-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?
- Thread starter gaiusmarius
- Start date
Granted. I was just indicating that some efficacy was observed.
It should be noted that the concentrations required for an effect in cell culture models bear little resemblance to human physiology given the absence of an active immune system working synergistically with a therapeutic agent, such as ivermectin. Furthermore, prolonged durations of exposure to a drug likely would require a fraction of the dosing in short-term cell model exposure
I'll translate that for you simpletons who didn't get past 8th grade. I know those were big words, and fractions were hard.
synergistically - This means in addition to, works together, both help each other. A gooder thing.
require a fraction of the dosing - that means less of the medication. Fractions are smaller parts of something, like a half-wit is less than a wit.
They worked with the standard dosage 12 mg, which is often a to low dosage, its good against certain parasites, but not against this virus as standard dosage.
I’m open to another. I’m not taking sides. I would really like it to work.
- NEWS
- 02 August 2021
The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.
Throughout the pandemic, the anti-parasite drug ivermectin has attracted much attention, particularly in Latin America, as a potential way to treat COVID-19. But scientists say that recent, shocking revelations of widespread flaws in the data of a preprint study reporting that the medication greatly reduces COVID-19 deaths dampens ivermectin’s promise — and highlights the challenges of investigating drug efficacy during a pandemic.
“I was shocked, as everyone in the scientific community probably were,” says Eduardo López-Medina, a paediatrician at the Centre for the Study of Paediatric Infections in Cali, Colombia, who was not involved with the study and who has investigated whether ivermectin can improve COVID-19 symptoms. “It was one of the first papers that led everyone to get into the idea ivermectin worked” in a clinical-trial setting, he adds.
The paper summarized the results of a clinical trial seeming to show that ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 death rates by more than 90%[SUP]1[/SUP] — among the largest studies of the drug’s ability to treat COVID-19 to date. But on 14 July, after internet sleuths raised concerns about plagiarism and data manipulation, the preprint server Research Square withdrew the paper because of “ethical concerns”.
Ahmed Elgazzar at Benha University in Egypt, who is one of the authors on the paper, told Nature he was not given a chance to defend his work before it was removed.
Early in the pandemic, scientists showed that ivermectin could inhibit the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in cells in laboratory studies[SUP]2[/SUP]. But data on ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19 in people are still scarce, and study conclusions conflict greatly, making the withdrawal of a major trial particularly noteworthy.
Although the World Health Organization advises against taking ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment outside clinical trials, the over-the-counter drug has become popular in some regions of the world. Some view it as a stopgap until vaccines become available in their areas, even though it has not yet been proven effective; scientists worry that it will also be seen as an alternative to vaccines, which are highly effective.
Ripple effects
The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.
High-profile coronavirus retractions raise concerns about data oversight
In an editorial note, Research Square said that it has launched a formal investigation into the concerns raised by Lawrence and his colleagues. According to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Shorouk, Egypt’s minister of higher education and scientific research is also examining the allegations.
The paper was “withdrawn from the Research Square platform without informing or asking me”, Elgazzar wrote in an e-mail to Nature. He defended the paper, and said of the plagiarism allegations that “often phrases or sentences are commonly used and referenced” when researchers read one another’s papers.
Although dozens of ivermectin clinical trials have been launched over the past year[SUP]3[/SUP], the Elgazzar paper was notable for announcing one of the first positive results, as well as for its size — it included 400 people with symptoms of COVID-19 — and the magnitude of the drug’s effect. Few therapies can claim such an impressive reduction in death rates. “It was a significant difference, and that stood out,” says Andrew Hill, who studies repurposed drugs at the University of Liverpool, UK. “It should have raised red flags even then.”
Lawrence agrees. “I was absolutely shocked that no one had uncovered it,” he says.
How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research
Before its withdrawal, the paper was viewed more than 150,000 times, cited more than 30 times and included in a number of meta-analyses that collect trial findings into a single, statistically weighted result. In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths[SUP]4[/SUP], the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect.
One of the authors of the meta-analysis, statistician Andrew Bryant at Newcastle University, UK, says that his team corresponded with Elgazzar before publishing the work to clarify some data. “We had no reason to doubt the integrity of [Professor] Elgazzar,” he said in an e-mail. He added that in a pandemic setting, no one can reanalyse all of the raw data from patient records when writing a review. Bryant went on to say that his group will revise the conclusion if investigations find the study to be unreliable. However, even if the study is removed, the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19, he says.
Reliable data needed
The paper’s withdrawal is not the first scandal to dog studies of ivermectin and COVID-19. Hill thinks many of the other ivermectin trial papers that he has scanned are likely to be flawed or statistically biased. Many rely on small sample sizes or were not randomized or well controlled, he says. And in 2020, an observational study of the drug was withdrawn after scientists raised concerns about it and a few other papers using data by the company Surgisphere that investigated a range of repurposed drugs against COVID-19. “We’ve seen a pattern of people releasing information that’s not reliable,” says Hill. “It’s hard enough to do work on COVID and treatment without people distorting databases.”
Carlos Chaccour, a global-health researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain, says it has been difficult to conduct rigorous studies on ivermectin. That’s partly because funders and academics in wealthy countries haven’t supported them, and, he suspects, have often dismissed trials of ivermectin because most of them have been done in lower-income countries. Furthermore, says Rodrigo Zoni, a cardiologist at the Corrientes Cardiology Institute in Argentina, it is difficult to recruit participants because many people — particularly in Latin America — are already taking the widely available drug in an attempt to prevent COVID-19.
How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing — in seven charts
Adding to the difficulty are conspiracy theories holding that ivermectin has been proven to work and that drug companies are depriving the public of a cheap cure. Chaccour says he has been called ‘genocidal’ for doing research on the drug rather than just endorsing it.
Although the jury is still out on ivermectin, many say the retraction speaks to the difficulty of assessing research during a pandemic. “I personally have lost all faith in the results of [ivermectin] trials published to date,” says Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia who helped Lawrence to analyse the Elgazzar paper. It’s not yet possible to assess whether ivermectin works against COVID-19 because the data currently available are not of sufficiently high quality, he says, adding that he is reading other ivermectin papers in his spare time, looking for signs of fraud or other problems.
Chaccour and others studying ivermectin say that proof of whether the drug is effective against COVID-19 rests on a handful of large, ongoing studies, including a trial in Brazil with more than 3,500 participants. By the end of 2021, says Zoni, around 33,000 people will have participated in some kind of ivermectin trial.
“I think it is our duty to exhaust all potential benefits,” says Chaccour, especially given that most countries still do not have widespread access to vaccines. “Ultimately if you do a trial and it fails, fine, but at least we tried.”
Nature 596, 173-174 (2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w
actually synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of the parts....
and "likely" is not definitive
for you overly smug people who flunked biology
Everybody’s a doctor. Snake oil’s on the menu. Can’t even use a dictionary. Here, eat these. Synergy. I’ll be the first to say,”I don’t know”. My Internet degree doesn’t cover it. I’m not going to promote crap for the sake of sounding smart. I’m not going to pretend to understand scientific literature that many very well educated scientists are still studying. Again that worthless Internet degree.
and it's selling like hotcakes too! LOL! "a fool and his money are soon parted"
"ultimately, if you do a trial & it fails, fine. but at least we tried." i'll go along with that. i hope another way to address the virus IS found. but...will those so mentally invested in it being a "miracle cure" move on if it DOES fail, as so far it has? or will it just turn into another shit-show of "you didn't give it a fair chance, you didn't use the right dose, big pharma wants it to fail, the media is HIDING THE TRUTH!" ? i know which one i'll put money on...
Here is an article 'splaining why the resident commie is spending so much time/energy opposing anything that isn't a poison jab. Alinsky demands it!
https://noqreport.com/2021/09/07/attacks-on-ivermectin-and-hcq-are-textbook-alinsky/
https://noqreport.com/2021/09/07/attacks-on-ivermectin-and-hcq-are-textbook-alinsky/
it isn't a horse de-wormer that's being administered ffs...it's an effective safe drug prescribed billions of times for homo sapiens.
if it works (as it has for some) it shouldn't be ignored. not just this drug either, no one is suggesting HCQ or other modalities like upping your zinc, vitamin D and C. they want you to take the GMO therapy in perpetuity.
the vaccines aren't working as a vaccine...they are more suspicious than the IVM, again imo, just like the masks did not work to flatten the curve, or the suggestions such as CDC guidance of washing hands, social distancing, and lockdowns...all of it BULLSHIT that did not work or there wouldn't be going on two years of lies about a virus with an over 99% percent chance of survival.
this is not medical advice, it's common sense advice. use yours. what informed consent means when you sign a 'waiver' to get the vaccine, is you know the risks as well as benefit.
CDC Bases Covid Jab Death Toll % on Doses – Not People, as Death Toll Topples all Other “Vaccines” for 3 Decades
Corey Lynn / September 6, 2021
For over 18 months Corey’s Digs has been reporting on the CDC’s inconsistencies, manipulated numbers, falsehoods, and blatant lies. Not only did the CDC bury influenza deaths under the guise of Covid, they also lumped pneumonia deaths with Covid, in addition to documenting anyone who died WITH Covid who was in a car accident, had a gunshot wound, kidney failure, or other life-threatening diseases, as a Covid death. Now, they are basing the percentage of jab-related Covid deaths on the number of doses administered rather than the number of people who received the jabs – an incredible mathematical error, surely done with intention.
