Burial costs covered for Canadians killed by approved vaccines

[revelarts]

Burial costs covered for Canadians killed by approved vaccines

https://torontosun.com/news/national/burial-costs-covered-for-canadians-killed-by-approved-vaccines


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIi0Z2yVcAABy-N?format=jpg&name=900x900

[Gunny]

What's NOT covered for Canadians?

[fj1200]

I guess they're expecting 0 because 75mm won't even cover the new bureaucracy. :poke:


The department has budgeted $75 million for all claims but said it was unclear how many submissions there could be. Management of the program is contracted to RCGT Consulting.

[revelarts]

I guess they're expecting 0 because 75mm won't even cover the new bureaucracy. :poke:
sadly they are going to need a lot more cash

[fj1200]

sadly they are going to need a lot more cash

I'll take the under. ;)

[revelarts]

I'll take the under. ;)

Here's one websites that list comments from people who are reporting a few of these "RARE" vaccine adverse effects and deaths.

https://www.theysayitsrare.com

[Gunny]

Here's one websites that list comments from people who are reporting a few of these "RARE" vaccine adverse effects and deaths.

https://www.theysayitsrare.comaccording to VAERS, the odds are 0.00-something (I'm not going to look it up because I don't really give a crap :)) of dying from the vaccine. The reporting requirements are a joke. If you die and have been vaccinated -- :rolleyes:

For someone who doesn't believe anything anyone (especially government) says, you sure are willing to buy off on what you want to. Just sayin' :poke:

Canada represents just about everything I never want the US to be. I'd as soon my body be tossed on a bonfire as the government get one more finger into its disposition. I'm certainly not leaving anything behind that these whackjobs can somehow use as a museum display, displace, and or otherwise touch. They can play with the ashes :)

[fj1200]

Here's one websites that list comments from people who are reporting a few of these "RARE" vaccine adverse effects and deaths.

https://www.theysayitsrare.com

I'll guess it's not a site that has a robust fact checking system in place.

[revelarts]

I'll guess it's not a site that has a robust fact checking system in place.

I guessed before i posted it that you'd dismiss it out of hand.

[revelarts]

I'll guess it's not a site that has a robust fact checking system in place.

But here's something for you consider.
Many Drs, the Pharma corps and gov't agencies aren't recording adverse events and death from vaccines AT ALL.
and on purpose
so it looks like we as lay folks we need to take a robust look at reports from various places to begin to get a realistic picture.

Unless you just want to believe the vaccine are safe and not hear any bad news... unless the "officials" tell us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ


She is just one of many people who presented similar evidence to her state rep.

[Gunny]

But here's something for you consider.
Many Drs, the Pharma corps and gov't agencies aren't recording adverse events and death from vaccines AT ALL.
and on purpose
so it looks like we as lay folks we need to take a robust look at reports from various places to begin to get a realistic picture.

Unless you just want to believe the vaccine are safe and not hear any bad news... unless the "officials" tell us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ


She is just one of many people who presented similar evidence to her state rep.

You have a point in the bolded text. You should consider considering your own point.

[revelarts]

Gloucester resident dies within hours of receiving Pfizer vaccine
https://www.wtkr.com/news/gloucester-resident-dies-within-hours-of-receiving-pfizer-vaccine
Posted at 12:48 PM, Feb 03, 2021
and last updated 1:23 PM, Feb 04, 2021

GLOUCESTER, Va. - "She could bellow from the bottom of her soul," said Lisa Jones.
58-year-old Gloucester resident Drene Keyes was a gifted singer, a mother and grandmother of six.
"She was such a loving and generous person," said Jones.
Unexpectedly, Lisa lost her mother on Saturday within a couple of hours after Keyes received the Pfizer vaccine in Warsaw.

"Right before she left, I was helping her put her shoes on," she said.
Keyes had diabetes, sleep apnea and was obese. Her job made her eligible for the first dose. So, on Saturday, Keyes got the Pfizer vaccine and spent 15 minutes in the mandatory observation period.
The coworker she was with said she was trying to get in the car and said, "Something is not right. Something's not right."

Doctors later on told Jones her mother couldn't breathe and started vomiting. They did administer an EpiPen, CPR and oxygen as well.
She was quickly rushed to VCU Tappahannock Hospital.
"They tried to remove fluid from her lungs. They called it 'flash pulmonary edema,' and doctors told me that it can be caused by anaphylaxis," said Jones. "The doctor told me that often during anaphylaxis, chemicals are released inside of a person's body and can cause this to happen."

Anaphylaxis is a severe adverse life-threatening allergy reaction that rarely occurs after vaccination.

According to the CDC, in the United States as of January 19 there were 45 cases of anaphylaxsis with the Pfizer shot out of the several million given.

