Page 459 of 464 FirstFirst ... 359409449455456457458459460461462463 ... LastLast
Results 9,161 to 9,180 of 9275

Thread: The WoV Thread

  1. #9161
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    1) The boosters are of zero help after two weeks. One of the main problems is that people engage in more risky behaviors after having been double vaxxed and boosted, so that these people are actually likely to show a negative vaccine effect in the future. In other words, they may be more likely to get infected than the unvaxxed because their behaviors have been riskier.

    2) If people have taken vaccines and boosters, and the vaccines level out at zero efficacy at some point (a couple of weeks for boosters), then the people who have taken the vaccines and boosters have absorbed all of the risks of the vaccines and boosters sans any real benefits. Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues.

    I found it. Here's a lecture that sums up the letter from Harvard and some other studies and tries to tie the stuff together in some kind of overall context.


    Your original statement "having gotten two shots is actually a negative against the latest three strains. There is, at best, no protection." is not true. I read the study and I didn't see this. Yes, booster/vaccine is far far less useful against most of the new variants but never do they say 0. I also don't see anywhere they talk of a negative. Perhaps you are right in that it alters behavior but people who avoided the vaccine seem to not be particularly scared of the virus so color me skeptical on that one.

    I'm not aware of vaccines having any longterm health issues. Yes, some people apparently get really sick when they get it but I have not heard of a vaccine causing longterm effects although I'm sure some people died from their reaction. There seems to be a ton of misinterpretation and speculation on your part AFAIK.

    Anyway I said I wasn't going to post and I mean that. The problem here is that SO MANY of the posters on this forum go to redietz for their news. I felt the need to push this issue.
    I wander through the path of life. Wondering. Wondering what my next signature on VCT should be.

  2. #9162
    Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
    Doesn't it take about two weeks for the vaccines to begin to work, in the first place? And, the boosters more so to cut the level of severity of such infection in older persons?


    What people do or not do doesn't change the efficacy of the vaccines, themselves.

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    If people have taken vaccines and boosters, and the vaccines level out at zero efficacy at some point (a couple of weeks for boosters), then the people who have taken the vaccines and boosters have absorbed all of the risks of the vaccines and boosters sans any real benefits. Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues.
    Illogical.

    How people behave changes the likelihood of infection. I didn't say it had anything to do with vaccine efficacy. I was replying to the question of why folks with boosters needed to go get insurance, which was a sarcastic but not inaccurate supposition.

    You had best catch up on how and why people were defined as "unvaccinated" for the first two weeks after they had been vaccinated. There appears to be a general immunological issue in the first weeks after vaccine -- possibly a kind of immunosuppressive effect. Pfizer managed to wrangle those first two weeks post-vaccination as being defined as "unvaccinated." Pfizer didn't do that by accident.

    Glad you label something logical as illogical. It enables me to end this discussion without feeling any sense of guilt that I'm not communicating clearly.

    But please let us know what you think of the Dr. Been video.

  3. #9163
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Kind of an interesting development over at WoV. For those that don't read that forum, a little recap, because this intriguing. The Mdawg thread draws very little interest and comments except from Mdawg himself with his daily reports. So Mdawg escalated, as these guys always do to generate more attention. (think Singer). Mdawg reported a lossof nearly quarter of a million dollars the other day (one day play). That generated the attention he was hoping for as a number of players weighed in skeptical.

    The one person that weighed in that I found interesting is Shackleford, who wanted to know how Mdawg would go about verifying this should someone accept the challenge that is included with every Mdawg post.

    So is Shackleford finally about to challenge Mdawg's claims. I mean a quarter million dollar loss in one session ought to be able to be fairly easily verified right? Or as I suspect, does Shackleford see an opportunity for another payday, hoping Mdawg will pay him yet again, to back away, keep quiet and not pursue any challenge?


    If I were a betting man.....
    Is “loss” a typo?

    MDAWG has it as +226k

    Or are you just trolling him? lol

  4. #9164
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Your original statement "having gotten two shots is actually a negative against the latest three strains. There is, at best, no protection." is not true. I read the study and I didn't see this. Yes, booster/vaccine is far far less useful against most of the new variants but never do they say 0. I also don't see anywhere they talk of a negative. Perhaps you are right in that it alters behavior but people who avoided the vaccine seem to not be particularly scared of the virus so color me skeptical on that one.

    I'm not aware of vaccines having any longterm health issues. Yes, some people apparently get really sick when they get it but I have not heard of a vaccine causing longterm effects although I'm sure some people died from their reaction. There seems to be a ton of misinterpretation and speculation on your part AFAIK.

    Anyway I said I wasn't going to post and I mean that. The problem here is that SO MANY of the posters on this forum go to redietz for their news. I felt the need to push this issue.
    It's like any other Flu.
    Catch it.
    Sick for 4 days.
    Business as usual.
    The more times you catch it, the better.

