Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: Today at 07:18:19 AM »
Reuters quotes people, you know, non-anonymous people, usually experts in the field.

Dr Deepti Gurdasani, a clinical epidemiologist at Queen Mary University of London, told Reuters via email that it is “Rather bizarre to study cardiac events (at) a population level, without individual assessment of whether they were linked to covid or vaccination.”

Christina Pagel, professor of operational research at University College London, told Reuters: “There have been several high-quality studies now from many countries looking at individual level data on cardiac outcomes following vaccination and following Covid and their conclusions are clear and consistent – there is an elevated risk of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination in younger people (particularly men) but it is tiny and much lower than the risk of myocarditis from Covid.” She said in an email to Reuters: “The benefits of the vaccines far outweigh the risks in these cohorts.”

From the paper in question,, co-author, Levi Retsef:
Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave
It is important to note the main limitation of this study, which is that it relies on aggregated data that do not include specific information regarding the affected patients, including hospital outcomes, underlying comorbidities as well as vaccination and COVID-19 positive status.

Pretty interesting how one might draw a conclusion that vaccines are causing the mentioned issues when you don't know:
- Hospital outcomes
- Underlying comorbidities

And the Winner, they didn't even know the patients':
-Vaccination and COVID-19 positive status

Don't know the vaccination status yet vaccination is the cause. Hmmm, how does that work?

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: Today at 03:51:13 AM »
MIT Professor Retsef Levi Vaccine Claims Examined

Fact #1 : Retsef Levi Is Professor of Management + Operations Management
Retsef Levi is a professor of Management, as well as Operations Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, which is a separate business school under the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

MIT Sloan focuses on MBA, Finance, Business Analytics, Management, etc. and is separate from the MIT School of Science, where the faculty teaches and researches the hard sciences from physics and biology to computational biology and statistics.


Fact #2 : MIT Study Did Not Prove Pfizer Vaccine Raised Heart Problems
The first study that Retsef Levi mentioned was the one he co-authored in April 2022...No clinical research was conducted on any patient. The study only “analysed” data collected by a third party – the Israel National Emergency Medical Services.
- The study relied on call data based on initial diagnosis by responding paramedics, not the final / actual diagnosis by doctors after the patients undergo all necessary clinical and laboratory investigations at the hospital.
- The data did not include about 50% of cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome cases in Israel for that period of time.
- The data was not tied to COVID-19 infection, or COVID-19 vaccination, or even pre-existing heart problems.
- The authors themselves pointed out that they did not establish any causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and heart problems.
- The authors also pointed out that the increase in cardiac arrests and acute coronary syndrome may be caused by “other underlying causal mechanisms”.

Fact #3 : Adverse Events of Special Interest Are Not Vaccine Side Effects!
- The AESI list is not specific to the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
- The AESI list includes “exposure to SARS-CoV-2”, and other viruses like Herpes, MERS, Varicella, as well as other “communicable disease”.
- The AESI list includes manufacturing and lab test issues like “Manufacturing laboratory analytical testing issue, Manufacturing materials issue, Manufacturing production issue“.
- The AESI list includes product supply issues like “Product availability issue, Product distribution issue, Product supply issue“.
- The Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) list is not a list of vaccine side effects

Fact #4 : Smallpox Vaccine Does Not Use mRNA Technology
Retsef Levi referred to a 2015 US Military finding that the smallpox vaccine caused heart problems.

...that new ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine does not use mRNA technology, but a single plaque-purified vaccinia virus derivative of Dryvax (NYCBH strain).


Fact Check-Study using Israeli emergency services data does not prove COVID-19 vaccines cause heart problems
The study does not examine what may have caused the heart issues – infection or vaccination, nor does it examine or account for any other possible causes of increased cardiac events in this age group.

Retsef Levi, professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and one of the authors of the study, told Reuters via email that the correlation they found did not prove causality.
“Let me emphasize that I do not support any interpretation of the paper as a proof that the vaccine has caused this increase in EMS calls,” Levi said. “The paper only calls to check the matter broadly and explore all possible causes.”

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 05, 2023, 07:51:26 PM »
Sorry, your FDA source has ZERO credibility.

If you wanted to just state your opinion you could have done that a few posts ago. It doesn't mean anything, being just an opinion and all, bereft of facts, but if you just want to talk about your feels, that's fine.
Your FDA hasn't been able to take any action on what you chose to use an attempted slur against the good doctor.

Typical.

Apparently, this isn't the good Dr. Mercola's first rodeo with the Feds.

2016:
Marketers of Indoor Tanning Systems to Pay Refunds to Consumers
Defendants Ran Ads Claiming That Indoor Tanning Is Safe, Doesn’t Increase the Risk of Skin Cancer
The Illinois-based marketers of Mercola-brand indoor tanning systems will pay refunds to consumers and will be permanently banned from marketing or selling indoor tanning systems, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

In the FTC’s complaint, which was filed in federal court, the Commission charged that Dr. Joseph Mercola and his two companies ran ads claiming that their indoor tanning systems are safe, that research proves indoor tanning does not increase the risk of melanoma skin cancer, and that their systems which deliver both ultraviolet (UV) light and red light can “reverse the appearance of aging.” The FTC’s complaint alleged that these claims are false, misleading, or unsubstantiated.

Finally, the defendants must pay refunds to consumers who bought Mercola brand indoor tanning systems between January 1, 2012 and the present. An FTC redress administrator will send refund eligibility notices and claim forms to these consumers. Purchasers who want a refund must return the claim form by the date stated in the letter. The defendants are required to pay a maximum of $5,334,067 to cover the cost of refunds and administration of the refund program.

Ultimately, he had to refund $2.6 million for his tanning salon solutions. I'd say that's definitely the Feds (FTC) "taking action". Wouldn't you think so? Unless you think 2 1/2 million dollars isn't that much of an "action".
So, the FDA hasn't taken any action.

Thanks.

The "action" was a warning letter for him to remove false claims from the vitamins, etc, he sells on his site. And guess what, he no longer has those false claims on his shopping site. I wonder what "action" caused that to happen...

The FDA has observed that your website offers “Liposomal Vitamin C,” “Liposomal Vitamin D3,” and “Quercetin and Pterostilbene Advanced” products for sale in the United States and that these products are intended to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose, or cure COVID-191 in people.

Guess what, the good Dr's shopping site no longer mentions anything about covid in regard to those products.

So yeah, the "action” was:

- He received a warning from the FDA to remove his false claims about his products he was shilling
- As a result of the warning "action" from the FDA, he removed all of the false claims about his products he's shilling

I would call that "action", otherwise he would still have all of the false claims about his products he's shilling - He doesn't anymore.

And, of course, there's the FTC "action" as well, that caused him to refund $2.6 million dollars for his tanning bed scheme.

So yeah, a lot of "action".

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 05, 2023, 06:41:53 PM »
Sorry, your FDA source has ZERO credibility.

If you wanted to just state your opinion you could have done that a few posts ago. It doesn't mean anything, being just an opinion and all, bereft of facts, but if you just want to talk about your feels, that's fine.
Your FDA hasn't been able to take any action on what you chose to use an attempted slur against the good doctor.

Typical.

Apparently, this isn't the good Dr. Mercola's first rodeo with the Feds.

2016:
Marketers of Indoor Tanning Systems to Pay Refunds to Consumers
Defendants Ran Ads Claiming That Indoor Tanning Is Safe, Doesn’t Increase the Risk of Skin Cancer
The Illinois-based marketers of Mercola-brand indoor tanning systems will pay refunds to consumers and will be permanently banned from marketing or selling indoor tanning systems, under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.

In the FTC’s complaint, which was filed in federal court, the Commission charged that Dr. Joseph Mercola and his two companies ran ads claiming that their indoor tanning systems are safe, that research proves indoor tanning does not increase the risk of melanoma skin cancer, and that their systems which deliver both ultraviolet (UV) light and red light can “reverse the appearance of aging.” The FTC’s complaint alleged that these claims are false, misleading, or unsubstantiated.

Finally, the defendants must pay refunds to consumers who bought Mercola brand indoor tanning systems between January 1, 2012 and the present. An FTC redress administrator will send refund eligibility notices and claim forms to these consumers. Purchasers who want a refund must return the claim form by the date stated in the letter. The defendants are required to pay a maximum of $5,334,067 to cover the cost of refunds and administration of the refund program.

Ultimately, he had to refund $2.6 million for his tanning salon solutions. I'd say that's definitely the Feds (FTC) "taking action". Wouldn't you think so? Unless you think 2 1/2 million dollars isn't that much of an "action".

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 05, 2023, 09:50:20 AM »
Sorry, your FDA source has ZERO credibility.

If you wanted to just state your opinion you could have done that a few posts ago. It doesn't mean anything, being just an opinion and all, bereft of facts, but if you just want to talk about your feels, that's fine.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 05, 2023, 09:25:48 AM »
What changes did they make to the data to change the numbers after the criticism of this?

« Reply #154 on: February 03, 2023, 12:19:17 AM »

It is pretty clear that health authorities are not being entirely honest with us:

https://gellerreport.com/2021/09/shocking-fraud-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Most Influential Spreader of Coronavirus Misinformation Online

Researchers and regulators say Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, creates and profits from misleading claims about Covid-19 vaccines.

Dr. Mercola, 67, an osteopathic physician in Cape Coral, Fla., has long been a subject of criticism and government regulatory actions for his promotion of unproven or unapproved treatments. But most recently, he has become the chief spreader of coronavirus misinformation online, according to researchers.

Ah...the good old, "according to [unnamed sources], who told us such and such," trick.

From the get-go, the entirety of official government reports, especially the "death by," numbers issued by the GOVERNMENTS across the world, has been nothing but lies.

Your willingness to not just DRINK but SELL their Kool-Aid is quite telling.

Interesting how you consider the FDA, who took "government regulatory actions" against Mercola, an "unnamed source". That's a new one.

The FDA has observed that your website offers “Liposomal Vitamin C,” “Liposomal Vitamin D3,” and “Quercetin and Pterostilbene Advanced” products for sale in the United States and that these products are intended to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose, or cure COVID-191 in people. Based on our review, these products are unapproved new drugs sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 2pt1 U.S.C. § 355(a). Furthermore, these products are misbranded drugs under section 502 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352. The introduction or delivery for introduction of these products into interstate commerce is prohibited under sections 301(a) and (d) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. § 331(a) and (d).

You should take immediate action to address the violations cited in this letter. This letter is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of violations that exist in connection with your products or operations. It is your responsibility to ensure that the products you sell are in compliance with the FD&C Act and FDA's implementing regulations. We advise you to review your websites, product labels, and other labeling and promotional materials to ensure that you are not misleadingly representing your products as safe and effective for a COVID-19-related use for which they have not been approved by FDA and that you do not make claims that misbrand the products in violation of the FD&C Act.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 04, 2023, 06:44:11 PM »
What changes did they make to the data to change the numbers after the criticism of this?

« Reply #154 on: February 03, 2023, 12:19:17 AM »

It is pretty clear that health authorities are not being entirely honest with us:

https://gellerreport.com/2021/09/shocking-fraud-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Most Influential Spreader of Coronavirus Misinformation Online

Researchers and regulators say Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, creates and profits from misleading claims about Covid-19 vaccines.

Dr. Mercola, 67, an osteopathic physician in Cape Coral, Fla., has long been a subject of criticism and government regulatory actions for his promotion of unproven or unapproved treatments. But most recently, he has become the chief spreader of coronavirus misinformation online, according to researchers.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 04, 2023, 05:33:41 PM »
Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.
Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...



Let me know if you need any further assistance.
Now, why do you think a provided correction somehow renders the article incorrect?

If you cared to read the article you would realize that the entire piece is predicated on the difference between:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

When in reality, as you so deftly pointed out, it's actually:

Unvaxed = 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.007%

Now apply your math wizardry to the difference between 0.0008% & 0.005% as well as 0.0008% & 0.007%. Let us know what you come up with.
I don't need to.

You need to show why an article that provides correct figures is incorrect.

Already did. (« Reply #154 on: February 03, 2023, 12:19:17 AM »)

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 04, 2023, 05:19:22 AM »
Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.
Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...



Let me know if you need any further assistance.
Now, why do you think a provided correction somehow renders the article incorrect?

If you cared to read the article you would realize that the entire piece is predicated on the difference between:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

When in reality, as you so deftly pointed out, it's actually:

Unvaxed = 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.007%

Now apply your math wizardry to the difference between 0.0008% & 0.005% as well as 0.0008% & 0.007%. Let us know what you come up with.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 03, 2023, 08:00:12 PM »
Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.
Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.

Look forward to your follow-up.

You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...



Let me know if you need any further assistance.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 03, 2023, 07:02:48 PM »
What's really interesting is that the article says:

"So the unvaccinated had 186 cases out of 26.5% of the population. While the fully vaccinated had 4020 cases out of 70.53% of the population."

Unvaxed = 186 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

(Pay attention to the 186 number)

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

The article uses that data to then go about their extrapolations.

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

So now that 186 number in the article is actually 1097.

Doing the calculations again with the corrected number:

Unvaxed = 186 1097 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = .0008% 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.006%

Now, it's 0.005% versus 0.006% which renders the entire article incorrect and moot.
Wrong.

It is .005% vs .007%

1097/22000000 * 100 = .00498 or .005

4020/61000000 * 100 = .00659 or .007

Looks like I was off by 0.00041. My bad.

Still renders the article incorrect and moot so I'm not sure what the necessity was for the heavy lifting on the math, but I appreciate the input and correction nonetheless.

Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 03, 2023, 12:19:17 AM »
What's really interesting is that the article says:

"So the unvaccinated had 186 cases out of 26.5% of the population. While the fully vaccinated had 4020 cases out of 70.53% of the population."

Unvaxed = 186 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

(Pay attention to the 186 number)

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%

The article uses that data to then go about their extrapolations.

However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:

"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."

So now that 186 number in the article is actually 1097.

Doing the calculations again with the corrected number:

Unvaxed = 186 1097 cases of Omicron, 26% of pop, or 22m
Vaxed = 4020 case of Omicron, 70% of pop, or 61m

Meaning the Omincron infection rate is:

Unvaxed = .0008% 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.006%

Now, it's 0.005% versus 0.006% which renders the entire article incorrect and moot.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: February 01, 2023, 11:17:03 PM »
Germany has a 76.23% full vax rate. Kinda seems obvious that more vaxed people would get covid than unvaxed peoples.

14
Technology & Information / Re: Ask Rushy about Bitcoins.
« on: January 23, 2023, 05:27:32 PM »
BTC seems to be doing ok. No better, no worse than anything else really. I mean if you bought in late 2020 and held, you would have doubled your money today...

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 22, 2023, 07:49:00 PM »
Quote from: stack
And I have a really simple question for you. The author claims that the 1600+ listed were killed or harmed by the "COVID Injection". Do you believe that claim to be:

TRUE
or
FALSE

I bet dollars to donuts that you won't answer the question.

The author does not specifically claim that all people died because of the vaccine. This is another lie from you. The author gives the deaths as a reason to be suspicious of the vaccination program.

The author concedes in the first paragraph on the page that it is possible that not all of the people listed were vaccinated: "While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause."

Please refrain from making blatant lies if you wish to engage in any meaningful discussion.

"While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause."

"In response to their pronouncement, here is a non-exhaustive and continuously growing list of mainly young athletes who had major medical issues in 2021/2022 after receiving one or more COVID vaccines."

Seems pretty clear they are saying what the “only obvious cause” is and that their list is of people who were harmed "after receiving one or more COVID vaccines.

And yet we find many, many entries in the list where vax status is completely absent/unknown. How is it a list of people who received "one or more COVID vaccines" when we don't have any evidence that they did receive "one or more COVID vaccines"? How does that work?

Still won't answer the True/False question? Didn't think so.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets
« on: January 22, 2023, 04:29:50 PM »
This may be of some interest (2018):

For the First Time, Physicists Accelerated Light Beams in Curved Space in the Lab
The successful experiment "opens the doors to a new avenue of study in the field of accelerating beams."

Physicists have demonstrated accelerating light beams on flat surfaces, where acceleration has caused the beams to follow curved trajectories. However, a new experiment has pushed the boundaries of what's possible to demonstrate in a lab. For the first time in an expeirment, physicists have demonstrated an accelerating light beam in curved space. Instead of traveling along a geodesic trajectory (the shortest path on a curved surface) it bends away from this trajectory due to the acceleration.

Paper referenced in the article:
Observation of Accelerating Wave Packets in Curved Space

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 08, 2023, 11:51:42 PM »
Exclaiming that none of the articles have vax status might be hyperbole.