The risks were also spelled out on the paperwork Keyes received prior to her shot.
"My mom was wanting to protect herself, and it did not turn out that way," said Jones.
Jones believes more research needs to be done, especially for those with underlying health issues.
"Why are we allowing people with underlying conditions to be guinea pigs for a vaccine that is still in clinical trials and emergency use?" Jones questioned.
She is hoping this serves as a warning for people to see their doctors and be pre-screened prior to being vaccinated.
"The pain my family feels from this unexpected loss should not be repeated for others," said Jones.
An autopsy and toxicology tests are being performed on Keyes this week.

you'll have to take my word for this but i followed this story and the last i heard was that the family said that the phrama company never got back to them, and the state medical examiner would not make an official ruling that the vaccine was the cause of death.

take that into consideration when you read the above that says "According to the CDC, in the United States as of January 19 there were 45 cases of anaphylaxsis with the Pfizer shot out of the several million given."
If it's NOT reported OFFICIALLY then it's not counted folks.

Anyway based on the info here.
would you say that the vaccine caused her death or was it REALLY because she was diabetic etc?
Are diabetics told NOT to get the vaccines?

if your family member died within hours of taking the vaccine would you think that MAYBE the vaccine had something to do with it?
Is that crazy?

[fj1200]

I guessed before i posted it that you'd dismiss it out of hand.

It's not a question of dismissing out of hand.


But here's something for you consider.
Many Drs, the Pharma corps and gov't agencies aren't recording adverse events and death from vaccines AT ALL.
and on purpose
so it looks like we as lay folks we need to take a robust look at reports from various places to begin to get a realistic picture.

Unless you just want to believe the vaccine are safe and not hear any bad news... unless the "officials" tell us.

She is just one of many people who presented similar evidence to her state rep.

It's more of a recognition that there are plenty of sources that are not interested in presenting all of the facts and in some cases not really presenting any facts; looking at you other thread. And in some cases presenting facts which are not really facts that speak to the actual issues. Having an issue in close proximity to being vaccinated is not necessarily evidence to what is being presented.

And FWIW I believe adverse reactions should be investigated and I would hope that you'd believe that those reactions shouldn't automatically be evidence as a reaction to the vaccine.

[revelarts]

It's not a question of dismissing out of hand.

It's more of a recognition that there are plenty of sources that are not interested in presenting all of the facts and in some cases not really presenting any facts; looking at you other thread. And in some cases presenting facts which are not really facts that speak to the actual issues. Having an issue in close proximity to being vaccinated is not necessarily evidence to what is being presented.

And FWIW I believe adverse reactions should be investigated and I would hope that you'd believe that those reactions shouldn't automatically be evidence as a reaction to the vaccine.

I've got no problem with what you SAY here but you don't seem to have that critical view of the official records and you just snipe and nitpick all unofficial reports as false until proven (by what you won't say) or confirmed by "official" sources Gov't, MSM or Big Pharma.

As far as my approach. I'll say frankly, since i am a bit skeptical of ALL sources it's a mix of intuitive review of the data available and common sense review of evidence and motives.

Look if I'm walking through the woods in a State Park and see people grabbing their ankles/legs in pain and i see snakes hustling back into the brush away from them over and over again, I'm not going to say ... well i CAN"T PROVE that they were bitten by snakes I'll just wait for the OFFICIAL reports. Snakes are generally harmless so I'd rather not impugn the gentle nature of snakes. Maybe everyone has bad ankles, maybe it's ticks, maybe it's their socks or shoes or some medical condition. I CANT say for sure based on the so-called reports of pain and marks I'm seeing. I mean, they aren't verified... therefore I won't make ANY assumptions on my own. that'd be Unscientific.

sorry FJ, I'm seeing ankles hurt, bite marks and snakes in the grass, I'm going to call it. there's a snake problem in the park. Even though the park ranger says snakes are RARE.
Can i say honestly or definitively that EVERY ankle problem is caused by snakes? No. that's not the claim. But it'd be kinda foolish to not make the common sense assumption that it's Likely that plenty are caused by snakes.
Even BEFORE doctors or the media or Park rangers make it "official".
And if the Park Rangers aren't investigating it and drs aren't reporting it, should that make me MORE confident in their reports or less?

look you can wait confirmation if you like but the evidence seems to be getting clearer and clearer to me.
your milage may vary.


Physician Assistant: ‘My Bosses Didn’t Want Me To Report COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects’
http://rumble.com/vpn2in-physician-assistant-my-bosses-didnt-want-me-to-report-covid-19-vaccine-side.html

[fj1200]

I've got no problem with what you SAY here but you don't seem to have that critical view of the official records and you just snipe and nitpick all unofficial reports as false until proven (by what you won't say) or confirmed by "official" sources Gov't, MSM or Big Pharma.

As far as my approach. I'll say frankly, since i am a bit skeptical of ALL sources it's a mix of intuitive review of the data available and common sense review of evidence and motives.

...

Well, I guess we can both have our own intuitive reviews but I'll go with my intuition until whatever shows me otherwise based on my subjective opinion on the quality of what I've seen. But without getting on the merry-go-round again I feel the need to ask; Do you think the vaccines are a net positive, net negative, or inconsequential in treating COVID?