  5. #9165
    Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
    Oh, well, I guess that old, Red, dug himself that hole in the ground, until the end of his imaginary tour of duty. Too many chickenshits around here. Ha.
    How bout answering the burger question, pal?

  6. #9166
    Originally Posted by PositiveVariance View Post

    MDAWG has it as +226k

    Or are you just trolling him? lol
    Good God, did I write "loss"? And looks like not once but twice. Tells you what I was really thinking about his "big" session result.

    Even with my mistake, writing it on the fly, everyone knows the guys ONLY wins so hopefully everyone recognized my mistake. Or was it a mistake?
    Rob Singer / Robert Argentino: Failed Advantage Player, lifelong degenerate losing gambler and now failed gambling forums troll.

  7. #9167
    Burgers and fries are a tasty combination. Sometimes I eat some of the fries first and other times I eat some of the burger first. I never place the fries on the burger - I believe it is not uncommon to put the fries on the burger in Pittsburgh. A side of onion rings and a hamburger is also a great combination but this is out of scope.

  8. #9168
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Burgers and fries are a tasty combination. Sometimes I eat some of the fries first and other times I eat some of the burger first. I never place the fries on the burger - I believe it is not uncommon to put the fries on the burger in Pittsburgh. A side of onion rings and a hamburger is also a great combination but this is out of scope.
    I had a tasty burger meal with fries and soda for $7.36. A similar meal cost me about $14 at a competing restaurant.
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/Zk2WAFzDcrJ7pjNB7

    Take comfort in the fact that no one is actually backing up his wishes to have you permanantly banned.


    Smart is knowing a Tomato is a fruit.

    Wise is knowing a Tomato doesn't belong in a fruit salad.



    Sorry, can't help you, reached my Posting Limit!

  9. #9169
    Originally Posted by Tasha View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Burgers and fries are a tasty combination. Sometimes I eat some of the fries first and other times I eat some of the burger first. I never place the fries on the burger - I believe it is not uncommon to put the fries on the burger in Pittsburgh. A side of onion rings and a hamburger is also a great combination but this is out of scope.
    I had a tasty burger meal with fries and soda for $7.36. A similar meal cost me about $14 at a competing restaurant.
    What’s your order of operations for eating your burger and fries? Fries first, burger first, or back and forth? And do you put fries on top of the burger?

    Btw, if you’re making a cheeseburger yourself I like to put the cheese in the middle of the burger patty and cook it on the inside. Ooey gooey deliciousness.

  10. #9170
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    1) The boosters are of zero help after two weeks. One of the main problems is that people engage in more risky behaviors after having been double vaxxed and boosted, so that these people are actually likely to show a negative vaccine effect in the future. In other words, they may be more likely to get infected than the unvaxxed because their behaviors have been riskier.

    2) If people have taken vaccines and boosters, and the vaccines level out at zero efficacy at some point (a couple of weeks for boosters), then the people who have taken the vaccines and boosters have absorbed all of the risks of the vaccines and boosters sans any real benefits. Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues.

    I found it. Here's a lecture that sums up the letter from Harvard and some other studies and tries to tie the stuff together in some kind of overall context.


    Your original statement "having gotten two shots is actually a negative against the latest three strains. There is, at best, no protection." is not true. I read the study and I didn't see this. Yes, booster/vaccine is far far less useful against most of the new variants but never do they say 0. I also don't see anywhere they talk of a negative. Perhaps you are right in that it alters behavior but people who avoided the vaccine seem to not be particularly scared of the virus so color me skeptical on that one.

    I'm not aware of vaccines having any longterm health issues. Yes, some people apparently get really sick when they get it but I have not heard of a vaccine causing longterm effects although I'm sure some people died from their reaction. There seems to be a ton of misinterpretation and speculation on your part AFAIK.

    Anyway I said I wasn't going to post and I mean that. The problem here is that SO MANY of the posters on this forum go to redietz for their news. I felt the need to push this issue.
    I would recommend to expand your horizons. If you haven't been aware of long term effects, you haven't been looking, frankly. It's not like these were my preferred directions -- I'm a child of moon landings and fervent optimism regarding science. I suggest as starting points the essay published in the British Medical Journal a few months back regarding the lack of evidence-based medicine and the corrosion of the entire clinical trial process. The BMJ is quite conservative and the oldest of the medical journals. Also, Phil Harper's substack writings regarding the Pfizer documents that a Texas court forced Pfizer to release. Pfizer wanted to sit on them for, get this, 75 years.

    If you watch the Been lecture, you'll early on get to the explanation of the zero efficacy points.

    FYI -- the Phase 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine should be completed sometime in early 2024. That is not a typo.

  11. #9171
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    3,813
    DIY smashburger.

    yum
    What, Me Worry?

