What's new
  • This thread contains opinions and information that likely IS NOT ACCURATE. Do your own research on such an important topic on a site other than JazzFanz.com, please.

Worldwide Genocide Continues: 13,867 DEAD from COVID-19 Shots


babe

Well-Known Member
So far, in the US, there have been 2, and neither were fatal.

Where politically-directed falsification of reports is the issue, as it is in the US, you should not just believe what you're told. Fortunately, our "news" is not prevailing worldwide. There are valid reports being done, even if they are suppressed in the US.

Here is something that should wake you up. It is done with a high level of integrity and intellect, and is well-documented and relies on mainstream sources of reporting as a mid-level summary work published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

" However, despite these positive data regarding the efficacy of vaccines, more severe Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) such as anaphylaxis, Bell's Palsy, Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) and deaths have been reported in persons who have already received one or two doses of the vaccines [[13], [14], [15]"

  • 9. Mortality after COVID-19 vaccination: More concerningly have been emerging reports of deaths following the various available COVID-19 vaccines. A Norwegian expert group has noted mortality in frail patients vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and advocate a risk-benefit analysis in this cohort of patients [29]. There have been multiple other reasons attributed to deaths with these vaccines including fatal anaphylaxis and a paradoxical syndrome of blood clots and thrombocytopenia (VITT) [14,15]. VITT has been predominantly noticed following the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and this has led to change in vaccine strategy with the CDC panel including various national governments advocating avoiding Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in specific age groups and women [30].


Post vaccination deaths due to COVID-19 have been reported in older individuals with multiple co-morbidities [31]. It has been reported that vaccine effectiveness is generally lower in such groups [32].

  • 10. Role of Genealogy: It has been certainly clear that Black and Ethnic Minority (BAME) population have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 [33]. What is still being evaluated is the effect of COVID-19 vaccine and its relationship with genetic configuration.


The studies elucidating these mechanisms for COVID-19 infection and mortality after commonly used COVID-19 vaccinations are summarized in Table 1 . The studies where the incidence of breakthrough infection post vaccination has been evaluated across various countries is summarized in Table 2 ."


This report is on the inside track with accepted professionals even the US NIH and CDC.

But in reading it, I see a deliberate bias misdirecting attention from what I suspect are the main valid modes of vaccine-caused mortalities. It should be viewed as an Establishment attempt to defend the vaccines against what are the most prevalent outsider allegations.

Against what I mentioned a few posts above about concerns such as blood-clotting issues. I began raising this issue as soon as I knew what the vaccines were. There is simply no way you are going to manipulate the immune system with mRNA methods involving "tricking" the immune system with disease antibodies produced in this manner. A pretty slick trick, I do say. Nice that the mRNA is short-lived and therefore adverse reactions might trend on the short-term side as well. But our immune system is beyond our comprehension, really, and capable of destroying any self cell that somehow "looks" wrong. Read that as "Autoimmune Disease".

Anomalous blood clotting or otherwise notable effects on blood cell functions are to be expected in any kind of scenario where damage is occurring to any cell population accessible to the blood stream caused by any artificial agent of our contrivance.

I doubt you would even care to read this report. No need. You are handed daily talking points and supporting references, I believe. And that is your universe and your pathetic life. As I've stated elsewhere, you are not a scientist in this field of study. Some would say neither am I. I was once, and occasionally dip back in. What I recall most fondly is the kind of seminars that collegiate departments used to hold, where you had to go in armed to the teeth to support any assertion in your report because for damn certain you would be challenged from every possible angle.

Now, I imagine, such colloquia are cake-walks for the woke who support the desired political drift. Maybe I oughtta go back and see, but judging from what I see coming out in print, it would likely be another useless exercise in trying to deflect an agenda.

It is, nevertheless, very necessary to do reports like this as a stonewall against wild allegations from a ignoramus public in general. The fact that official attention, concern and effort is being made with these issues is far better than nothing at all.

And again, there is here no sign of the alleged "worldwide" genocide" unless you are resigned, as a sort of putative genocide engineer, to a very disperse, ineffective, sort of "genocide" that will reduce the target population by, at best,1% mostly old people with only a few years of expected life. Might help some countries with severe problems with too few young working people to pay the cost of excess elderly folks. But hey, that's what ordinary colds and flu are for already.
 
Last edited:


One Brow

Well-Known Member
Where politically-directed falsification of reports is the issue, as it is in the US, you should not just believe what you're told. Fortunately, our "news" is not prevailing worldwide. There are valid reports being done, even if they are suppressed in the US.
You are linking to a report on the NIH server, while simultaneously claiming it is being suppressed in the US. Do you truly have no sense of irony?

Here is something that should wake you up. It is done with a high level of integrity and intellect, and is well-documented and relies on mainstream sources of reporting as a mid-level summary work published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
Those sources include the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) run by the WHO. Do you trust the WHO? Because, they say that "Adverse event following immunization ... does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the usage of the vaccine. If not rapidly and effectively dealt with, can undermine confidence in a vaccine and ultimately have dramatic consequences for immunization coverage and disease incidence." and "Epidemiological studies are usually needed to assess the causal relationship between the vaccine and the signal.". You didn't link to such a study. If you don't trust the WHO, why are you relying on the reports in the AEFI that they run?


However, in the study you did link to, we should not the authors Results:
A number of factors have been associated with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infection reported after vaccination. A high viral load, comorbidities, mutant strains, Variants of Concern (VOC) leading to Vaccine escape and casual attitude towards COVID Appropriate Behaviors appear to be the most important factors for infection and deaths after COVID-19 vaccination.

Your quote-mining and cherry-picking minor points out of the study and out-of-context is, at best, a thunderously inept thinking.

But in reading it, I see a deliberate bias misdirecting attention from what I suspect are the main valid modes of vaccine-caused mortalities. It should be viewed as an Establishment attempt to defend the vaccines against what are the most prevalent outsider allegations.
Because viewing it the way the authors intended doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notions? You're just wrong.

I doubt you would even care to read this report.
Incorrect. The report is quite illuminating. Your discussion of it is completely wrong, but the report itself is pretty good.

You are handed daily talking points and supporting references, I believe.
You are welcome to your paranoia.

As I've stated elsewhere, you are not a scientist in this field of study. Some would say neither am I. I was once, and occasionally dip back in.
Nothing in your self-description (a lab monkey who worked with chemists) comes across as a scientist in the field of public health. As a data monkey who actually works with public health scientists, among others, I'm at least as qualified as you.

Now, I imagine, such colloquia are cake-walks for the woke who support the desired political drift.
You are welcome to your delusions.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Fortunately, the standard for "credible" is different from "babe believes it".

credulity is cultivated as a vital necessity by all authoritarians, who reflexively reward it with honor and badges. It is so important to state interests, in fact, that no state can sustain itself without a critical mass of adherents.

Most organizations will inexorably cull out any members who fail to display it with sufficient enthusiasm.

In the course of time, this is the reason nations and all other human organizations fail. Building societies on fantasies has no permanent value.

You sit on a little pile of stones prepared for you by your masters and are happy to entertain the occasional passersby who mock you for your position, and you gleefully throw the stones after them, mistaking the fact that the mockers pass on by for some damn kind of success in life.
You are linking to a report on the NIH server, while simultaneously claiming it is being suppressed in the US. Do you truly have no sense of irony?


Those sources include the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) run by the WHO. Do you trust the WHO? Because, they say that "Adverse event following immunization ... does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the usage of the vaccine. If not rapidly and effectively dealt with, can undermine confidence in a vaccine and ultimately have dramatic consequences for immunization coverage and disease incidence." and "Epidemiological studies are usually needed to assess the causal relationship between the vaccine and the signal.". You didn't link to such a study. If you don't trust the WHO, why are you relying on the reports in the AEFI that they run?


However, in the study you did link to, we should not the authors Results:


Your quote-mining and cherry-picking minor points out of the study and out-of-context is, at best, a thunderously inept thinking.


Because viewing it the way the authors intended doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notions? You're just wrong.


Incorrect. The report is quite illuminating. Your discussion of it is completely wrong, but the report itself is pretty good.


You are welcome to your paranoia.


Nothing in your self-description (a lab monkey who worked with chemists) comes across as a scientist in the field of public health. As a data monkey who actually works with public health scientists, among others, I'm at least as qualified as you.


You are welcome to your delusions.

The report I cited paid all the necessary points of homage to the agenda of sustained pandemic authoritarianism. It involved no original study only analysis of other studies. It appeared useful to me as something that in fact discredited your claim that no deaths had occurred as a consequence to, as events caused by, administration of vaccines to patients.

Almost all studies officially accepted and published in "major" or "accepted" journals have to avoid or overcome the criticism of "disinformation" in today's scientific climate.

We have major news retailers who openly profess today that material which is not helpful to the cause of greater good aka global socialism should not be published, and that is the fundamental thesis underlying all political labeling by those in favor of this "Greater Good"

However, even in this kind of suppression, even the advocates of that suppression, appear in this case to be forced to acknowledge the problem of causality linked to the Covid vaccines.

I saw a pretty good effort to provide "answers" in this study to the problem you don't see/won't admit.
.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
credulity is cultivated as a vital necessity by all authoritarians, who reflexively reward it with honor and badges. It is so important to state interests, in fact, that no state can sustain itself without a critical mass of adherents.
Since I'm being lectured to on credulity by a guy who see the Rothschilds everywhere, there's little to do but laugh or sigh.

It appeared useful to me as something that in fact discredited your claim that no deaths had occurred as a consequence to, as events caused by, administration of vaccines to patients.
I said no deaths in the US of one particular putative complication. Nothing in your link said otherwise. The source data it quotes specifically warns against assuming causation.

Almost all studies officially accepted and published in "major" or "accepted" journals have to avoid or overcome the criticism of "disinformation" in today's scientific climate.
Yes, it is very helpful to build on what we already know, as opposed to pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Since I'm being lectured to on credulity by a guy who see the Rothschilds everywhere, there's little to do but laugh or sigh.


I said no deaths in the US of one particular putative complication. Nothing in your link said otherwise. The source data it quotes specifically warns against assuming causation.


Yes, it is very helpful to build on what we already know, as opposed to pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
Sophistry is often a sort of lie. So are personal attacks of any kind.

I don't know anything about the old line banking families. A lot of people say stuff with no real knowledge. I have heard of Venice being once a banking center, I have heard alusions to Popes related to bankers, and I have heard of the City of London,. Some of the American banking dynasties appear to be influential. The allegations generally run more in the line of politcians going to get money to fight wars, and the bankers loan it out. Then there's "our" Federal Resserve, which I actually know next to nothing about.

Still, it is almost certainly true that people of influence have money, or access to money, and common folk are often cut out of the deals.

You allege that I lack good judgment somehow because you imagine I am overly interested in speculattive connections. The common lie/slander that someone is a conspiracy theorist is a tool got up by the CIA in the early 1950s ir oergaos earkuerm when some of the higher echelons of our government were importing former NAZI or German or otherwise highly talented Europeans to bolster our military programs.



The reason this was a necessary tool is just because following the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, some of our industrial giants went looking for a base offshore where they could build their production and ship it where they wanted. The Rockefellers had some pharmaceutical operations in Germany, and some investment in basic industries like chemical plants, oil companies. IG Farben comes to mind, a producer of chlorine gas. And some high tech metals. The Fords invested in auto manufacture as well. I think there are practically no American industrialists who did not build in Germany in the 1930s.

Our elites of this sort were very concerned about the ideas people might get about their involvement and profits from German war production. But wasn't just us, some of our "Allies" were invoved as well.

We created a spy unit during the war that utilized talent from these "German" production outfits, and called it the OSS. After the war, we wanted more of that talent, and wanted a fresh name Americans could accept as a civilian government operation, so the called it the CIA.

Whenever I run across an ignoramus who knows nothing of this sort of thing, I read it out as "Here's a clown trying to impress the cows." Now I confess I talk to cows myself, and they talk back. I can sorta tell if they're gonna stampede from the way it sounds, but I'm can't been sure there are any cow vocabulary items I could write out and give definitions for.

I am not a political activist except in the sense that I despise and hate almost all politicians, all except those who listen to me. So perhaps there are an inconsequential number of exceptions.

What I believe about politics is to be found, largely, in Ambrose Bierce's ""Devils' Dictionary"

As I think I've intimated before perfaps too many times already, human liberty is universally degraded by every alderman, councilman, mayor, or government official, and by every political activist like you.

I have not the time to howl down every do-gooder or self-righteous proponent of governance. You'd have to show me someone who did something without some special regard for some interested and influential sjupporter before you could convince me that there is such a thing as open government in the public interest.

Until you can do that, your sneering insults about supposed ignoramuses are more like four fingers pointed to yourself for every one pointing at others.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Since I'm being lectured to on credulity by a guy who see the Rothschilds everywhere, there's little to do but laugh or sigh.


I said no deaths in the US of one particular putative complication. Nothing in your link said otherwise. The source data it quotes specifically warns against assuming causation.


Yes, it is very helpful to build on what we already know, as opposed to pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

You apparently missed, or disregarded, the obvious bias in the linked article. The main thrust in fact was to provide suggestions, without evidence, for all kinds of non-causal possibiliies. A sort of tutorial, if not an outright users' guide, for ascribing other reasons for deaths that the vaccines.

My point in providing the link was to show the actual admissions that a variety of deaths seem somehow related to the vaccination, because of a fairly short amount of lapsed time when the deaths occurred, after a vaccination.

