[stack]

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.

[Action80]

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.

[stack]

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 »)

[Tom Bishop]

What changes did they make to the data to change the numbers after the criticism of this?

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

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient

Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks

...


According to the CDC,6 you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen. This is how the CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough case:

“… a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.”

In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case. If you’ve received two doses and get ill within 14 days, you’re still counted as an unvaccinated case.

The problem with this is that over 80% of hospitalizations and deaths appear to be occurring among those who have received the jabs, but this reality is hidden by the way cases are defined and counted. A really clever and common strategy of the CDC during the pandemic has been to change the definitions and goalposts so it supports their nefarious narrative.

[stack]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

I haven't seen that it is misinformation. That is exactly how the CDC defines it on their website:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm#:~:text=For%20this%20surveillance%2C%20a%20vaccine,%2Dauthorized%20COVID%2D19%20vaccine.

[Rama Set]

I haven't seen that it is misinformation. That is exactly how the CDC defines it on their website:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm#:~:text=For%20this%20surveillance%2C%20a%20vaccine,%2Dauthorized%20COVID%2D19%20vaccine.

Words are hard, Tom. Let’s do it together. The CDC is not talking about people being “unvaccinated” in your quote. It’s the opposite. They are talking a “vaccine breakthrough infection” (the secret is that they wrote that). That vaccines aren’t instantly effective is well known and documented and trying to make this seem like anything other than commonplace medicine is misinformation. Assuming the negative corollary of a breakthrough infection is that people are “unvaccinated” is stupid. So kindly learn a little before you listen to shitheads like the one you quoted.

[Tom Bishop]

In 2021 the CDC was stating that you were not considered fully vaccinated until 2 weeks after second dose (probably more now considering boosters):

Article from 2021 - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/past-reports/07022021.html

* People are considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series (such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines), or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine (such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine). If you don’t meet these requirements, regardless of your age, you are not fully vaccinated. Keep taking all precautions until you are fully vaccinated.

In this paper on the mortality of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated after the first two shots, curiously the "unvaccinated" population deaths shot up and were dying a couple of weeks after people got their first dose. The one shot vaccinated population deaths began shooting up a couple of weeks of the people who got their second dose.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

From the section 4. Correlating unvaccinated mortality with the vaccine roll out

One of the figures:



The paper calls this evidence of the delay and miscategorization of status, and says that these deaths are not caused by natural events:

In all Figures 12 to 14 we see peaks in mortality risk for the unvaccinated across the three age groups that occur almost immediately as if they had received the first vaccine and peak at consecutively later times in line with when vaccine was administered for that age group. The fact that the peaks in mortality are not temporally aligned strongly suggests that this is not caused by natural events. As reported previously [16], such a phenomenon would be inevitable if the deaths of people who die shortly after vaccination are miscategorised as unvaccinated.

5. Correcting the miscategorization

A major problem in evaluating the overall risk-benefits of a vaccine is that different classifications of what constitutes a ‘vaccinated’ person are required depending on whether we are primarily interested in its efficacy in reducing infections or in whether we are primarily interested in its impact on all-cause mortality. In this section we are interested in the latter, which is why we believe it is important to consider a person as ‘vaccinated’ if they have received at least one dose since adverse reactions are most likely shortly after the vaccination. However, for efficacy in reducing infections, it seems reasonable to allow for suitable elapsed time (and even number of doses) before considering that a person is ‘vaccinated’. Indeed, the vaccine manufacturers claim that they are only effective when the recipient is fully vaccinated, which they define as being >14 days after the second dose [18], with a recommended gap between the first and second dose of 3 weeks [20]. This is why the ONS and other data sets focus on categorisation before and after the 21-day period elapsed between doses. However, there are also claims that the vaccines are effective after the first dose, but only after 14 days have elapsed. In fact, the USA CDC (Center for Disease Control) classifies any case, hospitalization or death occurring during this 14-day period after first dose as ‘unvaccinated’, despite injection [18]. Evidence from Israel suggests that this definition applies there [23], but in the UK it was never clear that this was the case until the release of documentation suggesting that the vaccinated who die within 14 days of vaccination might be categorized as unvaccinated [17].

Similarly, if it is possible that someone who dies within 14 days of vaccination (first dose) is miscategorised as unvaccinated then, hypothetically at least, a similar thing could occur post second dose, whereby the people who die within a period of taking the second vaccine are mis-categorised as ‘single dose vaccinated’. A fuller investigation of the mis-categorisation problem as seen in the Dagan study [23] is expanded in the analysis by Reeder [22] and demonstrates that confounding by mis-categorisation can account for most, if not all, of any effectiveness claimed in an observational study.