  12. #9172
    Originally Posted by Tasha View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Burgers and fries are a tasty combination. Sometimes I eat some of the fries first and other times I eat some of the burger first. I never place the fries on the burger - I believe it is not uncommon to put the fries on the burger in Pittsburgh. A side of onion rings and a hamburger is also a great combination but this is out of scope.
    I had a tasty burger meal with fries and soda for $7.36. A similar meal cost me about $14 at a competing restaurant.
    $7.36 is fairly reasonable in today's highly inflationary environment.

  13. #9173
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    1) The boosters are of zero help after two weeks. One of the main problems is that people engage in more risky behaviors after having been double vaxxed and boosted, so that these people are actually likely to show a negative vaccine effect in the future. In other words, they may be more likely to get infected than the unvaxxed because their behaviors have been riskier.

    2) If people have taken vaccines and boosters, and the vaccines level out at zero efficacy at some point (a couple of weeks for boosters), then the people who have taken the vaccines and boosters have absorbed all of the risks of the vaccines and boosters sans any real benefits. Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues.

    I found it. Here's a lecture that sums up the letter from Harvard and some other studies and tries to tie the stuff together in some kind of overall context.


    Your original statement "having gotten two shots is actually a negative against the latest three strains. There is, at best, no protection." is not true. I read the study and I didn't see this. Yes, booster/vaccine is far far less useful against most of the new variants but never do they say 0. I also don't see anywhere they talk of a negative. Perhaps you are right in that it alters behavior but people who avoided the vaccine seem to not be particularly scared of the virus so color me skeptical on that one.

    I'm not aware of vaccines having any longterm health issues. Yes, some people apparently get really sick when they get it but I have not heard of a vaccine causing longterm effects although I'm sure some people died from their reaction. There seems to be a ton of misinterpretation and speculation on your part AFAIK.

    Anyway I said I wasn't going to post and I mean that. The problem here is that SO MANY of the posters on this forum go to redietz for their news. I felt the need to push this issue.
    I would recommend to expand your horizons. If you haven't been aware of long term effects, you haven't been looking, frankly. It's not like these were my preferred directions -- I'm a child of moon landings and fervent optimism regarding science. I suggest as starting points the essay published in the British Medical Journal a few months back regarding the lack of evidence-based medicine and the corrosion of the entire clinical trial process. The BMJ is quite conservative and the oldest of the medical journals. Also, Phil Harper's substack writings regarding the Pfizer documents that a Texas court forced Pfizer to release. Pfizer wanted to sit on them for, get this, 75 years.

    If you watch the Been lecture, you'll early on get to the explanation of the zero efficacy points.

    FYI -- the Phase 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine should be completed sometime in early 2024. That is not a typo.
    I'm fairly certain there are not that many longterm side-effects. The heart-inflamation thing is not going on longterm.

    You really put a lot of effort jumping around .. I wish I knew the types of invalid arguments but this "you need to expands your horizons" won't cut it. Almost all side-effects are over within 2 months and if they aren't, please tell me about them.

    "Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues." you said. oookay. I mean this statement isn't exactly not true but it is near meaningless.

    THe vaccines have been used for quite some time now and I have yet to hear about all these longterm effects we were warned of by the anti-vaxxers.

    Yes I can expand my horizons to nonsense and find an opposing view but I fail to see value in that approach.

    Pfizer not wanting to release info is not anything surprising. That is standard operating procedure. All it would do it help them be sued. I believe they were given government money and such so we could argue that this should be an exception but it does *not* point to anything nefarious.

    I'm also not sure what you're getting at about clinical trials and trying to tie it in. Yes, they have many issues but that doesn't mean they always have issues. Nor do this lack of a full trial point to anything either. It was clear that such an exception was needed.

    People seem to confuse the side-effects we've had over the years from meds for chronic disease and make that directly comparable to the vaccines. These few time shots that (from my understanding) are just proteins aren't near as bad. They're not really actively doing anything but existing for the body to respond to and destroy. My guess is that most drugs that we've learned had side-effects (with hindsight) may have had those side-effects go unnoticed if the victims only took these drugs 3 times.

    Welp we'll see in a few years when we all drop off from cancer.
    I wander through the path of life. Wondering. Wondering what my next signature on VCT should be.

  14. #9174
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Burgers and fries are a tasty combination. Sometimes I eat some of the fries first and other times I eat some of the burger first. I never place the fries on the burger - I believe it is not uncommon to put the fries on the burger in Pittsburgh. A side of onion rings and a hamburger is also a great combination but this is out of scope.
    Due to salt restricted diet I no longer eat french fries. I also have a refrigerator in my van so buy 40 packs of bottled water at Walmart. Works out to about 13 cents a bottle. When I go thru a fast food line I'm no longer buying the combo meals. I just get the burger and grab a bottle of water out of the refrigerator. Then I throw the bun away. You wouldn't believe how much salt is in bread. A hamburger bun can have over 500 milligrams of salt in it.

