5 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The ongoing medical research into vaccine related myocarditis reveals the pathway causing the issue:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html

Of note:

Vaccine-associated myocarditis occurs in about one in every 140,000 vaccinees after a first dose and rises to one in 32,000 after a second dose. For reasons that aren’t clear, incidence peaks among male vaccinees age 30 or below, at one in 16,750 vaccinees.

Fortunately, most of these cases end well, Wu said, with full heart function retained or restored.  Recovery is typically swift.

Wu lies...

16 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Of course. But the preponderance of evidence shows that overall the health outcomes are better post vaccination.

Well, McCullough begs to differ in this 16-minute video which I recommend watching.

9 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

The ongoing medical research into vaccine related myocarditis reveals the pathway causing the issue:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-vaccine-covid.html

Of note:

Vaccine-associated myocarditis occurs in about one in every 140,000 vaccinees after a first dose and rises to one in 32,000 after a second dose. For reasons that aren’t clear, incidence peaks among male vaccinees age 30 or below, at one in 16,750 vaccinees.

Fortunately, most of these cases end well, Wu said, with full heart function retained or restored.  Recovery is typically swift.

Do you think the phrase "safe and effective" was relevant, in retrospect? Bearing in mind this was the principle used to mandate it: the State used violence (and having been on the receiving end of that violence, especially when I was in France from November 2021 to June 2022, I can confirm it was tough) to force people to take it, and those who had doubts about this purported safety and effectiveness were called mentally ill, selfish, dangerous, a societal threat, etc.: was that right or wrong?

The safety and effectiveness lauded in those days was not based on a general rationalisation such as "overall, the benefits outweigh the downsides" – it was universally and continually repeated that taking this vaccine entailed no risks for the receiver.

Do you think it was right or wrong to mandate this product?

On 4/3/2026 at 12:08 AM, rattlesnake said:

Do you think the phrase "safe and effective" was relevant, in retrospect? Bearing in mind this was the principle used to mandate it: the State used violence (and having been on the receiving end of that violence, especially when I was in France from November 2021 to June 2022, I can confirm it was tough) to force people to take it, and those who had doubts about this purported safety and effectiveness were called mentally ill, selfish, dangerous, a societal threat, etc.: was that right or wrong?

The safety and effectiveness lauded in those days was not based on a general rationalisation such as "overall, the benefits outweigh the downsides" – it was universally and continually repeated that taking this vaccine entailed no risks for the receiver.

Do you think it was right or wrong to mandate this product?

Remember how “even just one Covid death was too many” led to “safe and effective” which then somehow morphed into “no vaccine is 100% safe”

There are gonna be a lot of graves to piss on.

7 hours ago, Airalee said:

Remember how “even just one Covid death was too many” led to “safe and effective” which then somehow morphed into “no vaccine is 100% safe”

There are gonna be a lot of graves to piss on.

Throwback Sunday. From December 2022: Get Vaccinated!

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Throwback Sunday. From December 2022: Get Vaccinated!

Six dead in one hospital. LOL. Sure.

I spent a lot of time hospitals during covid seeing doctors, getting physical therapy, CT scans, MRIs, Colonoscopies etc. etc. it was extremely rare that I would even see another patient there most of the time.

They must have been stacked in the basements with all the other dead bodies.

On 3/29/2026 at 11:02 PM, georgegeorgia said:

I believe it's the covid injection

Why?

35 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Six dead in one hospital. LOL. Sure.

I spent a lot of time hospitals during covid seeing doctors, getting physical therapy, CT scans, MRIs, Colonoscopies etc. etc. it was extremely rare that I would even see another patient there most of the time.

They must have been stacked in the basements with all the other dead bodies.

Went to a pharmacy about that time, didn't see anyone dropping dead either. That assistant thought I was hanssum, so business as usual.

A CDC study found that COVID-19 vaccines roughly halved the risk of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for US adults last fall and winter, specifically:

• 50% reduction in emergency department visits

• 55% reduction in hospitalizations

However, the study has been blocked from publication in the CDC's flagship journal, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report . The study had already cleared internal reviews and was scheduled for publication on March 19, before being delayed and ultimately rejected

It has been blocked because CDC Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya took issue with the study's test-negative design, which is the standard methodology used to measure vaccine effectiveness for COVID, flu, and RSV for roughly two decades

HHS confirmed the rejection, citing "concerns regarding the methodological approach to estimating vaccine effectiveness."

The study used the VISION network, a CDC-led collaboration using electronic health records from nine US health systems, and its findings have previously been published in top journals like the New England Journal.

The rejection was first reported by the Washington Post and confirmed by CNN today.

AI on Brave browser was used in putting this together.

The conspiracy could be about keeping the people in the dark about vaccine effectiveness rather than the effectiveness itself. Lets hope the powers that be are forced to provide a full explanation why this wasn't published.

19 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The conspiracy could be about keeping the people in the dark about vaccine effectiveness rather than the effectiveness itself. Lets hope the powers that be are forced to provide a full explanation why this wasn't published.

They have already provided an explanation.

The truth gaining traction in incremental steps.

You people are flogging a dead horse.

---

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/after-a-year-of-turmoil-cancer-researchers-see-promising-signs-for-mrna-vaccines/

After a year of turmoil, cancer researchers see promising signs for mRNA vaccines

I did refer to that. It seems though that it is fairly controversial to reject this study given it had apparently completed the agency's full scientific process. It seems that normally this methodology would be acceptable and other reports using the same methodology were accepted. It's been noted no test process is perfect but the basis to reject this has not been explained sufficiently nor has it been noted what other process should have been followed to get acceptable results.

Hopefully time will tell if there was a reasonable basis for this but it is a concern.

Interesting too. I saw this story on CNN. You refer to Newsmax. I get that CNN is anti Trump - I would say based on a reasonably fair reality. Less so now though than it was. To me Newsmax though is way more biased to the right than CNN to the left. But you may not concur.

You people are flogging a dead horse.

---

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/after-a-year-of-turmoil-cancer-researchers-see-promising-signs-for-mrna-vaccines/

After a year of turmoil, cancer researchers see promising signs for mRNA vaccines

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

But under the pretext of promising $cientific signs you can fool it to take mRNA vaccines.

A sure fire way to expedite its death, and then flogging is not needed anymore...

10 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I did refer to that. It seems though that it is fairly controversial to reject this study given it had apparently completed the agency's full scientific process. It seems that normally this methodology would be acceptable and other reports using the same methodology were accepted. It's been noted no test process is perfect but the basis to reject this has not been explained sufficiently nor has it been noted what other process should have been followed to get acceptable results.

Hopefully time will tell if there was a reasonable basis for this but it is a concern.

Interesting too. I saw this story on CNN. You refer to Newsmax. I get that CNN is anti Trump - I would say based on a reasonably fair reality. Less so now though than it was. To me Newsmax though is way more biased to the right than CNN to the left. But you may not concur.

Everything needs to be halted until the actual safety profile of this product is officially made public, and the actual data on injuries is ackowledged.

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Everything needs to be halted until the actual safety profile of this product is officially made public, and the actual data on injuries is ackowledged.

Just need to wait 75 years...so they can safely redact the personal information so none of the victims will feel abused 🤯

14 minutes ago, johng said:

Just need to wait 75 years...so they can safely redact the personal information so none of the victims will feel abused 🤯

Thankfully, Aaron Siri and Del Bigtree forced them to publish the data… otherwise yes, it would have taken 75 years.

Post this every time a moron spouts their BS about 'Science being transparent'…