So for some reason people taking the vaccine causes people in the previous category to peak and die in larger numbers. Somehow taking the vaccine is associated with increased deaths.

From the conclusion:

Whatever the explanations for the observed data, it is clear that it is both unreliable and misleading. We considered the socio-demographic and behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated that have been proposed as possible explanations for the data anomalies, but found no evidence supports any of these explanations. By Occam’s razor we believe the most likely explanations are:

• Systematic miscategorisation of deaths between the different groups of unvaccinated and
vaccinated.
• Delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations.
• Systematic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated.
• Incorrect population selection for Covid deaths.

With these considerations in mind we applied adjustments to the ONS data and showed that they lead to the conclusion that the vaccines do not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produce genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination.

Taking the vaccine produces spikes in mortality, rather than reducing them.

[Rama Set]

Wow you found something on the internet that agrees with you! How compelling.

[Action80]

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.

[stack]

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.

[Action80]

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.

What, no follow-up to any outcome of the issues raised by the letters?

Could that be due to all the treatments previously identified by the FDA as "wacko science," suddenly being okay to use?

Remember the almighty FDA pushing the narrative that ivermectin was HORSE DEWORMER, despite its original development in successfully curing river blindness in human populations?

Sorry, your FDA source has ZERO credibility.

You and the others here have successfully achieved your goal of destabilizing world governments to the point where criminal enterprise can continue to run free and unchecked.

I'm sure the pockets of the handlers are very well-lined.

[stack]

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.

[Action80]

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.

[stack]

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".

[Action80]

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.

[stack]

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".

[Action80]

Showing the history of the FDA and other US government entities attempting to quash effective alternative methods of treatment for Covid and other respiratory illnesses, simply due to the desire to mandate a vaccine, is hardly the "gotcha," you think it is.

Between all the "terrible," things you ascribe to a single doctor, and the multitude of acts that can only be described as inhumane that have been perpetrated by the FDA/CDC against their own populace, instigating and perpetuating the endless mind-fuck over a disease that has proven to be less deadly than the flu, over-reporting the actual numbers, ascribing them as "death by Covid," rather than "death with Covid," mask mandates, lockdowns, separating loved ones, denying the sharing of final moments, etc., I'll take the doctor.

Current evidence actually demonstrates Vitamin C and D have always been an effective way to mitigate the harmful effects and alleviate symptoms of, not only Covid, but all forms of respiratory illness.

The officials and bureau(pieces of)craps within the FDA, CDC, and NIH, have clearly demonstrated over the past four years or so a strong predilection toward purposefully lying to the public at large.

Especially considering he openly discusses these very issues you raise in your post.

[Rama Set]

Showing the history of the FDA and other US government entities attempting to quash effective alternative methods of treatment for Covid and other respiratory illnesses, simply due to the desire to mandate a vaccine, is hardly the "gotcha," you think it is.

Current evidence actually demonstrates Vitamin C and D have always been an effective way to mitigate the harmful effects and alleviate symptoms of, not only Covid, but all forms of respiratory illness.

The officials and bureau(pieces of)craps within the FDA, CDC, and NIH, have clearly demonstrated over the past four years or so a strong predilection toward purposefully lying to the public at large.

You are so strong to move the goal posts so quickly.

[Action80]

Showing the history of the FDA and other US government entities attempting to quash effective alternative methods of treatment for Covid and other respiratory illnesses, simply due to the desire to mandate a vaccine, is hardly the "gotcha," you think it is.

Current evidence actually demonstrates Vitamin C and D have always been an effective way to mitigate the harmful effects and alleviate symptoms of, not only Covid, but all forms of respiratory illness.

The officials and bureau(pieces of)craps within the FDA, CDC, and NIH, have clearly demonstrated over the past four years or so a strong predilection toward purposefully lying to the public at large.

You are so strong to move the goal posts so quickly.

Yeah, I agree stack moves goalposts very quickly.

Now, do you have anything related to the topic at hand?

Would you, perhaps discuss the state of the countersuits the doctor has filed against these agencies and a sitting US Senator for these actions of censorship?

Would you care to discuss the importance of a healthy human endocrinal/immune system in warding of various types of disease?

I doubt it, given your post history.