    I get off pretty cheap at those fast food joints these days.
    Maxpen.Is.The.Forum.Bitch

  15. #9175
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Burgers and fries are a tasty combination. Sometimes I eat some of the fries first and other times I eat some of the burger first. I never place the fries on the burger - I believe it is not uncommon to put the fries on the burger in Pittsburgh. A side of onion rings and a hamburger is also a great combination but this is out of scope.
    Due to salt restricted diet I no longer eat french fries. I also have a refrigerator in my van so buy 40 packs of bottled water at Walmart. Works out to about 13 cents a bottle. When I go thru a fast food line I'm no longer buying the combo meals. I just get the burger and grab a bottle of water out of the refrigerator. Then I throw the bun away. You wouldn't believe how much salt is in bread. A hamburger bun can have over 500 milligrams of salt in it.

    I get off pretty cheap at those fast food joints these days.
    Sounds like a smart move Mickey. I should probably cut back myself.

  16. #9176
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Burgers and fries are a tasty combination. Sometimes I eat some of the fries first and other times I eat some of the burger first. I never place the fries on the burger - I believe it is not uncommon to put the fries on the burger in Pittsburgh. A side of onion rings and a hamburger is also a great combination but this is out of scope.
    Due to salt restricted diet I no longer eat french fries. I also have a refrigerator in my van so buy 40 packs of bottled water at Walmart. Works out to about 13 cents a bottle. When I go thru a fast food line I'm no longer buying the combo meals. I just get the burger and grab a bottle of water out of the refrigerator. Then I throw the bun away. You wouldn't believe how much salt is in bread. A hamburger bun can have over 500 milligrams of salt in it.

    I get off pretty cheap at those fast food joints these days.
    You need to find an In 'n Out Burger place. Order the protein burger. Instead of the bun, they wrap it in lettuce.
    Keep your friends close, keep your drinks closer...

  17. #9177
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post

    Your original statement "having gotten two shots is actually a negative against the latest three strains. There is, at best, no protection." is not true. I read the study and I didn't see this. Yes, booster/vaccine is far far less useful against most of the new variants but never do they say 0. I also don't see anywhere they talk of a negative. Perhaps you are right in that it alters behavior but people who avoided the vaccine seem to not be particularly scared of the virus so color me skeptical on that one.

    I'm not aware of vaccines having any longterm health issues. Yes, some people apparently get really sick when they get it but I have not heard of a vaccine causing longterm effects although I'm sure some people died from their reaction. There seems to be a ton of misinterpretation and speculation on your part AFAIK.

    Anyway I said I wasn't going to post and I mean that. The problem here is that SO MANY of the posters on this forum go to redietz for their news. I felt the need to push this issue.
    I would recommend to expand your horizons. If you haven't been aware of long term effects, you haven't been looking, frankly. It's not like these were my preferred directions -- I'm a child of moon landings and fervent optimism regarding science. I suggest as starting points the essay published in the British Medical Journal a few months back regarding the lack of evidence-based medicine and the corrosion of the entire clinical trial process. The BMJ is quite conservative and the oldest of the medical journals. Also, Phil Harper's substack writings regarding the Pfizer documents that a Texas court forced Pfizer to release. Pfizer wanted to sit on them for, get this, 75 years.

    If you watch the Been lecture, you'll early on get to the explanation of the zero efficacy points.

    FYI -- the Phase 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine should be completed sometime in early 2024. That is not a typo.
    I'm fairly certain there are not that many longterm side-effects. The heart-inflamation thing is not going on longterm.

    You really put a lot of effort jumping around .. I wish I knew the types of invalid arguments but this "you need to expands your horizons" won't cut it. Almost all side-effects are over within 2 months and if they aren't, please tell me about them.

    "Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues." you said. oookay. I mean this statement isn't exactly not true but it is near meaningless.

    THe vaccines have been used for quite some time now and I have yet to hear about all these longterm effects we were warned of by the anti-vaxxers.

    Yes I can expand my horizons to nonsense and find an opposing view but I fail to see value in that approach.

    Pfizer not wanting to release info is not anything surprising. That is standard operating procedure. All it would do it help them be sued. I believe they were given government money and such so we could argue that this should be an exception but it does *not* point to anything nefarious.

    I'm also not sure what you're getting at about clinical trials and trying to tie it in. Yes, they have many issues but that doesn't mean they always have issues. Nor do this lack of a full trial point to anything either. It was clear that such an exception was needed.

    People seem to confuse the side-effects we've had over the years from meds for chronic disease and make that directly comparable to the vaccines. These few time shots that (from my understanding) are just proteins aren't near as bad. They're not really actively doing anything but existing for the body to respond to and destroy. My guess is that most drugs that we've learned had side-effects (with hindsight) may have had those side-effects go unnoticed if the victims only took these drugs 3 times.

    Welp we'll see in a few years when we all drop off from cancer.

