Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus #5: We're in this together!

About Covid vaccines: Opinion on mandates? Your personal situation?

  • I support vaccine mandates for all jobs

    Votes: 24 26.1%

  • I support vaccine mandates for health & aged care jobs

    Votes: 9 9.8%

  • I don't care either way, it's up to each company

    Votes: 4 4.3%

  • Vaccine mandates are immoral and/or unjustifiable

    Votes: 46 50.0%

  • My employer has mandated the vaccine - I got it to keep my job

    Votes: 13 14.1%

  • My employer has mandated the vaccine - I decided to quit my job

    Votes: 8 8.7%

  • My employer has left the decision to get the vaccine optional

    Votes: 8 8.7%

  • I'm not sure where my employer stands on this issue

    Votes: 14 15.2%
  • Total voters
    92

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The use of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy is now generally considered safe for protection against COVID-19 in countries such as New Zealand, USA, and Australia. However, the influential CDC sponsored article by Shimabukuro et al. (2021) used to support this idea, on closer inspection, provides little assurance, particularly for those exposed in early pregnancy. The study presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy, since the majority of women in the calculation were exposed to the mRNA product after the outcome period was defined (20 weeks’ gestation).

In this article, we draw attention to these errors and recalculate the risk of this outcome based on the cohort that was exposed to the vaccine before 20 weeks’ gestation. Our re-analysis indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion 7 to 8 times higher than the original authors’ results (p < 0.001) and the typical average for pregnancy loss during this time period.

In light of these findings, key policy decisions have been made using unreliable and questionable data. We conclude that the claims made using these data on the safety of exposure of women in early pregnancy to mRNA-based vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are unwarranted and recommend that those policy decisions be revisited.
Click to expand...

 
twotooto said:
Right, ok, fair enough :thumbsu:

So when/if you do respond, in addition to addressing my reply to your initial post, how about actually contributing some of your own thoughts about the events of the last 20 months.

Perhaps you could also establish your position on a few key issues ~

Vaccine mandates? Yes, no?
Vaccine passports? Yes, no?
If you are against vaccine mandates and vaccine passports why don't you ever post about it? Pretty serious issue with far-reaching implications, yeah?
Restricted healthcare for unvaccinated? Yes, no?
Theory about what is happening last 20+ months?
What should happen going forward?

And please, take your time good sir. I eagerly await your response.
Click to expand...
Hmmm maybe I should make the poll public next time?? Those who care: react with "Like" for public, or "Disagree" for private
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

www.cdc.gov

Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized ...

This report describes mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients as having greater immunity from COVID-19 infection than previously infected, unvaccinated persons.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
The CDC study contradicts a much larger Israeli study that was conducted this summer.

New Civil Liberties Alliance Attorney Jenin Younes wrote: Anyone who has like five minutes can see how blatantly the CDC lies, in this "study", and then one should begin to question everything the CDC has ever said about COVID-19.

Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, tweeted the CDC study has "a major statistical flaw and the 5x conclusion is wrong."

"This @CDCgov study in @CDCMMWR has a major statistical flaw, and the 5x conclusion is wrong. It implicitly assumes that hospitalized respiratory patients are representative of the population, which they are not. Trying to connect with authors," he wrote.

Dr. Mahesh Shenai, M.D., a Virginia neurosurgeon said "This MMWR article is a confluence of methodological flaws, that amplify to serve the predetermined message of the CDC."

Former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson wrote: "The CDC study is meaningless gibberish that would never have been published if the agency did not face huge political pressure to get people vaccinated."

Meanwhile, on Nov. 5, federal employees claiming to have natural immunity from COVID-19 infection filed a class-action lawsuit against members of President Biden's COVID task force.

