fact Check-Animal Ivermectin should not be used on humans

The FDA has not approved ivermectin (for emergency use or otherwise) for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans.

Where did I say the horse drug should be used on humans? The drug ivermectin is a FDA approved drug. period.

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

mRNA vaccines have been used and studied on humans for over a decade. They are nothing new. Next one please...

 

Studied yes, used no.

mRNA vaccines were first used in humans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, both of which are mRNA vaccines, were granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020. These were the first mRNA vaccines authorized for widespread use in humans.

9 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Where did I say the horse drug should be used on humans? The drug ivermectin is a FDA approved drug. period.

 

Not for treatment of or prevention of COVID, which is the subject here:

 

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin

• The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea."

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

5 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Studied yes, used no.

mRNA vaccines were first used in humans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, both of which are mRNA vaccines, were granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020. These were the first mRNA vaccines authorized for widespread use in humans.

 

You have to use it on a human in order to study it. I did not say authorized, I said used. We have plenty of information for mRNA vaccines before they got approved for widespread use. That's why they got approved. You made it sound like they were something completely new and unknown. They were not.

36 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Where did I say the horse drug should be used on humans? The drug ivermectin is a FDA approved drug. period.

Considering this is a topic about covid then pointing out that it's approval under FDA is not for covid treatment is clarification. Something you failed to do. Period

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yep, a 4 February 2021 article, approx 1.5 month after the roll-out of the covid-vaccines in US which started 14 December 2020.

And then using the 'safety history' argument of traditional vaccines, and apply it to the mRNA covid-vaccines that use a totally different platform, is rather disingenuous. 

Next one please...

Exactly what scientific evidence do you have that the long history of vaccines does NOT relate (and strongly) to mRNA "vaccines" ?

 

Your statement suggests a lack of an even basic understanding of science or what a vaccine is. Science is based on reasoning, not hot media sound bites.

 

Just know, that IF SHTF, and it becomes generally accepted that mrna vaccines cause more problems than they prevent, which I believe, and Americans become the target for the angry mob, I did NOT partake in these global dillusions. 

 

Until then, I will be content to be wrong. 

6 hours ago, eisfeld said:

 

First of sorry for your loss. That's sad to read. But as you wrote it there is not a shred of hint that the death was due to a vaccine.

 

 

Well it is understandable that you'd want to know the reason for your sisters death. I think it's your right even. But it seems unlikely that it was due to the vaccine. There is a higher chance that she contracted Covid-19 and that caused it. mRNA vaccines from Biontech or Moderna are not known whatsoever to cause blood clots. There are rare side-effects from Astra-Zeneca or J&J vaccines. But blood clots due to Covid-19 are much more common.

 

 

https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/2022/09/blood-clotting-covid-19-and-vaccines

She did not have Covid at the time of her admission to the hospital, nor upon her death. 

 

I do realize that clots are not specific to only Covid nor the vaccines. Maybe she ate too many French fries, or was too sedentary. Of course, then our parents would've been dead a long time ago. 

 

I'll wait a couple years. If nothing comes of these sudden deaths, then I'll chaulk it up to bad health. Until then, I'm a skeptic and a septic (tank). 

8 hours ago, rabas said:

Exactly what scientific evidence do you have that the long history of vaccines does NOT relate (and strongly) to mRNA "vaccines" ?

 

Your statement suggests a lack of an even basic understanding of science or what a vaccine is. Science is based on reasoning, not hot media sound bites.

 

~

The definition of a 'vaccine' had to be changed in order to include these new platform shots.

Traditional vaccines and mRNA inoculations are basically different.  Using the argument that this new technology is safe because the traditional method was, is anything but 'science based on reasoning'. 

11 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug. But calling it a horse medicine only shows lack of understanding.

It's approved for treatment of tropical parasitic infections. Giving  it status as a COVID treatment has been contradicted by the data, which show it is ineffective.

Ivermectin was a veterinary medicine about 17 years before FDA approval.

Penicillin is approved by the FDA too, but nobody is suggesting it should be used to treat HIV.

 

54 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

The definition of a 'vaccine' had to be changed in order to include these new platform shots.

Traditional vaccines and mRNA inoculations are basically different.  Using the argument that this new technology is safe because the traditional method was, is anything but 'science based on reasoning'. 

No the general definition of vaccines didn't change nor did the science of immunology, which you don't seem to underatand.   More dork science like the Kary guy saying PCR was not invented aa a diagnostic tool.

10 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Considering this is a topic about covid then pointing out that it's approval under FDA is not for covid treatment is clarification. Something you failed to do. Period

I was schooling the poster who called it a horse drug. But, you knew that and are just deflecting.

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

I was schooling the poster who called it a horse drug. But, you knew that and are just deflecting.

Nah, you deliberately trying to mislead, but you knew that, see how easy that is......lol

1 minute ago, rabas said:

...  More dork science like the Kary guy saying PCR was not invented aa a diagnostic tool.

~

The 'Kary guy' you refer to is Kary Mullis. 

An American biochemist who in recognition of his role in the invention of the polymerase chain reaction technique, shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith and was awarded the Japan Prize in the same year. 

28 minutes ago, rabas said:

No the general definition of vaccines didn't change nor did the science of immunology, which you don't seem to underatand.   More dork science like the Kary guy saying PCR was not invented aa a diagnostic tool.

You either have short memory, or need to do better research...

Here the earlier CDC definition for 'vaccine' and 'vaccination' which fitted the traditional vaccines (August 26th, 2021)

 

• Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
• Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

 

And as they realized that the covid-19 inoculations would not provide immunity, they changed the definition in September 1, 2021:

• Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
• Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

11 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

The 'Kary guy' you refer to is Kary Mullis. 

An American biochemist who in recognition of his role in the invention of the polymerase chain reaction technique, shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith and was awarded the Japan Prize in the same year. 

And that proves what? I'm a pretty good scientist myself and know exactly what he means. Only that he did not initially develop it as a diagnostic tool, as I explaind above and you ignore as usual. This is true of most all things. Microwaves were not initially intended for ovens. 

11 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

You either have short memory, or need to do better research...

Here the earlier CDC definition for 'vaccine' and 'vaccination' which fitted the traditional vaccines (August 26th, 2021)

 

• Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
• Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

 

And as they realized that the covid-19 inoculations would not provide immunity, they changed the definition in September 1, 2021:

• Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
• Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

 

The CDC refined the wording for their explanation on their website. They are not the ones who control the definition of the word vaccine. Nor were those changes done because of the introduction of mRNA vaccines. You are simply again misleading people.

14 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

The CDC refined the wording for their explanation on their website. They are not the ones who control the definition of the word vaccine. Nor were those changes done because of the introduction of mRNA vaccines. You are simply again misleading people.

@rabas stated: "No the general definition of vaccines didn't change nor did the science of immunology, which you don't seem to underatand."

That was incorrect, as the CDC 'refined' (the term you used for changed) the definition. 

You can argue that this is 'irrelevant', but it surely is not and I will post later WHY they had to change it, and this had everything to do with the EUA authorization for the covid-19 mRNA 'vaccines'.