    Well, here's the questions. Have you read the BMJ essay regarding lack of evidence based medicine in modern clinical trial processes? Have you read the Phil Harper Ivermectin series on substack? Have you actually read the reports on forums, on YouTube, of people with long term vaccine injuries?

    Because if you haven't done those things, and spent serious time with them, what's the point of my responding in any way? There are literally dozens of people who have real expertise whose reporting is available if you want to find it. I'm just doing a summary from a professional gambling perspective and from the perspective of someone who has a good sense of how propaganda is usually structured. The following are just easily available -- they aren't particularly damning. What bothers me isn't that the occasional end of the bell curve vaccine injury is happening. It's that there is almost no mainstream reporting of those injuries.







    There are dozens of these kinds of critiques out there -- I tried to find one Been interview that was the best I'd seen because the injured person had a biology doctorate and was walking us through how impossible it was to get medical coverage for her injuries. She patiently went through the identification of injury process, spending a lot of money, and was a terrific interview. I couldn't find it immediately, however, as I am not a Been subscriber.

    The majority of the heart issues "resolve," but they resolve with scarring, which means from an immediate basic functional perspective, all is usually well from a superficial won't-die-today perspective after a couple of months. But the scarring is there months and months later and may be permanent. So it affects people long-term.

    One of the disturbing, propaganda type things regarding the vaccine-injured that Been interviews -- these people are clearly still damaged, but as participants in the government study, they have been cleared and labeled as "recovered and cured."

    If you haven't looked into these things, I don't blame you. I'd prefer to not have learned this stuff. But my preferences take a back seat to reality recognition.

    A lot of this comes back to laziness. If answers matter, then doing a two-page google search of "vaccine injuries" isn't going to cut it. But if that's what you think research is, then you learn what you deserve.

  18. #9178
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    I would recommend to expand your horizons. If you haven't been aware of long term effects, you haven't been looking, frankly. It's not like these were my preferred directions -- I'm a child of moon landings and fervent optimism regarding science. I suggest as starting points the essay published in the British Medical Journal a few months back regarding the lack of evidence-based medicine and the corrosion of the entire clinical trial process. The BMJ is quite conservative and the oldest of the medical journals. Also, Phil Harper's substack writings regarding the Pfizer documents that a Texas court forced Pfizer to release. Pfizer wanted to sit on them for, get this, 75 years.

    If you watch the Been lecture, you'll early on get to the explanation of the zero efficacy points.

    FYI -- the Phase 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine should be completed sometime in early 2024. That is not a typo.
    I'm fairly certain there are not that many longterm side-effects. The heart-inflamation thing is not going on longterm.

    You really put a lot of effort jumping around .. I wish I knew the types of invalid arguments but this "you need to expands your horizons" won't cut it. Almost all side-effects are over within 2 months and if they aren't, please tell me about them.

    "Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues." you said. oookay. I mean this statement isn't exactly not true but it is near meaningless.

    THe vaccines have been used for quite some time now and I have yet to hear about all these longterm effects we were warned of by the anti-vaxxers.

    Yes I can expand my horizons to nonsense and find an opposing view but I fail to see value in that approach.

    Pfizer not wanting to release info is not anything surprising. That is standard operating procedure. All it would do it help them be sued. I believe they were given government money and such so we could argue that this should be an exception but it does *not* point to anything nefarious.

    I'm also not sure what you're getting at about clinical trials and trying to tie it in. Yes, they have many issues but that doesn't mean they always have issues. Nor do this lack of a full trial point to anything either. It was clear that such an exception was needed.

    People seem to confuse the side-effects we've had over the years from meds for chronic disease and make that directly comparable to the vaccines. These few time shots that (from my understanding) are just proteins aren't near as bad. They're not really actively doing anything but existing for the body to respond to and destroy. My guess is that most drugs that we've learned had side-effects (with hindsight) may have had those side-effects go unnoticed if the victims only took these drugs 3 times.

    Welp we'll see in a few years when we all drop off from cancer.

    Well, here's the questions. Have you read the BMJ essay regarding lack of evidence based medicine in modern clinical trial processes? Have you read the Phil Harper Ivermectin series on substack? Have you actually read the reports on forums, on YouTube, of people with long term vaccine injuries?

    Because if you haven't done those things, and spent serious time with them, what's the point of my responding in any way? There are literally dozens of people who have real expertise whose reporting is available if you want to find it. I'm just doing a summary from a professional gambling perspective and from the perspective of someone who has a good sense of how propaganda is usually structured. The following are just easily available -- they aren't particularly damning. What bothers me isn't that the occasional end of the bell curve vaccine injury is happening. It's that there is almost no mainstream reporting of those injuries.







    There are dozens of these kinds of critiques out there -- I tried to find one Been interview that was the best I'd seen because the injured person had a biology doctorate and was walking us through how impossible it was to get medical coverage for her injuries. She patiently went through the identification of injury process, spending a lot of money, and was a terrific interview. I couldn't find it immediately, however, as I am not a Been subscriber.

