Mister B.
The Devil’s Greatest Advocate…..
NYC lifted their mask mandate today. Starting Monday, the kids can be maskless.
Fuck THAT. I'm definitely still wearing mine.
The official COVID-19/Coronavirus Discussion Thread...aka I hope I don't get the Rona
- Thread starter Goldie
- Start date
Fuck THAT. I'm definitely still wearing mine.
DOS_patos
Unverified Legion of Trill member
B_A
I was here
"Confidential" but it concludes its safe? Same game everytime.
TOP SECRET PFIZER DOCUMENT LEAKS ONLINE...
Pfizer vaccine data. Of particular interest is page 30. You’re welcome. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdfrumble.com
Nah I haven't yet.
Nothin came of the Pfizer whistleblower over data integrity issues. So whatever is in these documents might not even be accurate for all we know.
Britain’s Covid experts ‘abandoned their objectivity and misled with alarming models’
Government adviser delivers damning verdict on scientists’ pandemic response, adding they ‘weren’t looking at the bigger picture’
www.telegraph.co.uk
Scientists abandoned their objectivity, misled with alarming models and failed to appreciate the damage lockdown would cause, a government adviser has claimed in a damning indictment of Britain’s pandemic response.
In his memoir, The Year The World Went Mad, Prof Woolhouse claimed that lockdowns “had surprisingly little effect” and just “deferred the problem to another day, at great cost”.
Imperial College London published an analysis the following June, claiming that lockdown had saved nearly half a million lives in Britain.
However, Sweden managed to bring its epidemic under control without lockdown, leaving Imperial College to conclude that it was Sweden’s ban on mass gatherings that played the decisive role – even while arguing it had not been enough in other countries.
“The conclusion wasn’t remotely plausible,” wrote Prof Woolhouse. “Analyses by other researchers came up with quite different conclusions that the UK epidemic was already in decline before lockdown took effect.
Prof Woolhouse also accused the BBC of over-egging the risks from Covid and that said scientists had abandoned their objectivity by wading into policy.
“It became routine during the pandemic for scientific advisers and commentators to push for one policy or another,” he wrote.
“As citizens, they have every right to do that. But when there is a constant stream of government scientific advisers in the media calling for a lockdown, as there was during the second wave in Oct 2020, then we have crossed a line.”
Prof Woolhouse also said it was an “awkward” truth that the people who benefited most from suppression of the virus, such as the elderly and vulnerable, were not the group that suffered most from the impact of lockdown: young people and low-income workers.
“Even before the UK first went into lockdown in Mar 2020, we knew that novel coronavirus was far more dangerous to the elderly, the frail and the infirm than to healthy young adults and children,” he added.
“That should have shaped our response. Instead, the UK administrations continued to act as though everyone was equally at risk. They even actively promoted this misinterpretation to try to bolster acceptance to a lockdown strategy.”
No surprise to some of us, fake news/not important to the rest.
Iceberg_Taylor
THE FINAL BOSS
Britain’s Covid experts ‘abandoned their objectivity and misled with alarming models’
Government adviser delivers damning verdict on scientists’ pandemic response, adding they ‘weren’t looking at the bigger picture’
Scientists abandoned their objectivity, misled with alarming models and failed to appreciate the damage lockdown would cause, a government adviser has claimed in a damning indictment of Britain’s pandemic response.
In his memoir, The Year The World Went Mad, Prof Woolhouse claimed that lockdowns “had surprisingly little effect” and just “deferred the problem to another day, at great cost”.
Imperial College London published an analysis the following June, claiming that lockdown had saved nearly half a million lives in Britain.
However, Sweden managed to bring its epidemic under control without lockdown, leaving Imperial College to conclude that it was Sweden’s ban on mass gatherings that played the decisive role – even while arguing it had not been enough in other countries.
“The conclusion wasn’t remotely plausible,” wrote Prof Woolhouse. “Analyses by other researchers came up with quite different conclusions that the UK epidemic was already in decline before lockdown took effect.
Prof Woolhouse also accused the BBC of over-egging the risks from Covid and that said scientists had abandoned their objectivity by wading into policy.
“It became routine during the pandemic for scientific advisers and commentators to push for one policy or another,” he wrote.
“As citizens, they have every right to do that. But when there is a constant stream of government scientific advisers in the media calling for a lockdown, as there was during the second wave in Oct 2020, then we have crossed a line.”
Prof Woolhouse also said it was an “awkward” truth that the people who benefited most from suppression of the virus, such as the elderly and vulnerable, were not the group that suffered most from the impact of lockdown: young people and low-income workers.
“Even before the UK first went into lockdown in Mar 2020, we knew that novel coronavirus was far more dangerous to the elderly, the frail and the infirm than to healthy young adults and children,” he added.