"
  • 9. Mortality after COVID-19 vaccination: More concerningly have been emerging reports of deaths following the various available COVID-19 vaccines. A Norwegian expert group has noted mortality in frail patients vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and advocate a risk-benefit analysis in this cohort of patients [29]. There have been multiple other reasons attributed to deaths with these vaccines including fatal anaphylaxis and a paradoxical syndrome of blood clots and thrombocytopenia (VITT) [14,15]. VITT has been predominantly noticed following the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and this has led to change in vaccine strategy with the CDC panel including various national governments advocating avoiding Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in specific age groups and women [30]."

We don't have a comparable report from US sources exclusively, most of the references in this article come from India. Pretty sure we could do one if our establishment authorities cared for it. So you do perhaps have the point on your clever exclusion of reports outside the US.


Sometimes you seem obsessively biased.

Are you being graded or paid somehow, for maintaining the party line in this forum? Never seen you get very interested in acknowledging points not beneficial to the agenda.
 
Last edited:

babe

Well-Known Member
Our pharma giants show up as big advertisers in all our mainstream journals, and in grants to department chairs in our great universities. It could hardly be expected that our professionals in these institutions would really rush to the task to discredit their benefactors in any fashion.

At the very least, this fact or circumstances alone should dissuade individuals conversing socially regarding such products from unthinking belief in official assertions. And we should respect and maybe even consider people's experiences with those products, be they medicines or any kind of treatments. The FDA ,moreover, has such a critical mass of connections and relations to the industries regulated, we really should have an independent oversight from third parties on all their worki. Goes for NIH and CDC too.

Just too much good reason to question their work.

Until and Unless we actually take the time, make the efforrt, to evaluate the many anecdotal complaints, we are not really being very reliable reporters on these subjects.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Credibility grows out of thorough evaluation of diverse opinions and actually looking for objections to the assertions we make.

Credulity grows out of relying on official or authoritative or whatever report at hand, without questioning it.

Political activism actually requires the exercise of massive credulity in forcing unwanted ideas off the page.
 

Gameface

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
I'm looking forward to getting my booster.

Is that the one that will kill me and/or implant a chip in me and/or make my dick fall off or whatever is supposed to happen?
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
Sophistry is often a sort of lie. So are personal attacks of any kind.
You mean, personal attacks like saying "You are handed daily talking points and supporting references, I believe."?

Still, it is almost certainly true that people of influence have money, or access to money, and common folk are often cut out of the deals.
There we agree.

As I think I've intimated before perfaps too many times already, human liberty is universally degraded by every alderman, councilman, mayor, or government official, and by every political activist like you.
I have discussions on message boards. That is not being an activist.

You'd have to show me someone who did something without some special regard for some interested and influential sjupporter before you could convince me that there is such a thing as open government in the public interest.
Just because I don't buy into your conspiratorial nonsense does not mean that I think we have an open government.

My point in providing the link was to show the actual admissions that a variety of deaths seem somehow related to the vaccination, because of a fairly short amount of lapsed time when the deaths occurred, after a vaccination.
Except, it is not an admission. That is a confusions of correlation and causation. Hundreds of people found out they had cancer after watching the last season of Game of Thrones, that does not mean the show caused cancer.

We don't have a comparable report from US sources exclusively,.
We do. It's called VAERS.

Sometimes you seem obsessively biased.
Possibly. I am only human.

Are you being graded or paid somehow, for maintaining the party line in this forum?
Nope. I do this to satisfy my own neuroses.

Never seen you get very interested in acknowledging points not beneficial to the agenda.
Perhaps you just blow by the points that I agree with you upon.
Our pharma giants show up as big advertisers in all our mainstream journals, and in grants to department chairs in our great universities. It could hardly be expected that our professionals in these institutions would really rush to the task to discredit their benefactors in any fashion.
I agree this is major issue.

At the very least, this fact or circumstances alone should dissuade individuals conversing socially regarding such products from unthinking belief in official assertions. And we should respect and maybe even consider people's experiences with those products, be they medicines or any kind of treatments. The FDA ,moreover, has such a critical mass of connections and relations to the industries regulated, we really should have an independent oversight from third parties on all their worki. Goes for NIH and CDC too.
Any such third parties would also be lobbied and courted by the pharmaceuticals, and we would have added a layer of bureaucracy with little or no benefit.

Until and Unless we actually take the time, make the efforrt, to evaluate the many anecdotal complaints, we are not really being very reliable reporters on these subjects.
They actually do that. Try making a report on VAERS; you will likely get contacted for the details of the report.
 

Top