I didn't claim none. Just the ones I checked where there was no mention of vax status. Pretty simple really.

Claiming that you checked the ten articles before and the ten articles after is not. That is a blatant lie of claiming to do something you did not do to try to win your argument.

And how exactly did you determine this?

And I have a really simple question for you. The author claims that the 1600+ listed were killed or harmed by the "COVID Injection". Do you believe that claim to be:

TRUE
or
FALSE

I bet dollars to donuts that you won't answer the question.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 08, 2023, 12:36:11 AM »
Tap-Dancing Tom Bishop has to latch on to inappropriate hyperbole from Stack to cover up how shitty his source and argument are.

What's hyperbole to me is lying by claiming that 1600+ people died or were harmed by a vaccine when rafts of them have no evidence of being vaccinated. I mean, that's just an out and out lie.
Now my hyperbole may be that there shouldn't be a single error in the morbid list. But when I keep finding ones where the author even went to the trouble of linking to news articles as if proof of COVID Injections as the killer and no mention of COVID Injections is found, time and time again, it is clear the source is dubious at best and indefensible.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 08, 2023, 12:12:55 AM »
Cassano was admitted to the hospital for Covid 19. Got two doses of vax and sent home after he recovered from Covid.
Kondilios I said was vaxed, but according to the news report, died from Covid.
And the Matty guy I said probably got his heart problem from the vax, a known but rare side effect.

So you lied to us then when you said:

None of the articles mentioned the deceased vax status. Zero. Not a one.

Nope. I was referring to the ones I originally checked.

And you lied to us again here:

It's pretty clear you're the one doing the lying. You found one. Good for you. I checked the news stories for the 10 before yours and the 10 after. No mention of vaccine status. Zero.

You did not check the 10 news stories before and 10 after. You lied to us.

Yep, I did check them.  Go ahead and look for yourself.

Quote from: stack
Funny how you said nothing of the others I checked with no mentioned vax status. Hmmmm.

You said that you checked the articles. You didn't. You lied.

Nope. I did check them. Go ahead and look for yourself.

And go ahead and check the ones I checked. Especially my favorite:

16/06/2022 Algeria Dead
Billel Ben Hamouda
Died on Thursday evening in a car accident, NO mention of vax status

Car accident?

The point being, when the author claims that "1621 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 1118 of Them Dead, Since COVID Injection" then the list of 1621 better all be dead or harmed by a "COVID Injection". Meaning, the vax status for 1621 should be known for each and every one of them and be a YES for COVID Injection. And I (or anyone) can find many with vax status completely unmentioned and unknown. So put on your thinking cap and explain how 1621 people died or were harmed by a "COVID Injection" when it's unknown as to whether they ever had a "COVID Injection". In other words, the author is lying. Not me.

How you're not getting this is is remarkable. Do you think it's ok to claim that someone died from a vaccine when they actually died in a car accident? Do you believe that car accidents are actually COVID Injections?

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: January 07, 2023, 08:21:16 PM »
Cassano was admitted to the hospital for Covid 19. Got two doses of vax and sent home after he recovered from Covid.
Kondilios I said was vaxed, but according to the news report, died from Covid.
And the Matty guy I said probably got his heart problem from the vax, a known but rare side effect.

Funny how you said nothing of the others I checked with no mentioned vax status. Hmmmm.

And again, if someone is gonna make a blog post and claim "1621 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 1118 of Them Dead, Since COVID Injection" shouldn't you know the COVID Injection status of each?

That's an awfully bold claim to not know if someone got the COVID Injection or not, don't you think?

More random spot-checking:

25/06/2022 Minnesota, USA Dead
William Harding
Two News reports, actually obits, NO mention of vax status
_______

15/08/2022 Michigan, USA Dead
Tyler Edwards
Even for a linked Gateway Pundit article; NO mention of vax status
_______

28/04/2022 Tennessee, USA
Linton Beck
NO mention of vax status
_______

01/04/2022 England Dead
Hannah Purvis
NO mention of vax status
_______

16/06/2022 Algeria Dead
Billel Ben Hamouda
Died on Thursday evening in a car accident, NO mention of vax status

Died in a car accident? Doesn't quite sound like death by "COVID Injection" now does it?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 149  Next >