[revelarts]

Well, I guess we can both have our own intuitive reviews but I'll go with my intuition until whatever shows me otherwise based on my subjective opinion on the quality of what I've seen. But without getting on the merry-go-round again I feel the need to ask; Do you think the vaccines are a net positive, net negative, or inconsequential in treating COVID?

Just speaking of the vaccines themselves (not the politics around them)
I think Long Term 3-7 years they will be shown to be a net negative.
For people under 50, i think they are a net negative RIGHT NOW.
For people under 25 I think they are criminal.

And one reason I start it as a negative, is the fact (supposed) that there are more covid deaths U.S. AFTER the vaccine than before.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-have-more-americans-died-covid-under-joe-biden-donald-trump-1661528
so the "vaccine" didn't SLOW anything and the side effects for many are worse than the disease.

As for the political actions surrounding covid1984 it's a complete negative.

FJ Have you watched the video links i posted above?
whats you take on what's presented.

[fj1200]

Just speaking of the vaccines themselves (not the politics around them)
I think Long Term 3-7 years they will be shown to be a net negative.
For people under 50, i think they are a net negative RIGHT NOW.
For people under 25 I think they are criminal.

And one reason I start it as a negative, is the fact (supposed) that there are more covid deaths U.S. AFTER the vaccine than before.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-have-more-americans-died-covid-under-joe-biden-donald-trump-1661528
so the "vaccine" didn't SLOW anything and the side effects for many are worse than the disease.

As for the political actions surrounding covid1984 it's a complete negative.

FJ Have you watched the video links i posted above?
whats you take on what's presented.

Well I disagree with most of that. I don't think other vaccines are a net negative so why would this be the first one (I'm sure I'll be peppered with exceptions). The fact that there are more covid deaths now doesn't really speak to the vaccines. There's plenty more that it can speak to than just how many people are vaccinated.

I don't watch videos.

[revelarts]

Well I disagree with most of that. I don't think other vaccines are a net negative so why would this be the first one (I'm sure I'll be peppered with exceptions).

The fact that you already know that there are exceptions goes to show your logic is faulty
Plus The label "vaccine" doesn't confer any efficacy or safety.
Just because one drug works and is safe doesn't mean all others have the same record.
Each drug stands on it's own.
The human body doesn't give a d@mn what label is on the package.



The fact that there are more covid deaths now doesn't really speak to the vaccines.
There's plenty more that it can speak to than just how many people are vaccinated.
"doesn't speak to the vaccines." ? really?
so the fact that when there was NO vaccine their were LESS Covid deaths, and with Vaccines there are MORE Covid Death...
means nothing.
We aren't supposed to draw any conclusions from that as to the vaccines efficacy?
Seriously?

We are to ,by default, attribute MORE deaths FROM covid to other factors than a crap vaccine? And give the vaccines the benny of the doubt?
why?



I don't watch videos.
Then your opinions and conclusions are far less informed than they could be on the matters here that you are trying to correct/influence others about.

[fj1200]

The fact that you already know that there are exceptions goes to show your logic is faulty
Plus The label "vaccine" doesn't confer any efficacy or safety.
Just because one drug works and is safe doesn't mean all others have the same record.
Each drug stands on it's own.
The human body doesn't give a d@mn what label is on the package.

Actually no. I'm well aware of vaccine horror stories but they're generally on initial roll out and not on the long term safety and effectiveness. Long-term problems do not tend to show up years after roll out.


"doesn't speak to the vaccines." ? really?
so the fact that when there was NO vaccine their were LESS Covid deaths, and with Vaccines there are MORE Covid Death...
means nothing.
We aren't supposed to draw any conclusions from that as to the vaccines efficacy?
Seriously?

We are to ,by default, attribute MORE deaths FROM covid to other factors than a crap vaccine? And give the vaccines the benny of the doubt?
why?

Correct. Unless one is to think that vaccines are magic they can't protect those who don't get it if the virus continues to spread. You don't want to draw conclusions from the outcomes of those who are vaccinated vs those who are not vaccinated. You're bound and determined to focus solely on a VAERS type list of horror stories without taking into account the whole picture. Does VAERS contain actual adverse effects of the vaccine? Undoubtedly. Does VAERS contain listings of supposed adverse effects that are not related to the vaccine? Undoubtedly.


Then your opinions and conclusions are far less informed than they could be on the matters here that you are trying to correct/influence others about.

Incorrect. Most videos I've gotten suckered into watching are rehashes of links that I've gotten suckered into reading. At least with reading I can move through it much faster and quickly identify and quote something that isn't correct so whoever linked me to it will know where my disagreement lies. If you can't link me to a text version then it's not worth the time.

[SassyLady]

Well I disagree with most of that. I don't think other vaccines are a net negative so why would this be the first one (I'm sure I'll be peppered with exceptions). The fact that there are more covid deaths now doesn't really speak to the vaccines. There's plenty more that it can speak to than just how many people are vaccinated.