The defendants named in the suit include National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeffrey Zients, and other administration officials.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the lawsuit claims the mandate is "at the very least, arbitrary and capricious in addition to being overbroad and poorly designed," violating constitutional rights against "unnecessary medical treatment" and the emergency use authorization (EUA) statute that still governs all but one vaccine."
 
www.washingtontimes.com

Applying brakes on ‘Warp Speed’ COVID-19 vaccinations for children

Operation Warp Speed successfully enabled rapid deployment of vaccines under emergency use authorization, but we believe there are urgent reasons to apply the brakes on mass vaccine mandates for children.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

Authors: Larry Kwak, MD, PhD was named to the TIME100 for his work in cancer vaccines and is a former advisor to FDA; Steven Rosen, MD is Dir of a US NCI-designated Comp Cancer Center - he dev monoclonal Ab & drugs for cancer; Idit Shachar, PhD served as a department chair.

Disturbing short-term complications from COVID-19 vaccines in adults, including myocarditis, blood clots in the brain, and neurological disorders, warrant us to pause. But we must be transparent that the real threat to children is the unknown long-term complications.

"Let us patiently wait for the completion of long-term safety studies before we rush ahead blindly with blanket public health solutions that may cause unintentional and irreparable harm."

RNA-based vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) could trigger any number of autoimmune diseases, which can take years to manifest. This is because the resulting combination of viral and normal self-proteins expressed by any cell, which takes up mRNA, creates a brand-new target on normal cells, which the immune system potentially recognizes as foreign and attacks.

mRNA also activates danger sensors in the primal immune system, which in turn indirectly promotes the release of pro-inflammation factors, specifically interferons, which have been associated with autoimmunity. This issue is underscored by a clinical trial of an mRNA lung cancer vaccine in 2019, in which blood tests revealed elevated indicators for autoimmunity concerns in 20% of patients.

Immune responses directly against RNA molecules themselves cause autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus. In 2014 in the early days of the technology, an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine inventor published on this potential long-term concern of mRNA vaccines.

Finally, none of the mRNA vaccines has a built-in “off” switch to control where they travel in the body and how long they persist there.

Published animal safety studies showed traces of COVID-19 spike protein in the brain, heart, and other vital organs, and the European Medicines Agency’s assessment report acknowledged that low levels of mRNA itself were detected in most tissues. The potential consequences of vaccines crossing the natural blood-brain barrier in children’s developing brains are of the utmost concern to all future humanity.

One last theoretical concern is the Jannsen or AZ vaccine, which uses a virus stripped of its own genes to deliver payload DNA. Such virus vectors can cause cancer when they randomly insert their payload near a gene that causes cancer. This is more than a hypothetical concern, as this year, a clinical trial of gene therapy for sickle cell disease (admittedly, using a different virus) was suspended when two patients who who received the therapy more than five years ago developed blood cancers.

A recent scientific study of risk-benefit analysis in children showed conservatively that there is five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs. those attributable to contracting COVID-19 among the elderly.

The long-term side effects are unknown. Bottom line, no health professional in good conscience can look a parent in the eye today and say that these vaccines are unequivocally safe."
https://t.co/zr4XiSVM8c?amp=1
 
BlueE said:
www.washingtontimes.com

Applying brakes on ‘Warp Speed’ COVID-19 vaccinations for children

Operation Warp Speed successfully enabled rapid deployment of vaccines under emergency use authorization, but we believe there are urgent reasons to apply the brakes on mass vaccine mandates for children.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

Authors: Larry Kwak, MD, PhD was named to the TIME100 for his work in cancer vaccines and is a former advisor to FDA; Steven Rosen, MD is Dir of a US NCI-designated Comp Cancer Center - he dev monoclonal Ab & drugs for cancer; Idit Shachar, PhD served as a department chair.

Disturbing short-term complications from COVID-19 vaccines in adults, including myocarditis, blood clots in the brain, and neurological disorders, warrant us to pause. But we must be transparent that the real threat to children is the unknown long-term complications.

"Let us patiently wait for the completion of long-term safety studies before we rush ahead blindly with blanket public health solutions that may cause unintentional and irreparable harm."

RNA-based vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) could trigger any number of autoimmune diseases, which can take years to manifest. This is because the resulting combination of viral and normal self-proteins expressed by any cell, which takes up mRNA, creates a brand-new target on normal cells, which the immune system potentially recognizes as foreign and attacks.

mRNA also activates danger sensors in the primal immune system, which in turn indirectly promotes the release of pro-inflammation factors, specifically interferons, which have been associated with autoimmunity. This issue is underscored by a clinical trial of an mRNA lung cancer vaccine in 2019, in which blood tests revealed elevated indicators for autoimmunity concerns in 20% of patients.

