John Stockton Claims He Had Proof of 1000 Athletes Dying of Vaccine

[One Brow]

This video will be enough to start a House investigation into the business practices of Pfizer. The guy in the video making the statements did say what he said and is in a position at Pfizer to know. That much is confirmed.

That's a pretty low bar in this Congress.

You have the 3rd highest ranking person of Pfizer admitting that they are mutating COVID and nobody cares.

Is there an admission of mutating viruses that can infect humans, or just mice?

loved the part where the dude is giggling as says how great mutations are for Pfizer and that they're going to do so well out of it. Yes, lets further play around with a virus that's caused all this. What could possibly go wrong.

Many, many things. Research on the current covid strains is still much more likely to lead to better vaccines than to result in disaster.

How anyone can still choose to have faith in this corrupt cesspool of a company is beyond me.

Assuming I have no faith in Pfizer, to whom do I turn for covid vaccinations?

I also love how he pretty much admits all the FDA examiners get rewarded with positions at drug companies.

Regulatory capture is an issue with pretty much all the US government.

I'd expect the CEO of Pfizer would have no issue with clearing this all up by testifying under oath that this is all untrue eh ???

We'll wait and see.



So far, I haven't seen anything quoted from the Pfizer exec that makes me question vaccine efficacy. I have no interest in defending Pfizer outside of continuing access to vaccines.

 

[SteakNEggs]

"You have to be very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn’t create something that just goes everywhere. Which, I suspect, is the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest. It makes no sense that this virus popped out of nowhere. It’s bullsh*t,”

3rd leading person of Pfizer admitting mouse to human transmissions in Wuhan is where it started.

 

[One Brow]

3rd leading person of Pfizer speculating mouse to human transmissions in Wuhan is where it started.

FIFY

 

[The Thriller]

Anti vaxxers:
The vaccines weren’t tested enough!

Anti vaxxers:
The vaccines aren’t effective against new variants! What’s the point of getting vaccinated?

Also anti vaxxers:
OMG vaccine companies are testing new vaccines on potential new variants!

I mean… you just can’t win with these people.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

OMG vaccine companies are testing new vaccines on potential new variants!

I think you're missing the point. Pfizer is developing a vaccine to combat a pathogen that only exists in a Pfizer lab. It isn't out in the wild. Zero people in the population are sick from this pathogen because Pfizer invented it via forced mutation. It costs a lot of money to make your own custom pathogen, and even more investment to then make a vaccine to counter the custom pathogen you made. What is making people nervous about this scenario is the question of how Pfizer intends to make all that development investment pay off.

Is it that you think a company like Pfizer would never do anything unethical for profit?

 

[One Brow]

Pfizer is developing a vaccine to combat a pathogen that only exists in a Pfizer lab. ... What is making people nervous about this scenario is the question of how Pfizer intends to make all that development investment pay off.

By improving the responsiveness of their vaccine development process so insurance companies/the government will be more likely to improve using their vaccines once the EUA is discontinued. It's capitalism, baby.

Is it that you think a company like Pfizer would never do anything unethical for profit?

Unleashing a virus variant on the public is a movie plot, and has no real upside for Pfizer.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

By improving the responsiveness of their vaccine development process so insurance companies/the government will be more likely to improve using their vaccines once the EUA is discontinued. It's capitalism, baby.

Having never seen the virus before, it took 2 weeks to make a vaccine for COVID the first time. It was the government that took most of a year to approve it. Pfizer mutating their own variants for practice does nothing to improve time to market.

Unleashing a virus variant on the public is a movie plot, and has no real upside for Pfizer.

It is the ONLY path to an upside for Pfizer. They don't believe, or at least the head of development in charge of the program at Pfizer doesn't believe, that academia and governments and the media will be truthful about a man-made origin for a COVID virus. That guy, who makes man-made viruses and vaccines professionally for one of the largest multi-nationals in that market segment, believes COVID was man-made. If someone at the direction of Pfizer smuggled their custom COVID variant to a wet market someplace in China and released it, why would a different "expert" reaction be expected?

 

[One Brow]

Having never seen the virus before, it took 2 weeks to make a vaccine for COVID the first time. It was the government that took most of a year to approve it. Pfizer mutating their own variants for practice does nothing to improve time to market.

"Responsiveness" covers more than just time.

It is the ONLY path to an upside for Pfizer.

Next, you'll be worried about someone sneaking into Fort Knox and irradiating all the gold.

They don't believe, or at least the head of development in charge of the program at Pfizer doesn't believe, that academia and governments and the media will be truthful about a man-made origin for a COVID virus.

There are many assumptions and suppositions between what he said and what you said.

That guy, who makes man-made viruses and vaccines professionally for one of the largest multi-nationals in that market segment, believes COVID was man-made. If someone at the direction of Pfizer smuggled their custom COVID variant to a wet market someplace in China and released it, why would a different "expert" reaction be expected?

Being an expert does not prevent one from getting caught up in conspiracy theories.

 

[Bucknutz]

Follow the science… Is this science true? It's the largest by far, to date.


View: https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1620992293565259776?s=46&t=UJTqVv1XbyUbsAtqwOQJjw

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Or is this science “quackery” since it goes against what the media and the government have been saying?

Everyone on the side who didn't believe in masks will now run around using this study.

Maybe some people were right, including those on this forum about masks, even though the government and forum members pushed out a different message; including after someone took the vaccines or had natural immunity.


View: https://youtu.be/Xn3lwR7vonw


Shamming people or taking up violence against others who had a different viewpoint now or at the time:


View: https://youtu.be/N6HdbtBM730


Then you have the other side putting their beliefs over private business wishes and rules which results in more violence and problems.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZQXoZRO7FM



This is happening right now as well, when it comes to vaccines. People being shamed because they have hesitancy. People being talked down to because they are bringing up studies and reports which goes against the mainstream and government guidance and communication. Maybe we should all be better.

 

[One Brow]

Follow the science… Is this science true? It's the largest by far, to date.

I looked at the study itself. It's a compilation of different studies:

Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.

The study says it has little to say about mask efficacy:

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.

There's a reason masks have become required in surgeries. When you look into a study that downplays masking, they are going against the weight of over a century of experimentation, experience, and knowledge.

Surgical mask - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or is this science “quackery” since it goes against what the media and the government have been saying?

I have no objections to the study itself. The headline from zerohedge would be quackery, if those making it had enough gravitas to qualify as quacks. As it is, the article is more zerohedge stupidity.

Everyone on the side who didn't believe in masks will now run around using this study.

I doubt that. They'll use the news article which misrepresents the findings of the study.

Maybe some people were right, including those on this forum about masks, even though the government and forum members pushed out a different message; including after someone took the vaccines or had natural immunity.


View: https://youtu.be/Xn3lwR7vonw

You're linking to an almost hysterical, fact-free rant by Paul and a calm, evidenced, measured response by Fauci. I would categorize that bit as pro-mask.

This is happening right now as well, when it comes to vaccines. People being shamed because they have hesitancy. People being talked down to because they are bringing up studies and reports which goes against the mainstream and government guidance and communication. Maybe we should all be better.

I agree that we shouldn't heed to use shame to get people to do their duty to their community.


I know you like to reads all kinds of sources of information. However, with some sources like zerohedge or huffpost, you should be asking yourself "How is this headline/article lying to me?" while you read it.

 

[LogGrad98]

Follow the science… Is this science true? It's the largest by far, to date.


View: https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1620992293565259776?s=46&t=UJTqVv1XbyUbsAtqwOQJjw

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Or is this science “quackery” since it goes against what the media and the government have been saying?

Everyone on the side who didn't believe in masks will now run around using this study.

Maybe some people were right, including those on this forum about masks, even though the government and forum members pushed out a different message; including after someone took the vaccines or had natural immunity.


View: https://youtu.be/Xn3lwR7vonw


Shamming people or taking up violence against others who had a different viewpoint now or at the time:


View: https://youtu.be/N6HdbtBM730


Then you have the other side putting their beliefs over private business wishes and rules which results in more violence and problems.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZQXoZRO7FM



This is happening right now as well, when it comes to vaccines. People being shamed because they have hesitancy. People being talked down to because they are bringing up studies and reports which goes against the mainstream and government guidance and communication. Maybe we should all be better.

Interesting stuff. Tough to know if masks are ineffective in and of themselves, or if humans are inconsistent in how and when they mask. Making a show of it in public, and self-reporting as wearing a mask "all the time", precludes the possibility that among friends and family, and other gatherings, they don't wear masks. And maybe some of those friends don't wear masks as much as another individual does, so maybe they bring it in. "Super-spreader" events have already been shown to cause a large proportion of transmission. Also, in the studies did they confirm how often COVID was contracted directly while wearing a mask specifically? Can they show that the rate would be exactly the same if no one had worn masks at all? Seems most of the studies cited more or less said "see, even wearing masks they still had 60% transmission rates, so masks don't work" where it is nearly impossible to say what the transmission rate would have been truly without masks, and no one can show an infection rate DIRECTLY TIED to wearing masks. Hence the use of the word "probably". If they have direct evidence of transmission despite masks and masks doing literally nothing they would cite that.

Here is the plain english explanation of the main study cited:

Key messages
We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.

Hand hygiene programmes may help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.

Uncertain whether it helps is a damn far cry from "does nothing".

They also said this:

What are the limitations of the evidence?
Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.

Relatively low numbers followed the guidelines. That kind of changes the entire study. So if relatively low numbers follow the guidelines, then the guidelines don't work. Kind of makes sense, right? How does this equate to "masks don't work"?


Also, this was in the article cited in the twit from the "zero hedge" site:

We're sure the cult of Fauci will now start insisting peer-reviewed meta-analyses aren't 'the science.'

Sounds unbiased to me, right?

From the wiki for Zero Hedge:

Zero Hedge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Over time, Zero Hedge expanded into non-financial political content,[c] including conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric[3][28] advancing radical right,[15][29] alt-right,[30][31][32] and pro-Russia positions.[1][33][34][35] Zero Hedge's non-financial commentary has led to multiple site bans by global social media platforms, although its 2019 Facebook ban[36][37] and 2020 Twitter ban were later reversed.[15][38]

Zero Hedge in-house content is posted under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"; the founder and main editor was identified as Daniel Ivandjiiski.[27]

Seems legit, right?


As far as how people treat each other, we have known for millennia that humans are pieces of **** that will do whatever they want or feel they need to for protection of their status quo. We have seen deaths and injuries at black Friday sales when everything in the economy and country was generally going fine, because I am getting the last "**** me Elmo" doll if I have to kill to get it. Add in something like a pandemic killing people and it just turns our natural ****** behavior up to 11. I agree we all need to be better, period. Full stop. Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen. Also full stop. Doesn't mean we stop talking about it and trying and doing our best, but I am not holding my breath either. But I will say that inflammatory **** from ****** rags like "Zero Hedge" does nothing to advance the convo productively.

If you haven't watched "Inside Man", starring Stanley Tucci, you should, immediately. It is great. In there he has a great quote:

"Everyone is a murderer. You just need a good reason and a bad day." -Jefferson Grieff, Inside Man

 

[LogGrad98]

I looked at the study itself. It's a compilation of different studies:

The study says it has little to say about mask efficacy:


There's a reason masks have become required in surgeries. When you look into a study that downplays masking, they are going against the weight of over a century of experimentation, experience, and knowledge.

Surgical mask - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have no objections to the study itself. The headline from zerohedge would be quackery, if those making it had enough gravitas to qualify as quacks. As it is, the article is more zerohedge stupidity.


I doubt that. They'll use the news article which misrepresents the findings of the study.


You're linking to an almost hysterical, fact-free rant by Paul and a calm, evidenced, measured response by Fauci. I would categorize that bit as pro-mask.


I agree that we shouldn't heed to use shame to get people to do their duty to their community.


I know you like to reads all kinds of sources of information. However, with some sources like zerohedge or huffpost, you should be asking yourself "How is this headline/article lying to me?" while you read it.

Damnit you beat me to it.

 

[One Brow]

Damnit you beat me to it.

I think you hit on some points I did not, and you're overall a better writer.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think you hit on some points I did not, and you're overall a better writer.

Now that is straight up a lie, but I'll take it!

 

[Bucknutz]

I looked at the study itself. It's a compilation of different studies:

It literally said that in the tweet that I posted...

The study says it has little to say about mask efficacy:

1. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence)

2. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).

3. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There's a reason masks have become required in surgeries. When you look into a study that downplays masking, they are going against the weight of over a century of experimentation, experience, and knowledge.

Again, you use wikipedia, this is not a true source.

I have no objections to the study itself. The headline from zerohedge would be quackery, if those making it had enough gravitas to qualify as quacks. As it is, the article is more zerohedge stupidity.


I doubt that. They'll use the news article which misrepresents the findings of the study.

You obviously do not use twitter. Zerohedge is just one of the hundreds of articles posting about this study. Here are a few more on the right wing that is posting about the study...NOT Zerohedge's article


View: https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1620824659112636416?s=20&t=qYrhYhcu_GGF3UXuD7ey3g



View: https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1620833978164060162?s=20&t=qYrhYhcu_GGF3UXuD7ey3g



View: https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1620245228602167299?s=20&t=qYrhYhcu_GGF3UXuD7ey3g



View: https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1620923621345738752?s=20&t=qYrhYhcu_GGF3UXuD7ey3g

You're linking to an almost hysterical, fact-free rant by Paul and a calm, evidenced, measured response by Fauci. I would categorize that bit as pro-mask.

Again, this goes along with the study I just posted about. Could Fauci be wrong? That's the point.

I agree that we shouldn't heed to use shame to get people to do their duty to their community.

Duty...that's rich. Here is Pelosi doing her duty...

View: https://twitter.com/clevelanddotcom/status/1301195203647242244?s=20&t=qYrhYhcu_GGF3UXuD7ey3g



Or Newsome doing his duty with his friends
https://twitter.com/BillFOXLA/status/1328932610169561090?s=20&t=qYrhYhcu_GGF3UXuD7ey3g

How about Abrams doing her duty...
https://twitter.com/S83118579/status/1490474347672195074?s=20&t=qYrhYhcu_GGF3UXuD7ey3g

I know you like to reads all kinds of sources of information. However, with some sources like zerohedge or huffpost, you should be asking yourself "How is this headline/article lying to me?" while you read it.

You use wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can't use anything right wing on this forum or it's instantly discarded, yet we can post articles from the Atlantic or MSNBC and accept it.

Do you accept everything from the government? Why don't you ask yourself when you hear government officials speak "How are they lying to me" while you listen to it.

 

[One Brow]

1. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence)

2. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).

3. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

Again, all of this is moderated by the statement that we didn't have a high level of mask compliance in these communities. If people aren't wearing masks, they obviously can't stop transmission.

Again, you use wikipedia, this is not a true source.

That depends upon how lazy you are. If you go to the footnotes, there are 8 scientific studies listed within the first 10 footnotes, and I stopped counting there. It's not like Wikipedia is some random message board. It's not reliable enough for genuine research papers, but I'm not in here to write research papers.

You obviously do not use twitter. Zerohedge is just one of the hundreds of articles posting about this study. Here are a few more on the right wing that is posting about the study...NOT Zerohedge's article

Same advice applies.

Again, this goes along with the study I just posted about. Could Fauci be wrong? That's the point.

Obviously Fauci can be wrong, and occasionally had been. However, if your asking if Fauci is wrong that wearing a mask prevents transmission, the proper question is "Could 120 years of research into the prevention of transmission of disease by wearing masks be completely overturned"? The only reasonable answer, with regard to this study, is "not by a study that cautions it could not draw firm conclusions".

Duty...that's rich. Here is Pelosi doing her duty... Or Newsome doing his duty with his friends How about Abrams doing her duty...

I am shocked, just shocked, that Democratic politicians could be hypocritical. How will I ever recover?

Please explain to me why this has any bearing on the efficacy of masks.

You use wikipedia. You can't use anything right wing on this forum or it's instantly discarded, yet we can post articles from the Atlantic or MSNBC and accept it.

Did you really just say, "You can't use anything right wing on this forum or it's instantly discarded" immediately after using 5 right-wing sources that are still in your posts? Or, did you mean "discredited"? I assure you, if you quote Huffpost, Democratic Underground, Dr. Jill Stein, Aaron Rodgers, etc., I will equally discredit them.

Do you accept everything from the government? Why don't you ask yourself when you here government officials speak "How are they lying to me" while you listen to it.

I do.

 

[fishonjazz]

Follow the science… Is this science true? It's the largest by far, to date.


View: https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1620992293565259776?s=46&t=UJTqVv1XbyUbsAtqwOQJjw

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Or is this science “quackery” since it goes against what the media and the government have been saying?

Everyone on the side who didn't believe in masks will now run around using this study.

Maybe some people were right, including those on this forum about masks, even though the government and forum members pushed out a different message; including after someone took the vaccines or had natural immunity.


View: https://youtu.be/Xn3lwR7vonw


Shamming people or taking up violence against others who had a different viewpoint now or at the time:


View: https://youtu.be/N6HdbtBM730


Then you have the other side putting their beliefs over private business wishes and rules which results in more violence and problems.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZQXoZRO7FM



This is happening right now as well, when it comes to vaccines. People being shamed because they have hesitancy. People being talked down to because they are bringing up studies and reports which goes against the mainstream and government guidance and communication. Maybe we should all be better.

I never had a strong opinion on whether masks worked or not. I just wasn't all that triggered by wearing a mask so i wore one since it wasn't a big deal and couldn't hurt my chances of getting sick. It is weird that doctors and dentists wear them though.

 

[Bucknutz]

That depends upon how lazy you are. If you go to the footnotes, there are 8 scientific studies listed within the first 10 footnotes, and I stopped counting there. It's not like Wikipedia is some random message board. It's not reliable enough for genuine research papers, but I'm not in here to write research papers.

You don’t accept articles from certain sources and I don’t accept them from Wikipedia. I posted Wikipedia’s why it’s not a trusted source page.

I am shocked, just shocked, that Democratic politicians could be hypocritical. How will I ever recover?

Please explain to me why this has any bearing on the efficacy of masks.

It’s not. It’s about your smug response about your “duty”.

Did you really just say, "You can't use anything right wing on this forum or it's instantly discarded" immediately after using 5 right-wing sources that are still in your posts? Or, did you mean "discredited"? I assure you, if you quote Huffpost, Democratic Underground, Dr. Jill Stein, Aaron Rodgers, etc., I will equally discredit them.

Keep spinning why I posted those responses. It’s because you stated that the right will only spread the Zerohedge article and not the study. I presented that was not the case.
You will discredit all these sources but not Wikipedia that can be manipulated, inaccurate, not complete or misleading at any time. Gotcha.

I do.

When it comes from people on the right.

 

[One Brow]

You don’t accept articles from certain sources and I don’t accept them from Wikipedia. I posted Wikipedia’s why it’s not a trusted source page.

Because Wikipedia is just like Huffpost or Zerohedge. Sure.

It’s not. It’s about your smug response about your “duty”.

Why would politicians shirking their duties make it less of a duty?

Keep spinning why I posted those responses. It’s because you stated that the right will only spread the Zerohedge article and not the study. I presented that was not the case.

Fair enough. I should have said that the right will only spread the misleading take on the study exemplified by the Zerohedge article. My error.

You will discredit all these sources but not Wikipedia that can be manipulated, inaccurate, not complete or misleading at any time. Gotcha.

Wikipedia assigns knowledgeable editors to keep pages from descending into unreliable fictions, particularly when the topics are controversial. Zerohedge and Huffpost go out of their way to be misleading for clicks/outrage/etc. That difference is clear to me.

When it comes from people on the right.

I am human, and just as likely to take something more seriously when I agree with it as the next guy. Intellectually, I know that Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders aren't more bound by the facts than McCarthy or Cheney, but the heart wants what it wants. That said, you've never seen me rebutting the (typically left-wing) Jesus Mythicists or anarchists (although we do get the occasionally loony lefter here on the boards, and I try to dig into them with even greater vehemence).

 

[gandalfe]

Wikipedia assigns knowledgeable editors to keep pages from descending into unreliable fictions, particularly when the topics are controversial. Zerohedge and Huffpost go out of their way to be misleading for clicks/outrage/etc. That difference is clear to me.

I have said before, Wikipedia is not a primary source and should not be used as one. But it's a pretty good secondary source, or aggregator of primary sources.