quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

https://news.yahoo.com/covid-c...heres-150000401.html

Covid is linked to heart problems and inflammation. Scientists found that the infection messes up how the heart beats.
....

Although inflammation of the heart is a rare but documented side effect of the mRNA Covid vaccines, the study looked only at heart tissue from autopsies before vaccines were available.

I don't believe you.

Read the comments on that article. Not many who commented believe it.

mRNA in blood after 28 days.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
You're really worked up over this thing, aren't you? I must be missing something. It seems to me hundreds maybe thousands of people die every day just from the flu. So why should I be overly concerned about this thing?

Many reasons you shouldn't stick your head in the sand.

1) Infection rate way worse than standard flu
2) Lethality (300 to 500 times worse than the standard flu, depending on who you believe.)
3) An unstoppable global pandemic that burns through the worlds population in the span of about 18 months to 2 years.
4) We are in the early stages now. 20,000 dead. In the first month. Once it gains traction and goes world wide, expect hundreds of thousands to millions dead.
5) If it goes full scale pandemic, and it looks like it probably will, you will know several people that will die. You might even be one of them. If you are over 65, its not looking good.
6) You cant just go to a hospital. There are 10-100 beds and they all will be full. You and the 5000 people outside have to wait. Stand in line with the super sick coughing all over you. After a couple days of that and no help, you'll probably give up and go home.
7) This is America. We have freedoms. Easily 50% of the health care workers will quit and stay home to protect their families and protect themselves. In China, they threaten the healthcare workers with death or prison. Show up to work, or else. That doesn't work here. The nurses and doctors will have mental breakdowns, and the ones that stayed, probably wont stay for long.
8) Don't listen to Chinese. You cant trust anything they say. WATCH what they do. An unprecedented 60 million people and growing daily quarantine? Door to door goon squads dragging people from their homes? They are losing their shit. I wonder why? Perhaps it IS a big deal, and MUCH worse than standard flu?
9) No workers, no truck drivers? No grocery stores with food? No gas stations that still have fuel? Mass civil unrest unlike anything that has ever been seen before. Cities will burn. Cities will be death traps.
10) No sanitation workers. No city water employees. No power-plant employees. No water, no electricity, no garbage collection?

Yeah. The above is worst case scenario. We are still early and the best minds are trying to find a cure. But if they don't, or it takes too long, its not hard to see that THIS could be the real deal. History in the making.

Go clean your guns. Buy some (lots) of food. Prepare.

I was just scrolling through this little time capsule and found this gem. Dude nailed it. Comment from January/February 2020 aged like fine wine.

What, specifically, in that post do you find to be so accurate?

We are past the point of Covid being a global killer. In fact, we are close to it being endemic. The mortality rates are bunk. They only take into account positive cases vs. deaths. The CDC says the US has had 103 million positive test results; that hardly represents the actual number of people infected. I’d be shocked to find that the number isn’t twice that or higher. Then there’s the false death reporting where anyone that died and tested positive had that death attributed to Covid. Mortality is higher than seasonal flu but not anywhere near the official estimates.

A year or longer ago, many of us were already over it. Now all but the most zealous leftist loons are even over it. The most vulnerable (65 and older WITH a negative health component) still need to be concerned- also, everyone getting revolving door injections, but abysmal uptake indicates the majority are done with the stupidity.

The other part of mortality numbers is the response which caused huge numbers of deaths.

NY's mandate putting patients into senior care facilities which caused many older and frail people to become exposed and die. The de fact prohibition against use of repurposed drugs which showed 90%+ rates of preventing death or serious illness. The use of medications and therapies which killed many patients. Lockdowns which prevented people receiving care for other illnesses which led to deaths.

The virus itself killed some people, and in the earliest days there was scant data to help make decisions. But by spring 2020 the death rates should have been nearly zero.

Dr. John Campbell just revealed the UK treatment guidance included mixing opiates with benzos, which suppresses respiration, and in a patient with serious lung infection it would be the opposite of desired. The death counts track closely with the prescriptions of those meds, suggesting many patients died from those treatments who otherwise would have survived.

What a shocker! Not really… looks like wrecking the economy, eroding freedoms, and creating division have nothing to do with a pandemic response.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...d-covid-19-cases.amp

George Mason study finds 'no evidence' that vaccine mandates in major cities reduced COVID-19 cases

A new study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University concluded that COVID-19 vaccine mandates in nine major cities did not appear to make a difference in terms of curbing cases deaths from the pandemic.

The study examined mandates and statistics from Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C.

"We find no evidence that the announcement or implementation of indoor vaccine mandate in the cities listed had any significant effect on vaccine uptake, COVID-19 cases, or COVID-19 deaths, and this is largely consistent for all US cities that implemented the mandate," said a working paper on the study, titled, "Indoor Vaccine Mandates in US Cities, Vaccination Behavior, and COVID-19 Outcomes."

The authors, Vitor Melo, Elijah Neilson, and Dorothy Kemboi, noted that vaccine mandates were among a number of measures used with the intention of reducing the spread of COVID-19 and deaths from the illness. As a result, they said, "[m]illions of people were prevented from entering restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, sports arenas, and other public indoor areas without proof of COVID-19 vaccination," with people and businesses facing "large disruptions."

In New York City, 1,430 city employees were terminated for not following the mandate, and most restaurants lost customers and staff.

"Most supporters of the mandates claim that the associated increase in vaccination rates, and its implied reduction in the spread of COVID-19, outweigh the cost of the disruptions. However, we find that the effects of the mandates on their intended outcomes are not statistically noticeable in any of the cities they were implemented in all empirical strategies used," they said.

A key reason for why city-wide mandates were not effective, the study found, is that they are too easy to get around. Unlike country-wide mandates imposed in Europe, people can get by unvaccinated in cities with mandates by simply traveling to a neighboring city.

"COVID cases were not affected by the mandate, COVID deaths were not affected by it, and people were not more likely to get vaccinated at all in the first place," Melo said, according to Fox5DC.

In contrast, the working paper noted that other studies have shown that country-wide and province-wide mandates in Europe and Canada were effective in terms of resulting in more people getting a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The authors also pointed out that by the time the studied cities implemented their mandates, a significant percentage of their populations had already been vaccinated.

"The idea behind the mandate is more people are gonna get vaccinated, therefore we’re gonna reduce the spread of COVID," Melo said. "That first step really didn’t happen."

From our own CDC: 2-23-2023

https://www.documentcloud.org/...iveness-presentation


Protection From New COVID-19 Vaccines Drops Sharply Within Months: CDC

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...6WKx1IjGxtvtM4uOa1ht

The new COVID-19 vaccines provide a boost to protection against hospitalization but that shielding wanes within months, according to unpublished data presented on Feb. 24.

A bivalent Pfizer or Moderna booster increased protection against hospitalization initially by 52 percent, but that protection dropped to 36 percent beyond 59 days, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers said.

The researchers separately looked at the protection people who had received two or more monovalent doses, or doses of the original vaccines, and no bivalent booster. They found that people aged 18 to 64 had just 19 percent protection against COVID-19 associated hospitalization and those aged 65 and older had just 28 percent protection.

That means the protection after two months was around 60 percent in total for the elderly and goes below 50 percent for all other adults.

The data came from the CDC’s VISION network.

Data from a different CDC-run network, called IVY, showed “minimal to no residual protection” against hospitalization from the original vaccine, Dr. Amadea Britton, a CDC official, said.

Two or more monovalent doses provided just 17 percent protection, with uncertain confidence intervals.

A bivalent vaccine on top of a monovalent primary series brought the protection to just 55 percent at seven or more days after the booster.

Waning wasn’t measured in the IVY network.

The bivalent vaccines were authorized and recommended in the fall of 2022 despite no clinical trial data being available. Clinical efficacy data remains unavailable at present.

The COVID-19 vaccines are authorized in the United States to prevent COVID-19 disease but officials have increasingly described the goal of vaccination as preventing severe disease, because the vaccines have performed worse and worse against symptomatic infection as newer variants have emerged.

The effectiveness against severe disease may be higher than against hospitalization, according to Britton.

A third CDC network, Increasing Community Access to Testing, found that a new booster initially provided 65 percent protection against symptomatic infection for children aged 5 to 11, and 68 percent protection for children aged 12 to 17.

That protection waned to 54 percent by three months in the younger group and 53 percent by five months in the older group.

A bivalent booster worked much worse in adults, according to other unpublished data from the network presented for the first time during the meeting.

A bivalent increased protection against symptomatic infection by just 38 percent in the elderly, with protection dropping to 21 percent by five months. In people aged 50 to 64, protection started at 46 percent and waned to 28 percent; among adults aged 18 to 49, protection started at 51 percent and waned to 41 percent.

The protection estimates were relative, being measured against two to four doses of an original vaccine. Previous research has found that the original vaccine provides little protection against symptomatic Omicron infection, with some estimating the protection turning negative over time.

“The pattern of waning against symptomatic infection is very similar to what was observed after monovalent booster doses, with VE against symptomatic infection decreasing to minimal protection by around five to six months,” Britton said.

Change in Vaccine
The updated Pfizer and Moderna vaccines target the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron, in addition to the Wuhan strain. The original vaccines were aimed at only the latter.

The updated vaccines are only available currently as booster shots.

U.S. authorities are preparing to replace all of the original Pfizer and Moderna vaccines with the bivalent. Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration backed the move in a recent meeting, and advisers to the CDC on Thursday largely agreed the move would be good.

They cited the improvement in protection the bivalents bestow, however minimal, and the hope that simplifying the vaccines would lead to more uptake.

Many Americans have declined to get any boosters, and even fewer have received one of the new bivalents. The overwhelming majority of parents have chosen not to get their children even a primary series, amid the drop in effectiveness and growing concerns about short- and long-term side effects like heart inflammation.

Data from a different CDC-run network, called IVY, showed “minimal to no residual protection” against hospitalization from the original vaccine, Dr. Amadea Britton, a CDC official, said.

Two or more monovalent doses provided just 17 percent protection, with uncertain confidence intervals.

A bivalent vaccine on top of a monovalent primary series brought the protection to just 55 percent at seven or more days after the booster.

Waning wasn’t measured in the IVY network.

The bivalent vaccines were authorized and recommended in the fall of 2022 despite no clinical trial data being available. Clinical efficacy data remains unavailable at present.

The COVID-19 vaccines are authorized in the United States to prevent COVID-19 disease but officials have increasingly described the goal of vaccination as preventing severe disease, because the vaccines have performed worse and worse against symptomatic infection as newer variants have emerged.

The effectiveness against severe disease may be higher than against hospitalization, according to Britton.

A third CDC network, Increasing Community Access to Testing, found that a new booster initially provided 65 percent protection against symptomatic infection for children aged 5 to 11, and 68 percent protection for children aged 12 to 17.

That protection waned to 54 percent by three months in the younger group and 53 percent by five months in the older group.

A bivalent booster worked much worse in adults, according to other unpublished data from the network presented for the first time during the meeting.

A bivalent increased protection against symptomatic infection by just 38 percent in the elderly, with protection dropping to 21 percent by five months. In people aged 50 to 64, protection started at 46 percent and waned to 28 percent; among adults aged 18 to 49, protection started at 51 percent and waned to 41 percent.

The protection estimates were relative, being measured against two to four doses of an original vaccine. Previous research has found that the original vaccine provides little protection against symptomatic Omicron infection, with some estimating the protection turning negative over time.

“The pattern of waning against symptomatic infection is very similar to what was observed after monovalent booster doses, with VE against symptomatic infection decreasing to minimal protection by around five to six months,” Britton said.

Change in Vaccine

The updated Pfizer and Moderna vaccines target the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron, in addition to the Wuhan strain. The original vaccines were aimed at only the latter.

The updated vaccines are only available currently as booster shots.

U.S. authorities are preparing to replace all of the original Pfizer and Moderna vaccines with the bivalent. Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration backed the move in a recent meeting, and advisers to the CDC on Thursday largely agreed the move would be good.

They cited the improvement in protection the bivalents bestow, however minimal, and the hope that simplifying the vaccines would lead to more uptake.

Many Americans have declined to get any boosters, and even fewer have received one of the new bivalents. The overwhelming majority of parents have chosen not to get their children even a primary series, amid the drop in effectiveness and growing concerns about short- and long-term side effects like heart inflammation.

Gee, it's too bad some of us didn't figure this out a long time ago.

Woody Harrelson’s ‘Saturday Night Live’ monologue about COVID sparks debate, Elon Musk says he was spot on

Woody Harrelson’s opening monologue during "Saturday Night Live," where he referenced the COVID-19 pandemic and collaboration between the medical industry and the government to push vaccines, has sparked backlash online. And Twitter CEO Elon Musk chimed in on the discussion.

Closing out the segment, Harrelson talks about a film pitch that included one of the "craziest script" he’s read, which included the "biggest drug cartels" forcing people to remain in their homes unless they agreed to take and keep taking their drugs.

"So the movie goes like this," the actor explained. "The biggest drug cartels in the world get together and buy up all the media and all the politicians and force all the people in the world to stay locked in their homes. And people can only come out if they take the cartel’s drugs and keep taking them over and over."

Harrelson then joked: "I threw the script away. I mean, who was going to believe that crazy idea? Being forced to do drugs? I do that voluntarily all day."

The comments were widely covered by media outlets, who called them "anti-vax" or "vax conspiracies."

Several people on social media continued the conversation — with many people agreeing with the actor — then Musk chimed in.

"So based. Nice work," Musk responded.

That's good... So we can talk about it (in public) now?
From the comments at the video:
That's some Norm MacDonald level subversive humor right there.

What does BASED mean?

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
What does BASED mean?

Being yourself and not caring what others think of you

Twenty-eight years old

"...the Medical Examiner reported Jansen's sudden passing was due to cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), coupled with aortic valve complications..."

https://www.foxnews.com/entert...-28-unthinkable-loss

Former Mets Pitching Prospect Matt Pobereyko Dies Suddenly of Heart Attack at 31

https://www.breitbart.com/spor...-heart-attack-at-31/

All the time. All the time now.

Yes, young, healthy people did die suddenly befor the COVID vaccines and yes, some of the young, healthy people dying these days may have died from any number of causes. including undiagnosed medical conditions. However, anyone paying attention to the frequency of these stories knows that it was not like this before 2021.

It's not confirmation bias and it's not that the media are reporting on these deaths only now, when previously they had not. When an athlete or a celebrity or relative of a celebrity died suddenly before 2021, the press was reporting on these occurrences just as they are now.

While young people are dropping suddenly and have the most to lose and least to gain from these injections...
They are also harmful to older people.

Medicare data shows the COVID vaccines increase your risk of dying

This is why the CDC has NEVER used the Medicare data to prove the vaccines are safe.

It shows that these shots increase your risk of dying and once you get shot, your risk of dying remains elevated for an unknown amount of time. And that’s in the very population it is supposed to help the most!

Medicare database shows that:

1. The vaccines are making it more likely that the elderly will die prematurely, not less likely

2. The risk of death remains elevated for an unknown period of time after you get the shot (we didn’t see it return to normal)

3. The CDC lied to the American people about the safety of these vaccines. They had access to this data the entire time and kept it hidden and said nothing.

https://stevekirsch.substack.c...icare-data-shows-the

quote:

enlarged heart

Steve Kirsch wrote this piece last year in regards to Foo Fighter drummer Taylor Hawkins. His heart was double the normal size when he died. He was not keen on the vaccine, yet had to take it on orders from Dave Grohl, who released a pro-vaccine song with Mick Jagger

https://stevekirsch.substack.c...er-taylor-hawkins?s=

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
All the time. All the time now.

Yes, young, healthy people did die suddenly befor the COVID vaccines and yes, some of the young, healthy people dying these days may have died from any number of causes. including undiagnosed medical conditions. However, anyone paying attention to the frequency of these stories knows that it was not like this before 2021.

Increase in heart attacks for young people due to lack of masking.
Liberals are shameless in their pursuit of any answer except the most obvious.