    The majority of the heart issues "resolve," but they resolve with scarring, which means from an immediate basic functional perspective, all is usually well from a superficial won't-die-today perspective after a couple of months. But the scarring is there months and months later and may be permanent. So it affects people long-term.

    One of the disturbing, propaganda type things regarding the vaccine-injured that Been interviews -- these people are clearly still damaged, but as participants in the government study, they have been cleared and labeled as "recovered and cured."

    If you haven't looked into these things, I don't blame you. I'd prefer to not have learned this stuff. But my preferences take a back seat to reality recognition.

    A lot of this comes back to laziness. If answers matter, then doing a two-page google search of "vaccine injuries" isn't going to cut it. But if that's what you think research is, then you learn what you deserve.
    This is clownish. The vaccine also does heart scarring but covid also does it. This is not some side-effect specific to the vaccine. It also happens with people infected.


    All that talk and you can't really come up with much about these longterm health effects.Instead you blast a bunch of studies that I'm not about to read. I've read plenty too. THe last time I read the journal article you referenced. I went to the original source (not youtube) and found out your conclusions were basically wrong but in the vicinity of being true. You just skipped over and blast at me more journal articles on ivermectin. I have no clue how that would be relevant and I'm not about to waste my time given your misinterpretation of the original study that started this. Fool me once shame on you ....

    Seriously gtfo with your nonsense. You know how propaganda is structured !!!! Just more irrelevant back patting bullshit.

    Ok, maybe heart inflammation is an issue of long-term consequence but it usurps your original point - People who took vaccune are taking on longterm effects with no benefit. The fact is the heart inflammation thing happens with covid also. So it kinda undermines your point that this is some extra danger taken on by the vaccine and you've yet to show me anything showing these longterm effects. Even if mainstream media is avoiding it or whatever, there should be something out there that goes into detail. There should be something mainstream media can reference and not shit like "bobby's aunt dianne was 71 and totally fine until she got the vaccine. Bobby, can you tell us about your aunt?"

    If you are going to sincerely critique media then you need to specifically show that they're not covering. News has to have sources. So show me the sources.

    DrBeen seems reasonable from what little I listened but the balding guy with glasses in youtube video #3 is a pandering grifter from what I recall. Good luck with that,

    If you haven't figured it out I'm not waiting for "mainstream media" to cover these things, I want *you* to show me what they're not covering and not just say "well doing google searches ain't enough". What utter rubbish. There are many other phds etc who have been studying this and thats what you need to reference. I'm sure there is some stuff out there somewhere.
    I wander through the path of life. Wondering. Wondering what my next signature on VCT should be.

  19. #9179
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    I would recommend to expand your horizons. If you haven't been aware of long term effects, you haven't been looking, frankly. It's not like these were my preferred directions -- I'm a child of moon landings and fervent optimism regarding science. I suggest as starting points the essay published in the British Medical Journal a few months back regarding the lack of evidence-based medicine and the corrosion of the entire clinical trial process. The BMJ is quite conservative and the oldest of the medical journals. Also, Phil Harper's substack writings regarding the Pfizer documents that a Texas court forced Pfizer to release. Pfizer wanted to sit on them for, get this, 75 years.

    If you watch the Been lecture, you'll early on get to the explanation of the zero efficacy points.

    FYI -- the Phase 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine should be completed sometime in early 2024. That is not a typo.
    I'm fairly certain there are not that many longterm side-effects. The heart-inflamation thing is not going on longterm.

    You really put a lot of effort jumping around .. I wish I knew the types of invalid arguments but this "you need to expands your horizons" won't cut it. Almost all side-effects are over within 2 months and if they aren't, please tell me about them.

    "Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues." you said. oookay. I mean this statement isn't exactly not true but it is near meaningless.

    THe vaccines have been used for quite some time now and I have yet to hear about all these longterm effects we were warned of by the anti-vaxxers.

    Yes I can expand my horizons to nonsense and find an opposing view but I fail to see value in that approach.

    Pfizer not wanting to release info is not anything surprising. That is standard operating procedure. All it would do it help them be sued. I believe they were given government money and such so we could argue that this should be an exception but it does *not* point to anything nefarious.

    I'm also not sure what you're getting at about clinical trials and trying to tie it in. Yes, they have many issues but that doesn't mean they always have issues. Nor do this lack of a full trial point to anything either. It was clear that such an exception was needed.

    People seem to confuse the side-effects we've had over the years from meds for chronic disease and make that directly comparable to the vaccines. These few time shots that (from my understanding) are just proteins aren't near as bad. They're not really actively doing anything but existing for the body to respond to and destroy. My guess is that most drugs that we've learned had side-effects (with hindsight) may have had those side-effects go unnoticed if the victims only took these drugs 3 times.

    Welp we'll see in a few years when we all drop off from cancer.