I don't watch videos.
It is not the first.


https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/sep/02/vaccine-derived-polio-spreads-in-africa-after-defeat-of-wild-virus

[SassyLady]

Well, I guess we can both have our own intuitive reviews but I'll go with my intuition until whatever shows me otherwise based on my subjective opinion on the quality of what I've seen. But without getting on the merry-go-round again I feel the need to ask; Do you think the vaccines are a net positive, net negative, or inconsequential in treating COVID?

Net negative for majority of those being forced to take it.

Covid is 98% survivable if in good health and able to treat with ivermectin and other supplements.

[fj1200]

It is not the first.


https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/sep/02/vaccine-derived-polio-spreads-in-africa-after-defeat-of-wild-virus

It's not the first what?


While so-called vaccine-derived polio (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/28/polio-outbreaks-in-four-african-countries-caused-by-mutation-of-strain-in-vaccine) is a known risk, the emergence of these cases so soon after the announced eradication of wild polio in Africa is a setback.At issue is the fact that the oral polio vaccine – preferred in some places because of its ease of delivery and the lack of need for sterile syringes – uses an attenuated or weakened version of polio.
When a child receives the oral vaccine, the weakened virus replicates in the intestine, encouraging the production of antibodies, and can be present in excreta. In an area where there are high enough levels of immunity in the population, this usually does not present a problem, even if sanitation is poor.

Nice find but it's apparently not an unexpected risk for certain populations.


Net negative for majority of those being forced to take it.

Covid is 98% survivable if in good health and able to treat with ivermectin and other supplements.

Covid is more survivable when vaccinated. Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is a mass solution.

[SassyLady]

It's not the first what?



Nice find but it's apparently not an unexpected risk for certain populations.



Covid is more survivable when vaccinated. Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is a mass solution.
98% were surviving before the vaccine.

Ivermectin is cheap to produce and pharma doesn't make as much money as the vaccine.

[fj1200]

98% were surviving before the vaccine.

Ivermectin is cheap to produce and pharma doesn't make as much money as the vaccine.

Right. The money. :rolleyes: Ivermectin is not a mass solution.

[SassyLady]

Right. The money. :rolleyes: Ivermectin is not a mass solution.
Yes it is. India.

Rolling your eyes about life saving protocol is beyond silly.

[fj1200]

Yes it is. India.

Rolling your eyes about life saving protocol is beyond silly.

I rolled my eyes before I typed that. ;)


The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has removed usage of popular drugs Ivermectin (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/ivermectin) and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/hcq)) from the approved Covid-19 treatment guidelines.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/hcq-another-drug-dropped-from-covid-treatment-protocol/articleshow/86469107.cms


Conclusions: In patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, a single oral administration of Ivermectin did not significantly increase either the negativity of RT-PCR or decline in viral load at day 5 of enrolment compared with placebo.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483029/


Authors' conclusions

Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full



There is no evidence that it is a mass solution.

[revelarts]

Nice find but it's apparently not an unexpected risk for certain populations.

So they know it causes polio.
It's an unnecessary risk.
The problem is the assumption that everyone needs to get it.
when it's not a problem in population anymore. why ADD it?
would you give it to your kid seeing that's even without the vaccine it's extremely UNLIKELY that they'd get polio?



Covid is more survivable when vaccinated.
the numbers aren't bearing that out to any degree.
the number of deaths are MORE than before the vaccines came out.
And even with the reported numbers of vx to unvx deaths, they are only different in the SINGLE digits per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
the imagined benefit is not something that should rationally make anyone think the vaccines are a savior.
(especially since the head of the CDC has said most deaths are with those with 4 or more co-morbidities)

In LA county CA there are over 800 thousand children between 5 and 11... unvaccinated.
But since the covid1984 outbreak ONE child in that age group has died.
what benefit is the vaccine for these children?
ONLY benefits the vaccine manufactures $$$ flow.
What risks to children? UNKNOWN long term... and short term KNOWN neurological problems, Gillian Barr, heart problems, seizures, blood clots, brain aneurysms etc etc etc and DEATH.
giving covid1984 vaccines to children is CRIMINAL



Right. The money. :rolleyes:...
Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is a mass solution.
Hows that Covid testing "MASS SOLUTION" going right now?
(mass formation?)

Look FJ, anything is "mass solution" if the-powers-that-be want it to be.
If they powers that be said everyone should drink ICE TEA the ice tea manufactures would crank out tea...

they've cranked out mask and vaccines like it's the savior but now they are ADMITTING that mask are crap.
And the efficacy of vaccines vs non vaccinated is MINOR at BEST.
What if the powers that be had encourage early treatment with options like ivermectin and other safe drugs?
(which drs around the world have used with success with the studies and living patients to prove it.)
Wouldn't we know if they were better than mask and "vaccines" by now?

But somehow "vaccines" made by Big Pharma drug companies, and tested ONLY by the drug companies in less than a year. Declared safe and effective by the same companies. Companies that don't want to release it's study info. The drug companies that won't sell the drugs without 100% immunity from liability is somehow the "reasonable" mass solution?
Does that make any sense at all...
Only if you're working for big pharma or simply have been mind whipped by 2 years of mass fear and mass propaganda?