Immune responses directly against RNA molecules themselves cause autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus. In 2014 in the early days of the technology, an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine inventor published on this potential long-term concern of mRNA vaccines.

Finally, none of the mRNA vaccines has a built-in “off” switch to control where they travel in the body and how long they persist there.

Published animal safety studies showed traces of COVID-19 spike protein in the brain, heart, and other vital organs, and the European Medicines Agency’s assessment report acknowledged that low levels of mRNA itself were detected in most tissues. The potential consequences of vaccines crossing the natural blood-brain barrier in children’s developing brains are of the utmost concern to all future humanity.

One last theoretical concern is the Jannsen or AZ vaccine, which uses a virus stripped of its own genes to deliver payload DNA. Such virus vectors can cause cancer when they randomly insert their payload near a gene that causes cancer. This is more than a hypothetical concern, as this year, a clinical trial of gene therapy for sickle cell disease (admittedly, using a different virus) was suspended when two patients who who received the therapy more than five years ago developed blood cancers.

A recent scientific study of risk-benefit analysis in children showed conservatively that there is five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs. those attributable to contracting COVID-19 among the elderly.

The long-term side effects are unknown. Bottom line, no health professional in good conscience can look a parent in the eye today and say that these vaccines are unequivocally safe."
https://t.co/zr4XiSVM8c?amp=1
Click to expand...

These times show us who are monsters and who are humans. Those censoring us are monsters. Those in this thread trolling us monsters. Dont engage them.

Let's build a vibe. Humanity is on our side, don't let monsters effect your energy
Dont feed them.
We know how to love, they don't. Souless.

You're a brave courageous soul for speaking up. Children are watching. Lets be the light in the dark. Lets unite.

Ghandi

You obey an evil system by following.its laws and deceees. A good person will resist an evil system with thier whole heart and soul.

It is evil whats happening. Only evil supports evil.
 
BlueE said:
The data says nothing about transmission.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. The data shows some protection at stopping
ANY infection for up to 20 weeks.

Part A of your own data.

Part B then deals with preventing critical serious, critical or fatal infections.

If you don't get ANY infection, you don't get COVID. If you don't get it you can't pass it on. Transmission is slowed.
 
Malifice said:
Yes it does. The data shows some protection at stopping
ANY infection for up to 20 weeks.

Part A of your own data.

Part B then deals with preventing critical serious, critical or fatal infections.

If you don't get ANY infection, you don't get COVID. If you don't get it you can't pass it on. Transmission is slowed.
Click to expand...
The authors of the research specifically say you can't draw conclusions about transmission with their data. I can't believe you don't understand why!

You keep making illegitimate conclusions with the data and false equivalence arguments.

You did post a study that looked at transmission and vaccinated transmitted to 40% of people that were also vaccinated.

That Melbourne Cup and Vic nightclubs are super spreaders!
 

“The Complaint filed today in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk, Virginia states that Sentara Healthcare is “preventing terminally ill COVID patients from exercising their right to choose and to receive safe, potentially life-saving treatment determined to be appropriate for them by their attending physician.”

Shits getting real. FLCCC Protocol to be tested in court.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Malifice said:
No they are not. There is zero peer reviewed evidence (or indeed any evidence at all) to support that.
Click to expand...
We don’t need peer reviewed evidence to show that there is an increase in death rates, we just need to look at the numbers. If these jabs really are effective then overall death rates should be reducing as well.
 
Malifice said:
Yes it does. The data shows some protection at stopping
ANY infection for up to 20 weeks.

Part A of your own data.

Part B then deals with preventing critical serious, critical or fatal infections.

If you don't get ANY infection, you don't get COVID. If you don't get it you can't pass it on. Transmission is slowed.
Click to expand...
What this proves is that none of these jabs are vaccines - it is admitted that they don't prevent spread. What they are is experimental.

If nothing else, the political left's robust support of all this insanity has revealed to the entire world their hypocrisy and lies. All the crocodile tears over racial equality, gay rights, women's rights, trans-gender ...was all bollocks - all that compassion was a show. These people want what everyone wants, power, prestige and privilege. They just can't be honest about it.

The modern left has become a hoax. It has long ago betrayed its own foundations. The fanaticism with which the modern left embraced the pandemic lockdowns, masks, restrictions and vaccines should have been expected but it still came as a shock that they jumped into the lockstep with a goose step. This is a movement of resentment and spite for anything honest or decent . It has been led by twisted, ambitious little sado-masochistic Iago's.

What do you think?
 
BlueE said:
The authors of the research specifically say you can't draw conclusions about transmission with their data.
Click to expand...

Wut? The authors literally state a 70 percent initial protection against ANY infection at all, declining to zero over 20 weeks.

How the literal **** can something that makes it 70 percent less likely you'll catch a disease, not reduce rates of transmission that disease while that protection is active?

****s sake man. Condoms don't totally protect you from AIDS and other STIs either, but wearing them certainly reduces transmission of those diseases doesn't it?

If everyone was taking tablets that made us 70 percent less likely to catch the Flu, then the Flu would spread much slower wouldn't it?

You blokes are so ideologically dedicated to your madness that no amout of logic, reason or science will ever reach you. It's just mind boggling to watch.
 
Evolved1 said:
Not a lot different. It's been a pretty horrible 18 months in Melbourne and not something I'd want to go through again.

Dan Andrews has said the vaccine mandate will stay well into 2022 with boosters required to keep your vaccine passport up to date. NSW seem to be going down a different route, but I can see at least some of the other states following Victoria's lead. If it comes down to being locked out from virtually all social and sporting activities as well as losing your job vs taking the booster, there are very few people who won't take the jab again in 6 months time.

I'd like to pick and choose venues based on whether they have a vaccine mandate if that was an option. It's just not really an option here. Since opening up in Melbourne, I've had to show my vaccine passport at 3/4 of restaurants I've been to, and had to upload it to gym and work websites.
Click to expand...
People just need a targeted approach if they understandably don't want to give up their whole life. Pick the biggest players in each industry to boycott for maximum publicity, and they are also the ones with the ears of Dan Andrews who will have their complaints heard when their business is ****ed.

Eg keep doing your community sport but boycott AFL, Aus Open, Ashes. Go outside those venues and protest against the passports instead. Do the same for Crown, Bunnings, McDonald's, Woolworths etc.
 
Evolved1 said:
Not a lot different. It's been a pretty horrible 18 months in Melbourne and not something I'd want to go through again.

Dan Andrews has said the vaccine mandate will stay well into 2022 with boosters required to keep your vaccine passport up to date. NSW seem to be going down a different route, but I can see at least some of the other states following Victoria's lead. If it comes down to being locked out from virtually all social and sporting activities as well as losing your job vs taking the booster, there are very few people who won't take the jab again in 6 months time.

I'd like to pick and choose venues based on whether they have a vaccine mandate if that was an option. It's just not really an option here. Since opening up in Melbourne, I've had to show my vaccine passport at 3/4 of restaurants I've been to, and had to upload it to gym and work websites.
Click to expand...
I'm lucky in that I can easily hop across the border. It's fascinating, even though both states are running the vaccine passport system, how much more relaxed NSW is. For one example, I went to a Vic pub after work last week, thought i'd sit out in the beer garden, and my mate would go and get a couple of beers. No one else around. They wouldn't pour him two beers until they'd seen my passport too. So we left and went to NSW. Straight in.
 
:think: https://worldhealth.net/news/35-approved-prescription-drugs-later-pulled-market/

You may not be aware that many drugs have gained FDA approval but later on have been recalled from the markets. Some mistakenly argue that approval means that a drug is safe, but just because a drug has gained approval/clearance does not necessarily mean that it is safe, and it does not guarantee it to be free of unwanted or serious side effects. This is not to say that all medications are bad, more so to be aware of any side effects that you may be experiencing from prescriptions, and follow up on it with your physician.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top