Most people are fully aware that the CDC’s VAERS reporting system has lacked in reporting over the years, so it’s fairly safe to say that the death toll after receiving a Covid jab is under-documented to begin with. Furthermore, the CDC and HHS went above and beyond to document all death certificates into their database to escalate the number of people who died WITH Covid, not FROM Covid. Yet, they don’t seem to be documenting death certificates of those who died after receiving the Covid jab. The only “reporting” seems to be running through their VAERS system.
That said, here is a perfect and yet very simple example of how the CDC manipulates numbers directly on their website, assuming that the average person isn’t going to bother to do the math. The mainstream news, whose so-called journalists also won’t do the math, then take the information and spin it out to meet their narrative, much in the way they recently did with the FDA’s bait-and-switch on the Pfizer Covid jab’s so-called approval.
CDC Intentionally Decreases the Overall Percentage of Reported Deaths After Receiving Covid Jab
The CDC reported that the death toll on the VAERS reporting system indicates 6,968 deaths as of August 18, 2021. Next to the death toll they point out that the 6,968 deaths amount to (0.0019%) “among people who received a Covid-19 vaccine.” This is a totally false statement. They are basing it on the number of jabs administered, when most people have already received BOTH jabs. They indicate that 363 million doses have been administered. The population of the U.S. is only 328.2 million, therefore millions of people have received two doses. They are using the 363 million “doses” to establish the 0.0019%, which is NOT “among people,” but rather “doses,” and ultimately reduces the percentage by nearly half. This is done for perception, because percentages have a greater impact on a person’s mind.
Note that they state “reports of death after Covid-19 vaccination are rare.” Yes, perhaps the “reports” are rare because many are not even being reported, but the alarming death toll itself is even rarer, and they are downplaying it.
On a separate CDC page from the last week of August (it’s updated weekly), one can find the overall breakdown of how many people have received the jab, whether it be one dose or two. This is a critical number that plays into their incorrect math. A total of 203 million PEOPLE have received the jab, which is a considerably lower number than 363 million DOSES.
Let’s break this down based from actual CDC numbers:
1) 363 million doses administered (based on the CDC’s first link that stated deaths at 0.0019%)
2) 203 million people, or 61.1% of the population have received at least one dose
3) 172.2 million people, or 51.9% of the population have been fully vaccinated
4) 328.2 million people is the total population of the U.S.
5) 6,986 deaths after Covid jab as of August 18th – allegedly amounting to 0.0019% of people who received the jab.
Here’s the simple math:
203 million PEOPLE received at least one dose
6,986 PEOPLE died after receiving the jab (The percentage should be based on the number of PEOPLE who died who received a dose of the jab. It’s irrelevant whether they received one or two doses. A person could get 10 jabs and if they don’t die, are they going to say 10 people survived, or just one person survived all 10 jabs? Exactly.)
203 million PEOPLE x 0.0019% only accounts for 3,857 deaths
363 million DOSES x 0.0019% accounts for 6,897 deaths – THIS is how they arrived at their false percentage
If the CDC had done the math based on “people who received the vaccine” as they claimed, and as would be correct, that math would look like this:
The total number of deaths from 203 million PEOPLE who received the jab (6,986) = 0.0034%
The actual percentage of people that died after receiving the Covid jab is 0.0034%, not 0.0019%.
By doing that, they nearly cut their percentage in half. This may seem like a minimal percentage difference, but in terms of people who have died, that’s a difference of 3,040 people. They are basing deaths on doses rather than people receiving the doses, which makes a considerable difference, and is typical CDC trickery because they know how percentages impact the mind. This is how the CDC and mainstream news have manipulated numbers and minds since Covid hit the U.S. They refer to the CDC as the “experts” but the only thing they are experts at is manipulating numbers.
The task force and health department officials have all stated they are including anyone who dies from a heart attack, stroke, car accident, gunshot wound, kidney failure, or any other cause of death, as a “Covid death” IF they test positive with Covid pre or postmortem. Unfortunately, all most people here is that over half a million Americans have died FROM this virus. Imagine how the above percentages would drastically change, if the real numbers were published.
The CDC Can’t Reconcile Their Efficacy Claim
Perhaps the most telling of all, is the CDC’s claim on how effective the Covid jabs are. Aside from the aforementioned survival rate of 99.98% remaining strong for a year, without any increase after 203 million people have received the jab, this next point only adds to their disinformation.
On August 19, 2021, the CDC alleged that the Pfizer BioNTech jab was 95% effective at preventing the Covid virus in clinical trials, and that the mRNA jabs are 90% effective in the real world. And yet, in July, just one month prior, the CDC published a study showing that 74% of fully vaccinated people against Covid, who were in an infected area of Massachusetts, tested positive for Covid. How do they reconcile that discrepancy?
Here’s how: they are willing to take the hit on the false efficacy so they could inflate the fear around the alleged Delta variant to get more people to take the jab, while also blaming a “new variant” on the fact that the jabs don’t really prevent anyone from getting sick, and at the same time, allowed them to resurrect the mask mandates. A clever, not-so-clever little bunch of manipulators. Multiple mainstream news sources covered this, which is even more telling that this was their goal.
In pulling this stunt, they pulled the same trickery with the numbers. They stated that there were 469 people who tested positive for Covid, and that 74% were fully vaccinated. That would mean that 348 people had been fully vaccinated, and 121 were not. Since they had already established that 469 people tested positive for Covid, one would think they would be able to differentiate how many of those were the alleged Delta variant, but instead, they only mention that of “133 patients, 90% of specimens were the Delta variant,” which coincidently equals 120 people. They are trying to implant suggestive reasoning in people’s minds that therefore 90% of all 469 people likely had the alleged Delta variant, when in fact it is far more likely that the alleged Delta variant is non-existent, and the Covid jabs have no efficacy rate to a virus that was never isolated, and has over a 99.98% survival rate based on highly exaggerated case numbers by the CDC. This also establishes plausible deniability for the future, should they want to make the claim that the alleged Delta variant only affected those who hadn’t received the jab yet, in case too many people stopped getting the jab for fear it wouldn’t work on the Delta variant.
The study also found that fully vaccinated people who do get infected, carry just as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people. Pfizer’s fact sheet states “the duration of protection is currently unknown,” as do the other jab fact sheets. More plausible deniability to keep this scheme rolling.
A little over a year ago, many of us predicted that the jabs may cause people to get sick and possibly die, and wouldn’t necessarily prevent them from testing positive for Covid, especially since the tests are also faulty.
This entire plandemic is teetering on a falsehood that is so grand, it’s almost difficult keeping tally of all the lies rolled out to subdue people into getting the jab so the globalists could roll out their true master plan – the digital identity to get everyone on a QR code that will link to the Blockchain, hosting all data on each individual on a global scale to be surveilled and controlled.
Covid Jab Death Toll Topples all Other Vaccines While CDC Claims The Covid Jabs Are “Safe and Effective”
The Covid-19 jab isn’t the only jab that has potentially resulted in death. That said, let’s take a look at the comparison.
What is the first thing one might observe in the chart below? The fact that the Covid jabs have only been administered for 8 months, and nearly 7,000 deaths after receiving the jab have been reported to VAERS, versus many of these other vaccines that have been administered for decades, is a huge red flag, yet the CDC, HHS, NIH, politicians, and failed legacy media all continue to purport it as “safe and effective,” and “death is rare.” What constitutes as being “rare”? Is it “rare” that nearly (and likely far more) 7,000 deaths have resulted after receiving the jab? Is it “rare” that the FDA hasn’t put a halt to these jabs based on this astronomical number? It’s shocking, to say the least.
To put this in perspective, the CDC states that for the 2021-2022 flu season, there will be 188 to 200 million flu vaccines for the U.S. market. This chart below goes back to the early 1990s. Parents are ordered to get their children vaccinated with multiple vaccines for school. Those too are on this list. Therefore, the fact that there has been a large number of Covid jabs administered in such a short time, is still far less than the cumulative of many of these other vaccines listed in this chart, making it even more alarming.
This screenshot only reflects the top 22 rows. It goes on for quite awhile, but is in descending order with the highest deaths reported at the top. It includes all jabs to date and deaths reported after receiving those jabs, though reporting has always been low, so all numbers are likely higher. How can anyone, especially the FDA and CDC, look at these numbers and declare it as justifiable?
And while they continue to push the jabs as “safe and effective,” Pfizer and Merck are already working on antiviral pills that must be taken twice a day in conjunction with the jabs, and Pfizer is so confident theirs will be approved, they are already producing them before the clinical trials are finalized. Apparently “both drugs use technology that blocks the ability of a virus to replicate and spread further throughout the body.” And on another front, Gavi is raving about the “holy grail” of vaccines that will be a single vaccine to defeat all variants of coronavirus, with the hopes of producing it within a year’s time.
Word of Advice
Always do the math, and always follow the money trail. The CDC and the legacy media have been lying on numbers and percentages since this began in early 2020, and much longer in other cases. Corey’s Digs did a 5-part report that lays out many of these discrepancies, as well as how they use fear to manipulate the masses. Their percentages are almost always based off of an incorrect group for the equation at hand, or they stuff and bury numbers making it impossible to extrapolate the true numbers.
This isn’t just with Covid – this is a common trick they’ve been playing for years. They did this with the alleged 2019 measles outbreak as well, which was a precursor to test the waters on mandating vaccines in neighborhoods and colleges. After digging through 26 years of CDC documents, Corey’s Digs was able to establish their false reporting on the measles death rate that the CDC, WHO, and mainstream media had been inflating as a scare tactic. They all repeatedly reported 0.1% – 0.2% measles death rate based on measles cases in the U.S., when in fact it is only 0.07%. This may seem minimal, but that’s a difference of 4 deaths versus 12 deaths in 26 years, while they terrorized people with stock photos of a baby allegedly covered in measles, warning people how deadly it could be for babies. Four deaths in 26 years who died WITH the measles, while the government was paying out on 483 injury and death claims from the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella). There have been 255 MMR vaccine-related deaths reported, as seen in the chart above. To recap, that’s only 4 measles-related deaths, with 255 MMR vaccine-related deaths reported, for a vaccine to “prevent death from measles.” Reconcile that.
This is a multi-trillion-dollar industry and the only thing standing between their bank account and the jab, is us. They will exaggerate, manipulate, and flat out lie to terrorize people into believing they are going to die and that their bodies are incapable of healing themselves with proper care or therapeutics they refuse to make easily accessible. How many more people are willing to take these odds for a false sense of peace of mind? In fact, pick up the phone and call Pfizer’s customer service at 800-879-3477 and listen to the 7 minute message about side effects, in which they fail to mention death. They also state that both of their “vaccines” are the SAME formulation but one is only emergency use authorized, while the other is FDA approved, yet they can be used interchangeably. This is all explained in the recent article on Corey’s Digs about the FDA’s bait-and-switch.
Perhaps pointing these incredible mathematical discrepancies out is all for not – or perhaps it’s just what the doctor ordered for some people to spot the trickery and evolve out of the destructive spell they’ve been under. Even if this information only helps one person, it was worth it. They can take that to the bank!
https://thewashingtonstandard.com/cd...for-3-decades/
if it works (as it has for some) it shouldn't be ignored. not just this drug either, no one is suggesting HCQ or other modalities like upping your zinc, vitamin D and C. they want you to take the GMO therapy in perpetuity.
the vaccines aren't working as a vaccine...they are more suspicious than the IVM, again imo, just like the masks did not work to flatten the curve, or the suggestions such as CDC guidance of washing hands, social distancing, and lockdowns...all of it BULLSHIT that did not work or there wouldn't be going on two years of lies about a virus with an over 99% percent chance of survival.
this is not medical advice, it's common sense advice. use yours. what informed consent means when you sign a 'waiver' to get the vaccine, is you know the risks as well as benefit.
CDC Bases Covid Jab Death Toll % on Doses – Not People, as Death Toll Topples all Other “Vaccines” for 3 Decades
Corey Lynn / September 6, 2021
For over 18 months Corey’s Digs has been reporting on the CDC’s inconsistencies, manipulated numbers, falsehoods, and blatant lies. Not only did the CDC bury influenza deaths under the guise of Covid, they also lumped pneumonia deaths with Covid, in addition to documenting anyone who died WITH Covid who was in a car accident, had a gunshot wound, kidney failure, or other life-threatening diseases, as a Covid death. Now, they are basing the percentage of jab-related Covid deaths on the number of doses administered rather than the number of people who received the jabs – an incredible mathematical error, surely done with intention.
In this article, it exposes how the CDC is once again manipulating minds by manipulating death toll numbers from the Covid jab. It also shows discrepancies in efficacy, and an alarming chart comparison to other jabs with reported deaths over the past three decades, which should raise a red flag for everyone.
Most people are fully aware that the CDC’s VAERS reporting system has lacked in reporting over the years, so it’s fairly safe to say that the death toll after receiving a Covid jab is under-documented to begin with. Furthermore, the CDC and HHS went above and beyond to document all death certificates into their database to escalate the number of people who died WITH Covid, not FROM Covid. Yet, they don’t seem to be documenting death certificates of those who died after receiving the Covid jab. The only “reporting” seems to be running through their VAERS system.
That said, here is a perfect and yet very simple example of how the CDC manipulates numbers directly on their website, assuming that the average person isn’t going to bother to do the math. The mainstream news, whose so-called journalists also won’t do the math, then take the information and spin it out to meet their narrative, much in the way they recently did with the FDA’s bait-and-switch on the Pfizer Covid jab’s so-called approval.
CDC Intentionally Decreases the Overall Percentage of Reported Deaths After Receiving Covid Jab
The CDC reported that the death toll on the VAERS reporting system indicates 6,968 deaths as of August 18, 2021. Next to the death toll they point out that the 6,968 deaths amount to (0.0019%) “among people who received a Covid-19 vaccine.” This is a totally false statement. They are basing it on the number of jabs administered, when most people have already received BOTH jabs. They indicate that 363 million doses have been administered. The population of the U.S. is only 328.2 million, therefore millions of people have received two doses. They are using the 363 million “doses” to establish the 0.0019%, which is NOT “among people,” but rather “doses,” and ultimately reduces the percentage by nearly half. This is done for perception, because percentages have a greater impact on a person’s mind.
Note that they state “reports of death after Covid-19 vaccination are rare.” Yes, perhaps the “reports” are rare because many are not even being reported, but the alarming death toll itself is even rarer, and they are downplaying it.
On a separate CDC page from the last week of August (it’s updated weekly), one can find the overall breakdown of how many people have received the jab, whether it be one dose or two. This is a critical number that plays into their incorrect math. A total of 203 million PEOPLE have received the jab, which is a considerably lower number than 363 million DOSES.
1) 363 million doses administered (based on the CDC’s first link that stated deaths at 0.0019%)
2) 203 million people, or 61.1% of the population have received at least one dose
3) 172.2 million people, or 51.9% of the population have been fully vaccinated
4) 328.2 million people is the total population of the U.S.
5) 6,986 deaths after Covid jab as of August 18th – allegedly amounting to 0.0019% of people who received the jab.
Here’s the simple math:
203 million PEOPLE received at least one dose
6,986 PEOPLE died after receiving the jab (The percentage should be based on the number of PEOPLE who died who received a dose of the jab. It’s irrelevant whether they received one or two doses. A person could get 10 jabs and if they don’t die, are they going to say 10 people survived, or just one person survived all 10 jabs? Exactly.)
203 million PEOPLE x 0.0019% only accounts for 3,857 deaths
363 million DOSES x 0.0019% accounts for 6,897 deaths – THIS is how they arrived at their false percentage
If the CDC had done the math based on “people who received the vaccine” as they claimed, and as would be correct, that math would look like this:
The total number of deaths from 203 million PEOPLE who received the jab (6,986) = 0.0034%
The actual percentage of people that died after receiving the Covid jab is 0.0034%, not 0.0019%.
By doing that, they nearly cut their percentage in half. This may seem like a minimal percentage difference, but in terms of people who have died, that’s a difference of 3,040 people. They are basing deaths on doses rather than people receiving the doses, which makes a considerable difference, and is typical CDC trickery because they know how percentages impact the mind. This is how the CDC and mainstream news have manipulated numbers and minds since Covid hit the U.S. They refer to the CDC as the “experts” but the only thing they are experts at is manipulating numbers.
The task force and health department officials have all stated they are including anyone who dies from a heart attack, stroke, car accident, gunshot wound, kidney failure, or any other cause of death, as a “Covid death” IF they test positive with Covid pre or postmortem. Unfortunately, all most people here is that over half a million Americans have died FROM this virus. Imagine how the above percentages would drastically change, if the real numbers were published.
The CDC Can’t Reconcile Their Efficacy Claim
Perhaps the most telling of all, is the CDC’s claim on how effective the Covid jabs are. Aside from the aforementioned survival rate of 99.98% remaining strong for a year, without any increase after 203 million people have received the jab, this next point only adds to their disinformation.
On August 19, 2021, the CDC alleged that the Pfizer BioNTech jab was 95% effective at preventing the Covid virus in clinical trials, and that the mRNA jabs are 90% effective in the real world. And yet, in July, just one month prior, the CDC published a study showing that 74% of fully vaccinated people against Covid, who were in an infected area of Massachusetts, tested positive for Covid. How do they reconcile that discrepancy?
Here’s how: they are willing to take the hit on the false efficacy so they could inflate the fear around the alleged Delta variant to get more people to take the jab, while also blaming a “new variant” on the fact that the jabs don’t really prevent anyone from getting sick, and at the same time, allowed them to resurrect the mask mandates. A clever, not-so-clever little bunch of manipulators. Multiple mainstream news sources covered this, which is even more telling that this was their goal.
In pulling this stunt, they pulled the same trickery with the numbers. They stated that there were 469 people who tested positive for Covid, and that 74% were fully vaccinated. That would mean that 348 people had been fully vaccinated, and 121 were not. Since they had already established that 469 people tested positive for Covid, one would think they would be able to differentiate how many of those were the alleged Delta variant, but instead, they only mention that of “133 patients, 90% of specimens were the Delta variant,” which coincidently equals 120 people. They are trying to implant suggestive reasoning in people’s minds that therefore 90% of all 469 people likely had the alleged Delta variant, when in fact it is far more likely that the alleged Delta variant is non-existent, and the Covid jabs have no efficacy rate to a virus that was never isolated, and has over a 99.98% survival rate based on highly exaggerated case numbers by the CDC. This also establishes plausible deniability for the future, should they want to make the claim that the alleged Delta variant only affected those who hadn’t received the jab yet, in case too many people stopped getting the jab for fear it wouldn’t work on the Delta variant.
The study also found that fully vaccinated people who do get infected, carry just as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people. Pfizer’s fact sheet states “the duration of protection is currently unknown,” as do the other jab fact sheets. More plausible deniability to keep this scheme rolling.
A little over a year ago, many of us predicted that the jabs may cause people to get sick and possibly die, and wouldn’t necessarily prevent them from testing positive for Covid, especially since the tests are also faulty.
This entire plandemic is teetering on a falsehood that is so grand, it’s almost difficult keeping tally of all the lies rolled out to subdue people into getting the jab so the globalists could roll out their true master plan – the digital identity to get everyone on a QR code that will link to the Blockchain, hosting all data on each individual on a global scale to be surveilled and controlled.
Covid Jab Death Toll Topples all Other Vaccines While CDC Claims The Covid Jabs Are “Safe and Effective”
The Covid-19 jab isn’t the only jab that has potentially resulted in death. That said, let’s take a look at the comparison.
What is the first thing one might observe in the chart below? The fact that the Covid jabs have only been administered for 8 months, and nearly 7,000 deaths after receiving the jab have been reported to VAERS, versus many of these other vaccines that have been administered for decades, is a huge red flag, yet the CDC, HHS, NIH, politicians, and failed legacy media all continue to purport it as “safe and effective,” and “death is rare.” What constitutes as being “rare”? Is it “rare” that nearly (and likely far more) 7,000 deaths have resulted after receiving the jab? Is it “rare” that the FDA hasn’t put a halt to these jabs based on this astronomical number? It’s shocking, to say the least.
To put this in perspective, the CDC states that for the 2021-2022 flu season, there will be 188 to 200 million flu vaccines for the U.S. market. This chart below goes back to the early 1990s. Parents are ordered to get their children vaccinated with multiple vaccines for school. Those too are on this list. Therefore, the fact that there has been a large number of Covid jabs administered in such a short time, is still far less than the cumulative of many of these other vaccines listed in this chart, making it even more alarming.
This screenshot only reflects the top 22 rows. It goes on for quite awhile, but is in descending order with the highest deaths reported at the top. It includes all jabs to date and deaths reported after receiving those jabs, though reporting has always been low, so all numbers are likely higher. How can anyone, especially the FDA and CDC, look at these numbers and declare it as justifiable?
And while they continue to push the jabs as “safe and effective,” Pfizer and Merck are already working on antiviral pills that must be taken twice a day in conjunction with the jabs, and Pfizer is so confident theirs will be approved, they are already producing them before the clinical trials are finalized. Apparently “both drugs use technology that blocks the ability of a virus to replicate and spread further throughout the body.” And on another front, Gavi is raving about the “holy grail” of vaccines that will be a single vaccine to defeat all variants of coronavirus, with the hopes of producing it within a year’s time.
Word of Advice
Always do the math, and always follow the money trail. The CDC and the legacy media have been lying on numbers and percentages since this began in early 2020, and much longer in other cases. Corey’s Digs did a 5-part report that lays out many of these discrepancies, as well as how they use fear to manipulate the masses. Their percentages are almost always based off of an incorrect group for the equation at hand, or they stuff and bury numbers making it impossible to extrapolate the true numbers.
This isn’t just with Covid – this is a common trick they’ve been playing for years. They did this with the alleged 2019 measles outbreak as well, which was a precursor to test the waters on mandating vaccines in neighborhoods and colleges. After digging through 26 years of CDC documents, Corey’s Digs was able to establish their false reporting on the measles death rate that the CDC, WHO, and mainstream media had been inflating as a scare tactic. They all repeatedly reported 0.1% – 0.2% measles death rate based on measles cases in the U.S., when in fact it is only 0.07%. This may seem minimal, but that’s a difference of 4 deaths versus 12 deaths in 26 years, while they terrorized people with stock photos of a baby allegedly covered in measles, warning people how deadly it could be for babies. Four deaths in 26 years who died WITH the measles, while the government was paying out on 483 injury and death claims from the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella). There have been 255 MMR vaccine-related deaths reported, as seen in the chart above. To recap, that’s only 4 measles-related deaths, with 255 MMR vaccine-related deaths reported, for a vaccine to “prevent death from measles.” Reconcile that.
This is a multi-trillion-dollar industry and the only thing standing between their bank account and the jab, is us. They will exaggerate, manipulate, and flat out lie to terrorize people into believing they are going to die and that their bodies are incapable of healing themselves with proper care or therapeutics they refuse to make easily accessible. How many more people are willing to take these odds for a false sense of peace of mind? In fact, pick up the phone and call Pfizer’s customer service at 800-879-3477 and listen to the 7 minute message about side effects, in which they fail to mention death. They also state that both of their “vaccines” are the SAME formulation but one is only emergency use authorized, while the other is FDA approved, yet they can be used interchangeably. This is all explained in the recent article on Corey’s Digs about the FDA’s bait-and-switch.