[fj1200]

So they know it causes polio.
It's an unnecessary risk.
The problem is the assumption that everyone needs to get it.
when it's not a problem in population anymore. why ADD it?
would you give it to your kid seeing that's even without the vaccine it's extremely UNLIKELY that they'd get polio?

It's a horrible thing but it isn't a scenario that plays out in most of the world.


But in areas where there is both poor sanitation and a lack of general immunisation the virus can survive and circulate for months, mutating over time until it poses the same risk of paralysis-causing disease as wild polio.


the numbers aren't bearing that out to any degree.
the number of deaths are MORE than before the vaccines came out.
And even with the reported numbers of vx to unvx deaths, they are only different in the SINGLE digits per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
the imagined benefit is not something that should rationally make anyone think the vaccines are a savior.
(especially since the head of the CDC has said most deaths are with those with 4 or more co-morbidities)

In LA county CA there are over 800 thousand children between 5 and 11... unvaccinated.
But since the covid1984 outbreak ONE child in that age group has died.
what benefit is the vaccine for these children?
ONLY benefits the vaccine manufactures $$$ flow.
What risks to children? UNKNOWN long term... and short term KNOWN neurological problems, Gillian Barr, heart problems, seizures, blood clots, brain aneurysms etc etc etc and DEATH.
giving covid1984 vaccines to children is CRIMINAL

Sorry, but no.




From Jan. 15, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021, unvaccinated people were 40 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people.
From Sept. 4, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021, unvaccinated people were 20 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people.
For both periods, the impact was strong across all age groups with a somewhat smaller protective effect in older adults at least 75 years old.


https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/

Hows th
at Covid testing "MASS SOLUTION" going right now?
(mass formation?)

Look FJ, anything is "mass solution" if the-powers-that-be want it to be.
If they powers that be said everyone should drink ICE TEA the ice tea manufactures would crank out tea...

they've cranked out mask and vaccines like it's the savior but now they are ADMITTING that mask are crap.
And the efficacy of vaccines vs non vaccinated is MINOR at BEST.
What if the powers that be had encourage early treatment with options like ivermectin and other safe drugs?
(which drs around the world have used with success with the studies and living patients to prove it.)
Wouldn't we know if they were better than mask and "vaccines" by now?

But somehow "vaccines" made by Big Pharma drug companies, and tested ONLY by the drug companies in less than a year. Declared safe and effective by the same companies. Companies that don't want to release it's study info. The drug companies that won't sell the drugs without 100% immunity from liability is somehow the "reasonable" mass solution?
Does that make any sense at all...
Only if you're working for big pharma or simply have been mind whipped by 2 years of mass fear and mass propaganda?

Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is. Based on what I posted earlier it doesn't appear Ivermectin is any solution. I know you don't like that the government gets to declare it. Vaccines are made by drug companies. Vaccines are tested by drug companies. The covid vaccine isn't really different. There are certainly other factors involved that I could agree with you on but you're immovable in your vaccine position that doesn't allow you go look at the vaccine in any other way.

[revelarts]

It's a horrible thing but it isn't a scenario that plays out in most of the world.


Sorry, but no.


https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/


Sorry but Yes.

http://1000words.fatcow.com/box8/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status72.png


SINGLE digit "benefit".
By the "official" numbers



Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is.

Your statement is just a raw assertion.
You know very well that ANYthing the powers that be promote will BECOME a "mass solution", period. Despite it's level of effectiveness.
The only thing that would blind you to that fact is an overwhelming bias against anything other than what the MSM and gov't promotes.

But even if you can't get past that mindset, in general, simply Based on the above data per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND, the shots are not a 'mass solution' at all.



Based on what I posted earlier it doesn't appear Ivermectin is any solution.

based on what i and others have posted in several other thread show otherwise.
However some of the info is found in videos and audios of Drs and researchers and the research so you may be somewhat less informed than you could be.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?73889-US-judge-orders-hospital-to-treat-Covid-patient-with-ivermectin&highlight=ivermectin

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?74977-Ivermectin-Documentary&highlight=ivermectin



I know you don't like that the government gets to declare it. Vaccines are made by drug companies. Vaccines are tested by drug companies. The covid vaccine isn't really different. There are certainly other factors involved that I could agree with you on but you're immovable in your vaccine position that doesn't allow you go look at the vaccine in any other way.
I know you like the government telling you what you can and cannot take, and can and cannot do... (unless they tell biz what to do or tax the rich).
But believe it or not Ivermectin was made buy a drug company FJ, and approved 40 plus years ago by the gov't even. and has OFF label use. Just as 20+% of other gov't approved drugs are legally used off label.
and even though you assume I'm immovable on vaccines, you've presented no facts that would sway my POV.
All the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT. Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.

the vaccines don't stop transmission, they don't stop infection and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway, and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.

AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.

the case FOR these vaccines is WEAK at best. and that's based on the data I've seen. not some immovable POV.
But hey, If UNCENSORED data and debate were ALLOWED, maybe i'd get to see info that made your assertions seem reasonable, but at this point
after looking at the pros and cons, I see less and less to recommended covid1984 shots to anyone... except for the benefit of the drug companies and their share holders.
you don't happen to own or sell shares do you Fj?

[fj1200]

Sorry but Yes.

http://1000words.fatcow.com/box8/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status72.png


SINGLE digit "benefit".
By the "official" numbers

Sorry, "single digit benefit" with a distinct difference between those two numbers. For example there's a single digit difference between 1 and 9 but there's an 800% difference between the two numbers. Over 3 and under 1 is a not insignificant difference.


Your statement is just a raw assertion.
You know very well that ANYthing the powers that be promote will BECOME a "mass solution", period. Despite it's level of effectiveness.
The only thing that would blind you to that fact is an overwhelming bias against anything other than what the MSM and gov't promotes.

But even if you can't get past that mindset, in general, simply Based on the above data per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND, the shots are not a 'mass solution' at all.

I was presented with a raw assertion that India is on the Ivermectin bandwagon and based on what I found it is no longer true if it ever was. I also quoted some studies which showed no statistical difference in treatment outcomes with Ivermectin and without. So my raw assertion stands along with the fact that there is a larger number of obese in this country who probably insist that drinking Diet Coke gives them a positive outcome. So, to get those people, and the mass population, to adopt Ivermectin over a two shot vaccine is a fools errand.


based on what i and others have posted in several other thread show otherwise.
However some of the info is found in videos and audios of Drs and researchers and the research so you may be somewhat less informed than you could be.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?73889-US-judge-orders-hospital-to-treat-Covid-patient-with-ivermectin&highlight=ivermectin

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?74977-Ivermectin-Documentary&highlight=ivermectin


Show me some links to actual studies please. I've seen plenty of crap in video form on the internet.


I know you like the government telling you what you can and cannot take, and can and cannot do... (unless they tell biz what to do or tax the rich).
But believe it or not Ivermectin was made buy a drug company FJ, and approved 40 plus years ago by the gov't even. and has OFF label use. Just as 20+% of other gov't approved drugs are legally used off label.
and even though you assume I'm immovable on vaccines, you've presented no facts that would sway my POV.
All the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT. Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.

the vaccines don't stop transmission, they don't stop infection and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway, and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.

AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.

the case FOR these vaccines is WEAK at best. and that's based on the data I've seen. not some immovable POV.
But hey, If UNCENSORED data and debate were ALLOWED, maybe i'd get to see info that made your assertions seem reasonable, but at this point
after looking at the pros and cons, I see less and less to recommended covid1984 shots to anyone... except for the benefit of the drug companies and their share holders.
you don't happen to own or sell shares do you Fj?

How did you know that I simultaneously own and work for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen selling my wares to any unsuspecting independent thinker :rolleyes: getting them on the vaccine bandwagon with the knowledge that I'm protected from lawsuits from aforementioned suckers!!!!!!!!!!! BwahhahahahahaajrWE;KJHFASD'LK.

Believe what you like. Each of your points can be, and have been, refuted or at the very least aren't as cut and dry as you want them to be. So go ahead and get on your bandwagon of getting everyone on a diet. Because that'll work. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Sorry, "single digit benefit" with a distinct difference between those two numbers. For example there's a single digit difference between 1 and 9 but there's an 800% difference between the two numbers. Over 3 and under 1 is a not insignificant difference.



I was presented with a raw assertion that India is on the Ivermectin bandwagon and based on what I found it is no longer true if it ever was. I also quoted some studies which showed no statistical difference in treatment outcomes with Ivermectin and without. So my raw assertion stands along with the fact that there is a larger number of obese in this country who probably insist that drinking Diet Coke gives them a positive outcome. So, to get those people, and the mass population, to adopt Ivermectin over a two shot vaccine is a fools errand.



Show me some links to actual studies please. I've seen plenty of crap in video form on the internet.



How did you know that I simultaneously own and work for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen selling my wares to any unsuspecting independent thinker :rolleyes: getting them on the vaccine bandwagon with the knowledge that I'm protected from lawsuits from aforementioned suckers!!!!!!!!!!! BwahhahahahahaajrWE;KJHFASD'LK.

Believe what you like. Each of your points can be, and have been, refuted or at the very least aren't as cut and dry as you want them to be. So go ahead and get on your bandwagon of getting everyone on a diet. Because that'll work. :rolleyes:


Evil bastard. Didn't even let any of us in on the ground floor either :slap:

[fj1200]

Evil bastard. Didn't even let any of us in on the ground floor either :slap:

Pshaw. What kind of globalist shill do you think I am. :slap: back at ya.



;)

[revelarts]

Sorry, "single digit benefit" with a distinct difference between those two numbers. For example there's a single digit difference between 1 and 9 but there's an 800% difference between the two numbers. Over 3 and under 1 is a not insignificant difference.


isn't the "difference" between 1 and 2.... 100%!!!!

So you want to look at the "difference" between 2 and 5 rather than as presented... 2 and 5... per 100,000?
In math class "the difference" may be part of an honest answer, but in real life the factor of 100,000 makes THE DIFFERENCE... and you know it FJ?





I was presented with a raw assertion that India is on the Ivermectin bandwagon and based on what I found it is no longer true if it ever was. I also quoted some studies which showed no statistical difference in treatment outcomes with Ivermectin and without. So my raw assertion stands along with the fact that there is a larger number of obese in this country who probably insist that drinking Diet Coke gives them a positive outcome. So, to get those people, and the mass population, to adopt Ivermectin over a two shot vaccine is a fools errand.

your assertion was false.
And if the gov't and companies MANDATED walking 30 minutes on the job/school everyday OR NO JOB, NO SCHOOL, NO entry in bakeries, bars, or fast food places I suspect more than few would do it.



Show me some links to actual studies please. I've seen plenty of crap in video form on the internet.

there are all the links to studies needed in the post,
If you'd actually taken time to look rather than assume there are none you would have seen them.
But here's one of the links embedded in the post before.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?73822-Tokyo-Medical-Association-press-conference-recommends-Ivermectin-for-Covid&p=987323#post987323



How did you know that I simultaneously own and work for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen selling my wares to any unsuspecting independent thinker :rolleyes: getting them on the vaccine bandwagon with the knowledge that I'm protected from lawsuits from aforementioned suckers!!!!!!!!!!! BwahhahahahahaajrWE;KJHFASD'LK.
Just as i suspected.:mad::mad::mad: :poke:



Believe what you like. Each of your points can be, and have been, refuted or at the very least aren't as cut and dry as you want them to be. So go ahead and get on your bandwagon of getting everyone on a diet. Because that'll work. :rolleyes:
Each of the points have been denied.. but not refuted
several of my points have been ignored in your reply not refuted
All the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
unrefuted
All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups, many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
unrefuted
The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT.
Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.
downplayed but unrefuted

the vaccines don't stop transmission,
unrefuted
they don't stop infection
unrefuted
and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway,
downplayed but unrefuted
and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.
games played with stats

AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.
Info proving this is censored, downplayed, ignored and mocked ... but never fully debated or refuted.



As i said before, taken together the argument FOR vaccines is WEAK at best.
However the propaganda for them is EXTREMELY STRONG. (and the censorship/suppression of information is real)
Trying to access things objectively in this climate is not easy for anyone.

[revelarts]

“The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed,” Ioannidis said.
“For people younger than 45,
the infection fatality rate is almost 0%.
For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05%-0.3%.
For those above 70, it escalates substantially.”
Stanford University's disease prevention chairman Dr. John Ioannidis


Vaccines Benefits vs Risk for those under 40 is basically ZERO.
that is a fact.


the case for vaccines as a "mass solution" is WEAK at best.
(for a massive 'final solution' that remains to be seen)

[fj1200]

isn't the "difference" between 1 and 2.... 100%!!!!

So you want to look at the "difference" between 2 and 5 rather than as presented... 2 and 5... per 100,000?
In math class "the difference" may be part of an honest answer, but in real life the factor of 100,000 makes THE DIFFERENCE... and you know it FJ?

And it's the difference at the margins that makes all the impact. Medical costs are higher, covid patients are hospitalized, non-covid procedures are delayed, etc. Once things start going sideways then it's the difference that causes the problems. Start multiplying 100,000 times the population, times a difference of potentially 4... Let me know how that comes out because we've seen how various surges impact hospitals, etc.


your assertion was false.
And if the gov't and companies MANDATED walking 30 minutes on the job/school everyday OR NO JOB, NO SCHOOL, NO entry in bakeries, bars, or fast food places I suspect more than few would do it.

Whatever dude. I'll put you down in the government mandate column.


there are all the links to studies needed in the post,
If you'd actually taken time to look rather than assume there are none you would have seen them.
But here's one of the links embedded in the post before.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?73822-Tokyo-Medical-Association-press-conference-recommends-Ivermectin-for-Covid&p=987323#post987323

Great, we've all got studies. Some of yours and some of mine are probably valid.


Just as i suspected.:mad::mad::mad: :poke:

I've finally outed myself. :rolleyes:


Each of the points have been denied.. but not refuted
several of my points have been ignored in your reply not refuted
All the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
unrefuted
All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups, many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
unrefuted
The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT.
Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.
downplayed but unrefuted

the vaccines don't stop transmission,
unrefuted
they don't stop infection
unrefuted
and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway,
downplayed but unrefuted
and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.
games played with stats

AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.
Info proving this is censored, downplayed, ignored and mocked ... but never fully debated or refuted.



As i said before, taken together the argument FOR vaccines is WEAK at best.
However the propaganda for them is EXTREMELY STRONG. (and the censorship/suppression of information is real)
Trying to access things objectively in this climate is not easy for anyone.

Beliefs aren't facts.