“That should have shaped our response. Instead, the UK administrations continued to act as though everyone was equally at risk. They even actively promoted this misinterpretation to try to bolster acceptance to a lockdown strategy.”
No surprise to some of us, fake news/not important to the rest.
the director of the CDC just came out and said that they were overreacting when it came to the rollout of the vaccine and ignored the risks due to “covid fatigue.” You can’t make this shit up. I feel bad for folks who ran out and took it but There are those who remain ignorant for whatever reason that gets no empathy from me.
Muad'Dib
BigBird1
Biden Administration paid media $1 billion for COVID shot propaganda
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Biden administration paid nearly the entire corporate media, including so-called “conservative” media outlets, with taxpayer dollars to engage in a massive campaign to push only positive
GlobeNewswire
Last edited:
Makes sense that when the first data drop pfizer was forced to release with all the side effects was crickets all across mainstream media. Not a peep anywhere.Biden Administration paid media $1 billion for COVID shot propaganda
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Biden administration paid nearly the entire corporate media, including so-called “conservative” media outlets, with taxpayer dollars to engage in a massive campaign to push only positivewww.thedesertreview.com
So now mfs look at us crazy when we talk about these things simply bc they willingly being spoon fed agendas. And I say willingly bc even when its exposed it changes nothing for them.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
I’m not really trying to argue, just want to point out that people probably don’t care about the side effects data because it doesn’t seem to have any real implications on people’s lives.
4.4B people fully vaccinated world wide so if there were any material side effects it would be evident. No amount of cover up is going to suppress major side effects in a sample size of 4.4B.
And I’m speaking solely on side effects, not the corruption of the roll out or business side of things.
I'm talking about the dirty business and how shit is run.
And the fact they can say it's "safe and effective" without giving u a run down list of the side effects while forcing u to get it.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
But wasn’t it safe and effective given the fact that 4.4B got it and there was no major fall out from it? I guess people could argue effectiveness, but safety I think is pretty much confirmed. Especially when drugs with much worse side effects are considered safe.
Listen to yourself tho bruh lol.
U saying this after the fact. So it was experimental for all 4.4b. We should've known the complete risk/benefit before we forced ppl to get the shot.
But if that happened, and everyone knew the side effects, your average healthy person would've skipped on the shot. And vast majority would've gotten over Covid just as easily as they do now.
And we wouldn't get these sensationalized headlines about how miraculously the vaccines worked for the under 65 and healthy.
Also define safe and effective. Just bc u didn't die doesn't mean it's safe lol.
And if certain age groups do just fine against Covid without the shot what are the parameters for "effective"? Lol
And if certain age groups do just fine against Covid without the shot what are the parameters for "effective"? Lol
Scandalust313
Unshakeable Unbreakable Victorious
Biden Administration paid media $1 billion for COVID shot propaganda
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Biden administration paid nearly the entire corporate media, including so-called “conservative” media outlets, with taxpayer dollars to engage in a massive campaign to push only positive
Overall, we rate The Desert Review Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the frequent promotion of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding covid-19.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Pseudoscience, Conspiracy, Poor Sources, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Founded in 2012, The Desert Review is a community website and weekly printed newspaper serving the Imperial Valley/County in Southern California.
The website and paper lack transparency as they do not clearly indicate ownership, and some authors use pseudonyms rather than their real names.
The Desert Review - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
I know where you’re coming from theoretically, but let’s not gloss over the reality of what happened. 4.4B fully vaccinated and no major side effects to speak of. Wouldn’t that suggest that someone knew this would be the outcome? Or were they taking a shot in the dark and got lucky on what would be the biggest gamble in history? So safety wise, pretty safe.
Effectiveness, we can debate that for years and nether of us have definitive enough info to persuade the other. There’s millions of data points and anecdotal info supporting each side.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
No one cares about the source when it confirms their bias. And any source that contradicts their bias is corrupt or has their own bias. And this goes for either side of any argument nowadays.Overall, we rate The Desert Review Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the frequent promotion of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and misinformation regarding covid-19.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Pseudoscience, Conspiracy, Poor Sources, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Founded in 2012, The Desert Review is a community website and weekly printed newspaper serving the Imperial Valley/County in Southern California.
The website and paper lack transparency as they do not clearly indicate ownership, and some authors use pseudonyms rather than their real names.
The Desert Review - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
Expert research and opinion is dead. Anyone with access to the internet is an expert now.
The source that was posted in this thread isn't the actual source. It's in the beginning of the article.
Also, the article claims the info comes from documents obtained from HHS through FOIA.
I rather wait n see if those documents drop
How would they know the outcome beforehand?
And even if they did, were u ever cool with taking medication/shots/treatment without knowing side effects? Pre Covid ofc