    Well, here's the questions. Have you read the BMJ essay regarding lack of evidence based medicine in modern clinical trial processes? Have you read the Phil Harper Ivermectin series on substack? Have you actually read the reports on forums, on YouTube, of people with long term vaccine injuries?

    Because if you haven't done those things, and spent serious time with them, what's the point of my responding in any way? There are literally dozens of people who have real expertise whose reporting is available if you want to find it. I'm just doing a summary from a professional gambling perspective and from the perspective of someone who has a good sense of how propaganda is usually structured. The following are just easily available -- they aren't particularly damning. What bothers me isn't that the occasional end of the bell curve vaccine injury is happening. It's that there is almost no mainstream reporting of those injuries.







    There are dozens of these kinds of critiques out there -- I tried to find one Been interview that was the best I'd seen because the injured person had a biology doctorate and was walking us through how impossible it was to get medical coverage for her injuries. She patiently went through the identification of injury process, spending a lot of money, and was a terrific interview. I couldn't find it immediately, however, as I am not a Been subscriber.

    The majority of the heart issues "resolve," but they resolve with scarring, which means from an immediate basic functional perspective, all is usually well from a superficial won't-die-today perspective after a couple of months. But the scarring is there months and months later and may be permanent. So it affects people long-term.

    One of the disturbing, propaganda type things regarding the vaccine-injured that Been interviews -- these people are clearly still damaged, but as participants in the government study, they have been cleared and labeled as "recovered and cured."

    If you haven't looked into these things, I don't blame you. I'd prefer to not have learned this stuff. But my preferences take a back seat to reality recognition.

    A lot of this comes back to laziness. If answers matter, then doing a two-page google search of "vaccine injuries" isn't going to cut it. But if that's what you think research is, then you learn what you deserve.
    This is clownish. The vaccine also does heart scarring but covid also does it. This is not some side-effect specific to the vaccine. It also happens with people infected.


    All that talk and you can't really come up with much about these longterm health effects outside of youtube videoos.Instead you blast a bunch of studies that I'm not about to read. I've read plenty too. THe last time I read the journal article you referenced. I went to the original source (not youtube) and found out your conclusions were basically wrong but in the vicinity of being true. You just skipped over and blast at me more journal articles on ivermectin. I have no clue how that would be relevant and I'm not about to waste my time given your misinterpretation of the original study that started this. Fool me once shame on you ....

    Seriously gtfo with your nonsense. You know how propaganda is structured !!!! Just more irrelevant back patting bullshit.

    Ok, maybe heart inflammation is an issue of long-term consequence but it usurps your original point - People who took vaccune are taking on longterm effects with no benefit. The fact is the heart inflammation thing happens with covid also. So it kinda undermines your point that this is some extra danger taken on by the vaccine and you've yet to show me anything showing these longterm effects outside of time consuming youtube videos which at best are an interpretation. Even if mainstream media is avoiding it or whatever, there should be something out there that goes into detail. This Israeli study DrBeen talks about? There should be something mainstream media can reference and not shit like "bobby's aunt dianne was 71 and totally fine until she got the vaccine. Bobby, can you tell us about your aunt?" There just isn't much out there that I've seen but I'm not going out of my way to look for it because well that is clearly a waste of time. Maybe the "propaganda" is keeping me from the truth lol.

    If you are going to sincerely critique media then you need to specifically show that they're not covering. News has to have sources. So show me the sources.

    DrBeen seems reasonable from what little I listened but the balding guy with glasses in youtube video #3 is a pandering grifter. Good luck with that,

    If you haven't figured it out I'm not waiting for "mainstream media" to cover these things, I want *you* to show me what they're not covering and not just say "well doing google searches ain't enough". What utter rubbish. Then you follow it up with youtube videos as your only source !!!!! (can't make that shit up) There are many other phds etc who have been studying this and thats what you need to reference. I'm sure there is some stuff out there somewhere.
    I wander through the path of life. Wondering. Wondering what my next signature on VCT should be.

  20. #9180
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post

    I'm fairly certain there are not that many longterm side-effects. The heart-inflamation thing is not going on longterm.

    You really put a lot of effort jumping around .. I wish I knew the types of invalid arguments but this "you need to expands your horizons" won't cut it. Almost all side-effects are over within 2 months and if they aren't, please tell me about them.

    "Thus, they may (I said may) be at more risk for all kinds of health issues." you said. oookay. I mean this statement isn't exactly not true but it is near meaningless.

    THe vaccines have been used for quite some time now and I have yet to hear about all these longterm effects we were warned of by the anti-vaxxers.

    Yes I can expand my horizons to nonsense and find an opposing view but I fail to see value in that approach.

    Pfizer not wanting to release info is not anything surprising. That is standard operating procedure. All it would do it help them be sued. I believe they were given government money and such so we could argue that this should be an exception but it does *not* point to anything nefarious.