[revelarts]

Another website for you to dismiss Fj

https://www.realnotrare.com

[fj1200]

Another website for you to dismiss Fj

https://www.realnotrare.com

I suppose I can dismiss it because others dismiss 90+% of the rest of the internet. :shrug:

[fj1200]

Each of the points have been denied.. but not refuted
several of my points have been ignored in your reply not refuted
All the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
unrefuted



We have track records for other vaccines and track records of vaccines in general.

https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/covid-19-vaccine-long-term-side-effects


All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups, many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
unrefuted

Correlation, causation. blah blah blah. Let's have someone do a study.



The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT.
Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.
downplayed but unrefuted


Table 2: Age-specific case rates by vaccination status, Jan. 15, 2021 – Oct. 1, 2021AgeGroupNumber ofUnvaccinated Peoplewith Positive COVID19 ELRsRate per100,000inUnvaccinatedPeopleNumber of FullyVaccinated Peoplewith Positive COVID19 ELRsRate per100,000 in FullyVaccinatedPeople
Impact
12-17years171,418 11,342.25 1,748 175.90 65 times higherin unvaccinated
18-29years338,288 12,700.31 7,236 311.63 41 times higherin unvaccinated
30-39years263,206 13,725.76 8,315 369.27 37 times higherin unvaccinated
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

link to table on page 3. It came from TX; it must be good.



the vaccines don't stop transmission,
unrefuted



I'm not sure of anyone who says it stops transmission 100%. I am living proof. The question is outcome. See study above.



they don't stop infection
unrefuted

I'm not sure of anyone who says it stops infection 100%. I am living proof. The question is outcome. See study above.



and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway,
downplayed but unrefuted

Explain that to the people who didn't recover.



and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.
games played with stats

A doubling, trebling, or quadrupling of the statistics may seem low if it's in the single digits but when you double something at the extreme it can make something even more critical. That's not a "game."




AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.
Info proving this is censored, downplayed, ignored and mocked ... but never fully debated or refuted.


The masses? That'll never happen.


As i said before, taken together the argument FOR vaccines is WEAK at best.
However the propaganda for them is EXTREMELY STRONG. (and the censorship/suppression of information is real)
Trying to access things objectively in this climate is not easy for anyone.

You have your beliefs. I have mine.

[BoogyMan]

I will take that question. I am fully vaxxed and I question the effectiveness of the vaccine. I am an engineer, I deal specifically with data. Data speaks volumes and anomalies in data should stand out be evaluated.

In statistical process management and control you evaluate anomalous outcomes but not all outcomes mean you modify your processes. In the case of these vaccines, which only meet the definition of the term tangentially, nobody is even willing to honestly look at the outcomes because the government is squashing any effort to consider any kind of review.

The modern left has control of the government and the media. Any question is immediately met with “the vaccines are safe and effective” as if any review is anathema and will poison the well from which we all drink. I have never seen a propaganda effort like this, ever.

Twitter and Facebook immediately tag anyone asking a question or posting even a positive story with a propaganda tag about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Something is afoot and the censorship and limitation of free discourse never comes from a good place.

Since there is a lack of ability to question outcomes nobody really knows WHAT the outcomes are at this point.


Well, I guess we can both have our own intuitive reviews but I'll go with my intuition until whatever shows me otherwise based on my subjective opinion on the quality of what I've seen. But without getting on the merry-go-round again I feel the need to ask; Do you think the vaccines are a net positive, net negative, or inconsequential in treating COVID?

[fj1200]

I will take that question. I am fully vaxxed and I question the effectiveness of the vaccine. I am an engineer, I deal specifically with data. Data speaks volumes and anomalies in data should stand out be evaluated.

In statistical process management and control you evaluate anomalous outcomes but not all outcomes mean you modify your processes. In the case of these vaccines, which only meet the definition of the term tangentially, nobody is even willing to honestly look at the outcomes because the government is squashing any effort to consider any kind of review.

The modern left has control of the government and the media. Any question is immediately met with “the vaccines are safe and effective” as if any review is anathema and will poison the well from which we all drink. I have never seen a propaganda effort like this, ever.

Twitter and Facebook immediately tag anyone asking a question or posting even a positive story with a propaganda tag about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Something is afoot and the censorship and limitation of free discourse never comes from a good place.

Since there is a lack of ability to question outcomes nobody really knows WHAT the outcomes are at this point.

I'm definitely not one to argue the specifics of statistics but I think what we have shows that they have been effective. Not that being vaccinated kept me from getting it but I think people who do get it fair better than not. I won't argue that they government and big media goes to far in advocating, or suppressing, but I will argue that there are those way to the other end of the spectrum that do essentially the same thing. Where's the reality? Somewhere in the middle as with many things but our tribalistic ways these days do not allow meaningful discussion.

So I'm on the net positive side of things and one of the links I saw in one of these threads mentioned that epidemiologists predicted, with viruses generally, that they mutate into less severe and more easily transmittable variants. I think that is playing out and hopefully will continue to and I'm hoping, predicting, that come summer time it will become common policy to just deal with covid as with any other virus that plagues us. I think the vaccine will end up being a useful bridge from the severe to the less severe.