Perhaps pointing these incredible mathematical discrepancies out is all for not – or perhaps it’s just what the doctor ordered for some people to spot the trickery and evolve out of the destructive spell they’ve been under. Even if this information only helps one person, it was worth it. They can take that to the bank!
https://thewashingtonstandard.com/cd...for-3-decades/
More cut and paste bullshit.
There is no supported evidence that ivermectin does a fucking thing in the face of Covid19. Only internet chatter and those who repeat the same false claims over and over and fucking over. Thinking that if they cut and paste enough unread articles written by idiots and fools that somehow they will magically become true.
There is no supported evidence that ivermectin does a fucking thing in the face of Covid19. Only internet chatter and those who repeat the same false claims over and over and fucking over. Thinking that if they cut and paste enough unread articles written by idiots and fools that somehow they will magically become true.
moose eater
Well-known member
Large scale study from Bangladesh says surgical masks do, indeed, reduce spread of COVID. See Medscape for the synopsis and links.
Large Study Affirms What We Know: Masks Work to Prevent COVID-19 (medscape.com)
**Of course, what we know from our experience here, and the not-so-accurate claims that masks don't work; just because you have a mask mandate in place, doesn't mean that folks abide by it, or that they use the noggin that's partly covered by the mask, and continue to distance properly.
**Edit: Just a note from the Great White Far North, where ignorance went WAY past bliss, like, a year ago, or more.
Fairbanks Memorial sets new record for Covid patients | Alerts | newsminer.com
Large Study Affirms What We Know: Masks Work to Prevent COVID-19 (medscape.com)
**Of course, what we know from our experience here, and the not-so-accurate claims that masks don't work; just because you have a mask mandate in place, doesn't mean that folks abide by it, or that they use the noggin that's partly covered by the mask, and continue to distance properly.
**Edit: Just a note from the Great White Far North, where ignorance went WAY past bliss, like, a year ago, or more.
Fairbanks Memorial sets new record for Covid patients | Alerts | newsminer.com
Last edited:
"Scared for my vaxed friend, now developing heart problems ........."
I Read this some place where someone said "Ivermectin, NAC Melatonin ,Nicotine Super greens."
"I've heard these things help but there's obviously no data on it because adverse events to c19 vaccines are irrelevant to the medical authorities."
I did read the nicotine part that helps it ends it cells life after the Normal 7 days instead of staying open for 18 months.Reading into even deeper,with foods having Nicotine.
The most common are tomatoes, eggplant, and potatoes. All of those, and tobacco as well, are in the Solanaceae family, the “nightshade” family, and other members of that plant family contain some amount of nicotine. Economically, the richest and most viable source is tobacco.
All of the Solanaceae family (potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, bell peppers, chilli peppers, etc), tea (Camellia Sinensis) and many others contain small amounts of nicotine. We all test positive for nicotine.
No person has ever tested negative for nicotine in any of the large scale clinical studies that investigated nicotine presence in the population.
It seems more than likely that nicotine will eventually be assigned status as another B vitamin, like nicotinic acid (aka niacin, vitamin B3), once the propaganda has finally been defeated. It may have to be re-named to something more anodyne, as nicotinic acid had to be, in order to get it through the committees.
Nicotine is an active dietary component with significant benefits for some people, just like nicotinic acid. Another word for this is a nutrient. Perhaps when the taboo has died back a bit, it will also get a B vitamin classification.
I Read this some place where someone said "Ivermectin, NAC Melatonin ,Nicotine Super greens."
"I've heard these things help but there's obviously no data on it because adverse events to c19 vaccines are irrelevant to the medical authorities."
I did read the nicotine part that helps it ends it cells life after the Normal 7 days instead of staying open for 18 months.Reading into even deeper,with foods having Nicotine.
The most common are tomatoes, eggplant, and potatoes. All of those, and tobacco as well, are in the Solanaceae family, the “nightshade” family, and other members of that plant family contain some amount of nicotine. Economically, the richest and most viable source is tobacco.
All of the Solanaceae family (potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, bell peppers, chilli peppers, etc), tea (Camellia Sinensis) and many others contain small amounts of nicotine. We all test positive for nicotine.
No person has ever tested negative for nicotine in any of the large scale clinical studies that investigated nicotine presence in the population.
It seems more than likely that nicotine will eventually be assigned status as another B vitamin, like nicotinic acid (aka niacin, vitamin B3), once the propaganda has finally been defeated. It may have to be re-named to something more anodyne, as nicotinic acid had to be, in order to get it through the committees.
Nicotine is an active dietary component with significant benefits for some people, just like nicotinic acid. Another word for this is a nutrient. Perhaps when the taboo has died back a bit, it will also get a B vitamin classification.
Bullshit