    I'm also not sure what you're getting at about clinical trials and trying to tie it in. Yes, they have many issues but that doesn't mean they always have issues. Nor do this lack of a full trial point to anything either. It was clear that such an exception was needed.

    People seem to confuse the side-effects we've had over the years from meds for chronic disease and make that directly comparable to the vaccines. These few time shots that (from my understanding) are just proteins aren't near as bad. They're not really actively doing anything but existing for the body to respond to and destroy. My guess is that most drugs that we've learned had side-effects (with hindsight) may have had those side-effects go unnoticed if the victims only took these drugs 3 times.

    Welp we'll see in a few years when we all drop off from cancer.

    Well, here's the questions. Have you read the BMJ essay regarding lack of evidence based medicine in modern clinical trial processes? Have you read the Phil Harper Ivermectin series on substack? Have you actually read the reports on forums, on YouTube, of people with long term vaccine injuries?

    Because if you haven't done those things, and spent serious time with them, what's the point of my responding in any way? There are literally dozens of people who have real expertise whose reporting is available if you want to find it. I'm just doing a summary from a professional gambling perspective and from the perspective of someone who has a good sense of how propaganda is usually structured. The following are just easily available -- they aren't particularly damning. What bothers me isn't that the occasional end of the bell curve vaccine injury is happening. It's that there is almost no mainstream reporting of those injuries.







    There are dozens of these kinds of critiques out there -- I tried to find one Been interview that was the best I'd seen because the injured person had a biology doctorate and was walking us through how impossible it was to get medical coverage for her injuries. She patiently went through the identification of injury process, spending a lot of money, and was a terrific interview. I couldn't find it immediately, however, as I am not a Been subscriber.

    The majority of the heart issues "resolve," but they resolve with scarring, which means from an immediate basic functional perspective, all is usually well from a superficial won't-die-today perspective after a couple of months. But the scarring is there months and months later and may be permanent. So it affects people long-term.

    One of the disturbing, propaganda type things regarding the vaccine-injured that Been interviews -- these people are clearly still damaged, but as participants in the government study, they have been cleared and labeled as "recovered and cured."

    If you haven't looked into these things, I don't blame you. I'd prefer to not have learned this stuff. But my preferences take a back seat to reality recognition.

    A lot of this comes back to laziness. If answers matter, then doing a two-page google search of "vaccine injuries" isn't going to cut it. But if that's what you think research is, then you learn what you deserve.
    This is clownish. The vaccine also does heart scarring but covid also does it. This is not some side-effect specific to the vaccine. It also happens with people infected.


    All that talk and you can't really come up with much about these longterm health effects.Instead you blast a bunch of studies that I'm not about to read. I've read plenty too. THe last time I read the journal article you referenced. I went to the original source (not youtube) and found out your conclusions were basically wrong but in the vicinity of being true. You just skipped over and blast at me more journal articles on ivermectin. I have no clue how that would be relevant and I'm not about to waste my time given your misinterpretation of the original study that started this. Fool me once shame on you ....

    Seriously gtfo with your nonsense. You know how propaganda is structured !!!! Just more irrelevant back patting bullshit.

    Ok, maybe heart inflammation is an issue of long-term consequence but it usurps your original point - People who took vaccune are taking on longterm effects with no benefit. The fact is the heart inflammation thing happens with covid also. So it kinda undermines your point that this is some extra danger taken on by the vaccine and you've yet to show me anything showing these longterm effects. Even if mainstream media is avoiding it or whatever, there should be something out there that goes into detail. There should be something mainstream media can reference and not shit like "bobby's aunt dianne was 71 and totally fine until she got the vaccine. Bobby, can you tell us about your aunt?"

    If you are going to sincerely critique media then you need to specifically show that they're not covering. News has to have sources. So show me the sources.

    DrBeen seems reasonable from what little I listened but the balding guy with glasses in youtube video #3 is a pandering grifter from what I recall. Good luck with that,

    If you haven't figured it out I'm not waiting for "mainstream media" to cover these things, I want *you* to show me what they're not covering and not just say "well doing google searches ain't enough". What utter rubbish. There are many other phds etc who have been studying this and thats what you need to reference. I'm sure there is some stuff out there somewhere.
    The vaccine does nothing it has the same long term side effects as getting covid. How your body handles covid is complete depended on if you have a certain genetic makeup. Polish scientists figured this out. The researchers from the Medical University of Bialystok found that the gene was the fourth most important factor determining how seriously a person suffers from COVID-19, after age, weight and gender. Taking the vaccine just makes humans feel like they are doing something to protect themselves and others. Itís literally virtue signaling at this point. Just like all death covid death is random. I do believe They made a noble effort to create a vaccine to help us, but failed as they didnít fully understand the virus mutations. But believe what you want the data is out there if you look at it. The problem is most people really canít interpret statistics correctly including semi smart pro gamblers

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 44 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 44 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  2. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. A thread for losses.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM
  5. The Kicker Thread
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •