You know... after thinking about it more, it bothers me that so many people are only focusing on the predictive evolution part of that. Sure, we need to be aware of what's going on behind closed doors to some degree, but we are completely ignorring the fact that this guy alluded to the fact that Pfizer is not being regulated like they should be, because government personnel want a piece of the pie. This is exactly the corruption that I have been speaking of for the second half of this thread. We have a real problem here. Like the dude said... good for Pfizer... bad for the American public. What's he saying there, FSG? Why's it bad?
(01-30-2023, 09:28 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2023, 07:26 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]It's over the 5 year average, so unless it just stopped working recently the numbers have nothing to do with that as the poor healthcare.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
And just for anyone who wants to look deeper at the NHS, here's an article that outlines their current challenges. I am not a proponent of nationalized healthcare, so these things aren't really surprising, but it does explain what you're alluding to as being the vaccine killing people. They are experiencing a similar age-based boom as we are where a large portion of our population are just getting to the point where they are high utilization because they're getting old, so there aren't enough care providers in general not to mention the stresses put on us all by the pandemic.
https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-crisis-ho...k-12785174
Except the deaths have increased across age ranges, so it's not people getting old. Poor Healthcare could be an issue, but again, diagnosis are up with a lot of diseases that were not previously see in people or in the age groups.
The tide is turning and the rats are jumping ship.
Bill Gates admits the vaccine failure
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/stat...7994140673
MSM is starting to report on things.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(02-02-2023, 03:35 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2023, 09:28 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And just for anyone who wants to look deeper at the NHS, here's an article that outlines their current challenges. I am not a proponent of nationalized healthcare, so these things aren't really surprising, but it does explain what you're alluding to as being the vaccine killing people. They are experiencing a similar age-based boom as we are where a large portion of our population are just getting to the point where they are high utilization because they're getting old, so there aren't enough care providers in general not to mention the stresses put on us all by the pandemic.
https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-crisis-ho...k-12785174
Except the deaths have increased across age ranges, so it's not people getting old. Poor Healthcare could be an issue, but again, diagnosis are up with a lot of diseases that were not previously see in people or in the age groups.
The tide is turning and the rats are jumping ship.
Bill Gates admits the vaccine failure
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/stat...7994140673
MSM is starting to report on things.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
I guess if you completely ignore the point you get to be right.
I guess if you ignore the fact that he championed these things while he had stock then them, then started telling the truth after he sold his stock, you get to be right. Is that how this works?
If we only knew who was about to launch this new "inhaler" defense, we could all get rich, too.
(02-02-2023, 09:24 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I guess if you ignore the fact that he championed these things while he had stock then them, then started telling the truth after he sold his stock, you get to be right. Is that how this works?
If we only knew who was about to launch this new "inhaler" defense, we could all get rich, too.
When did he champion these? He's been pretty heavy on the conspiracy theory train for years now.
Bill Gates? He just made like 500 million when he sold his BioNTech shares.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
(02-02-2023, 09:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Bill Gates? He just made like 500 million when he sold his BioNTech shares.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing? I was talking about P_
As for Gates, that post from CDF completely takes what he said out of context, par for the course with Baby RFK.
How is it taken out of context? He points to 3 problems with the current vaccines that are uncontestable.
1. They don't stop transmission.
2. They aren't broad.
3. They have a short duration.
That's stuff I have been saying forever, but I was a "conspiracy theorist" back then. Now it's common knowledge, and only the believers can't seem to adopt these findings. My problem is that he wasn't saying this while he had stock in BioNTech. I think Bill Gates genuinely wants to solve these problems, but I also think he has a god complex. Being connected to the policy making surrounding these drugs just lets him stay ahead of the curve and make tons of money while doing so.
(02-02-2023, 11:18 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]How is it taken out of context? He points to 3 problems with the current vaccines that are uncontestable.
1. They don't stop transmission.
2. They aren't broad.
3. They have a short duration.
That's stuff I have been saying forever, but I was a "conspiracy theorist" back then. Now it's common knowledge, and only the believers can't seem to adopt these findings. My problem is that he wasn't saying this while he had stock in BioNTech. I think Bill Gates genuinely wants to solve these problems, but I also think he has a god complex. Being connected to the policy making surrounding these drugs just lets him stay ahead of the curve and make tons of money while doing so.
1. They reduce transmission, CDF paints it as if they do nothing.
2. We know that, that's why we have evolution in the booster program to adapt to new variants.
3. The duration is not lifetime, but efficacy is not reduced for 6 months.
Everything he said is accurate, everything Kennedy said about it frames it into an "admission" that he's not making. He's saying, "they aren't perfect and we need them to be better", not that "we were wrong and should never have done this." I don't know anything about his investing, the only articles I find on it are that one from CDF and their fellow travelers. I'm not looking to defend Bill Gates, but RFK Jr isn't making it hard to do either.
Your efficacy numbers are wrong.
Vaccines reduce transmission, but not by huge numbers. Basically, if you take it, that's as good as it gets, which is why you and I had a huge argument about mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers (over a year ago... another thing I was right about).
Other than that, we probably don't disagree much about what Bill Gates is saying there. My only reason for bringing it up is that Gates wasn't that critical until after he sold his shares, which, imo, is an example of corruption in this industry. We need good and transparent data. The things he was saying the other week was available much, much sooner, but was not broadcast to the public. That's all I care about.
(02-02-2023, 09:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Bill Gates? He just made like 500 million when he sold his BioNTech shares.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
C'mon man....Bill Gates is going to make us all immortal and lead us thru the Gates of heaven. He doesn't care about 500 million. It's all about what's best for us, not him. Just like he did with IT.
All Hail and Praise Gates!
(02-02-2023, 09:16 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]LOL
https://twitter.com/ramble_rants/status/...ClrKrRs0-A
Extremely cringe..
Making lite of people passing out and sometimes dying because they believed their government had their best interests in mind. Not completely sure, but I'm going out on a limb and saying most of the athletes in that video had no real choice but to take that (now known) poison in order to participate in their activities.
The video is in poor taste and there's definitely no winners.. We all lost because we held the government and CDC in a higher regard and standard at the time..
Lesson learned.
(02-02-2023, 03:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Your efficacy numbers are wrong.
Vaccines reduce transmission, but not by huge numbers. Basically, if you take it, that's as good as it gets, which is why you and I had a huge argument about mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers (over a year ago... another thing I was right about).
Other than that, we probably don't disagree much about what Bill Gates is saying there. My only reason for bringing it up is that Gates wasn't that critical until after he sold his shares, which, imo, is an example of corruption in this industry. We need good and transparent data. The things he was saying the other week was available much, much sooner, but was not broadcast to the public. That's all I care about.
No, they aren't. Against Alpha it was 91% at +120 days and 73 percent at 180. While the numbers were lower for Delta (but still over the threshold) and Omicron (under) the efficacy went back over the threshold for both strains with the boosters. So, no, they aren't wrong.
I looked through Gates's investment in the Foundation, all I see is that the market turned down in late 2021 and they reallocated their portfolio to make BioNTech their 3rd highest investment instead their top. All of the money was reinvested into other vaccine and healthcare companies as they changed some of their positions. As for what he was saying at the time versus after, I don't think the CDF article is accurate in their framing of the issue. It was interesting that the article from Tech Startup I read flat out said that his reinvestments would open him up to criticism by the anti-vaxxers.
Lol. We getting a ton of alpha cases these days? I don't consider you a disingenuous person, but get real. You're trying to sell us that these things are effective by using numbers from a variant that is essentially gone. Even omicron has mutated, and the numbers were bad for that. Then you jump to the boosters, but those have rapidly waning efficacy, which you should know. This is why they say people can get another after 2 months. Great efficacy there, bro.
As to Bill Gates, I don't care what the article says. As you can tell by looking in the mirror, people have a remarkable capacity to miss the obvious. I'm confident he's investing heavily in vaccine related research. He thinks he's the savior of humanity. He'll tout the benefits of his next drug, push policy that favors it, and abandon ship when it's not working as intended.... making a ton of money along the way so he can rinse and repeat.
(02-03-2023, 01:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. We getting a ton of alpha cases these days? I don't consider you a disingenuous person, but get real. You're trying to sell us that these things are effective by using numbers from a variant that is essentially gone. Even omicron has mutated, and the numbers were bad for that. Then you jump to the boosters, but those have rapidly waning efficacy, which you should know. This is why they say people can get another after 2 months. Great efficacy there, bro.
As to Bill Gates, I don't care what the article says. As you can tell by looking in the mirror, people have a remarkable capacity to miss the obvious. I'm confident he's investing heavily in vaccine related research. He thinks he's the savior of humanity. He'll tout the benefits of his next drug, push policy that favors it, and abandon ship when it's not working as intended.... making a ton of money along the way so he can rinse and repeat.
*Using numbers from when those variants were the dominant strains. You kinda left that part out. The discussion now is what does the long term schedule look like and it's going to be like the flu shot at once a year. That booster, as with the current ones, will strongly reduce severe disease while somewhat reducing infection. And you act like I'm not permitted to talk about what we're doing? Nah, the boosters are part of the long term strategy so we're going to talk about what they do. So yeah, real talk.
Don't move the goal posts and make it look like I'm kicking in the wrong direction...
Quote:3. The duration is not lifetime, but efficacy is not reduced for 6 months.
Those were your words. It's your responsibility to qualify and quantify your statements. To a person who hasn't followed this properly (which, let's face it, that's like 99% of the population), they would easily assume that if they took the vaccine, it would remain effective against the current strain of COVID for 6 months. That's just not true, even though you implied otherwise. Who cares what the dominant strain was in 2020. It doesn't justify the use of the vaccine today in younger people. We are seeing Europe turn away from recommending vaccinations for people under 50, because it's just not that effective for younger people. Weird... who on this forum has repeatedly said that there is very little evidence to support giving this to people under 50. I wonder... bet he's a pretty awesome dude.
Until they actually can vaccine that works broadly, it's borderline stupid to roll these out like a yearly flu shot.
(02-04-2023, 10:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Don't move the goal posts and make it look like I'm kicking in the wrong direction...
Quote:3. The duration is not lifetime, but efficacy is not reduced for 6 months.
Those were your words. It's your responsibility to qualify and quantify your statements. To a person who hasn't followed this properly (which, let's face it, that's like 99% of the population), they would easily assume that if they took the vaccine, it would remain effective against the current strain of COVID for 6 months. That's just not true, even though you implied otherwise. Who cares what the dominant strain was in 2020. It doesn't justify the use of the vaccine today in younger people. We are seeing Europe turn away from recommending vaccinations for people under 50, because it's just not that effective for younger people. Weird... who on this forum has repeatedly said that there is very little evidence to support giving this to people under 50. I wonder... bet he's a pretty awesome dude.
Until they actually can vaccine that works broadly, it's borderline stupid to roll these out like a yearly flu shot.
As usual the information for you to reject is readily available.
https://www.healthdata.org/covid/covid-1...cy-summary
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/a...ed.1003992
As usual? Lol. You haven't been right about most of our arguments so far, but I'll take the time to go read those studies. I'm sure the goalposts have moved somehow.