B.C. man has part of small intestine removed due to vaccine-induced blood clot

"I really wish they had let us know what “worse case scenario” might look like...""


https://www.torontosun.com/news/loca...f-81de5fd6d4c0

Manitoba Chief Microbiologist and Laboratory Specialist: 56% of positive “cases” are not infectious

"PCR testing was invented to find genetic viral material in a sample and has not traditionally been used as the sole method for identifying people suffering from a viral or bacterial disease"

And of course the media spin, or what they tell you.

"Finally, it should be noted that some Canadian news agencies have quoted Dr. Bullard as testifying that a positive PCR tests indicates infectivity 99.9% of the time. This is incorrect. Rather, Dr. Bullard testified that a PCR test will detect any viral RNA that is present in a sample 99.9% of the time. However, Dr. Bullard testified that determining whether or not a sample is actually infectious (containing a viable virus, capable of replicating) needs to be confirmed by lab culture. As noted, only 44% of the “positive” samples using a Ct of 18 returned a viable lab culture. Samples tested at a Ct of over 25, according to Dr. Bullard’s report, produced no viable lab cultures"

https://www.jccf.ca/manitoba-chief-m...7YnWc-PlDM2I18

Bill Maher diagnosed with Covid...after being fully vaccinated.

Damn, that just invalidates the whole thing.

nobody ever said it was 100% lol

I wonder if he had a "case" or was asymtomatic, and needed to test everyday, as many of us in "MY TRILLION" dollar business have to do.


Unprecedented use of the word unprecedented

1st time the world shuts down

1st time PCR tests used as sole method for diagnosis of viral disease

1st time rna vaccine use

1st time vaccine rolled out, before fully approved


forgot one

1st time the medical term "case" is used for something which shows NO symptoms. That is known as asymptomatic for the folks just catching on

It's proven everyday............ the vaccine does not prevent contraction nor transmission with countless scores of people being vaccinating then testing positive......

Now, which totally blows my mind, they are pushing this crap on children which, statistically speaking, affects 0.000% of them.

And oh yeah, someone said they weren't pushing these on people at all.
I'm sure AOC is now pissed that beef is being used as a lure with climate change and all but these must be vegan burgers I assume?. :rolleyes:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CO0lpsNl..._web_copy_link

If the efficacy rate is 95 percent, which is incredibly high for any vaccine, and countless millions of people get it, then of course there are going to be high numbers of people who still get infected. Your point is?

Or maybe people who need emergency life saving surgery shouldn't get it because it only has a 95 percent chance of saving their life.

I think the correlation is more along the lines of people who think for themselves being less likely to take it, as opposed to people who blindly do what they are told.

For the record, I think for myself and decided to get the shots.


I think the correlation here is that people who think for themselves see an accusation, brought forward for the first time 35 years after the fact, where even the accusers own witnesses said it didn't happen, has little merit, while people who blindly follow their party are willing to destroy a person's career.

I disagree. I could give a clear example but I'd be violating a rule.

And I could give all sorts of examples where the accused's party affiliation correlated very strongly with who was for him and who was against him.

+1

Seem odd to you, Peter? 8 from the "same team" all contract covid after being fully vaccinated. Is that a 95% efficacy rate?
Again, is there any proof whatsoever that these vaccines are actually doing anything?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/...cases-n1267332
Here's another one.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/art...s-16172770.php

I've heard this but never posted it because I couldn't verify it but it seems like what I am hearing is true, that the CDC, and some other medical officials, for some reason (???:rolleyes:) are trying to hide these breakthrough cases?

"At the start of May, the CDC shifted from monitoring all reported breakthroughs to only those that result in hospitalization or death, Tom Clark, head of the vaccine evaluation unit for the CDC’s vaccine task force, said in an interview"
https://fortune.com/2021/05/10/can-y...cases-tracing/

I participated in the first clinical trial of the Salk Polio Vaccine. I don't think I ever found out whether I got the real deal or a placebo, but I didn't get polio.:)

The mRNA vaccines (which are new) have been created and released in warp speed because they have been working on the methodology for nearly 20 years in the lab. The timing of COVID was fortuitous, allowing the vaccines to be introduced quickly. At this point they seem to be some of the most effective vaccines ever made.

The standard "flu shot" is a bit of a crap shoot after they spin to roulette wheel to pick which one to recommend. With mRNA the vaccine is much more specific for the target disease. It's not 100%, but very little in medicine is. I had no hesitation to get Pfizered. My risk is reduced for both getting the disease, getting hospitalized and getting buried.

I wore a mask in the operating room for thirty years. Not sure how effective they were, but they did keep my saliva out the wound. My glasses fell into a belly once though. I believe the mask mania has been excessive. I have played golf daily (almost) for the last year without a mask. The better safe than sorry argument is a bit difficult to defend regarding masks. The anti-vaxxers are on thin ice as well in my opinion.

I suspect that the risk of law suits has something to do with businesses being more than willing to be compliant with government recommendations. I do comply as well when I go to the post office and grocery store though. I did go to an upscale restaurant recently and was called out for removing my mask before I was seated. We were able to eat without masks, even between bites.

If you scare folks consistently they ultimately will accept fear as their modus operandi. Messaging during the COVID era has been remarkably poor, which is most unfortunate. Give me the information without the politics and garbage and let me freely choose how much risk I'm willing to take.

When HIV hit in the eighties, as a surgeon, I felt more endangered personally in the operating room working on HIV patients than I do now regarding COVID.

I have not read this thread, so if this is all redundant, I apologize.
I am a retired board certified general surgeon, not that that matters.
The cards i have listed in BST come from a COVID free home.;)

There were serious doubts about the polio vaccine too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...accine/303946/

If I remember correctly, the problem with the polio vaccine was isolated to one facility where it was produced. One batch of product was tainted with live virus as a result of a manufacturing error. Otherwise I believe the vaccine was quite successful. How many people do you know that have had polio sixty some years later? I know one (1).

The piece is more about efficacy than safety. Apparently the Salk vaccine was actually not that effective, and it wasn't until the Sabin vaccine subsequent to the article that the disease really was eradicated.

Pretty effective! Once for life!

Now, how many are still getting covid after vaccine? You can stop.counting at 2

You say Sabin and I say Salk
Let's call the whole thing off.

Jeez I was only nine years old.:D

Can someone please answer my question about why you’re willing to risk all kinds of side effects for routine prescription medication but you’re not willing to risk them for the vaccine? I would love to know what makes the vaccine different from myriad other medications you’re willing to take that offer remote side effects you may encounter.

+1

Add to it, all the risks people take with things they smoke, eat, drink, breathe, and so on. Why are possible risks of this vaccine so overblown compared to literally everything else we ingest?

Because there's no political angle to the others.

Ok, I'll bite. Because prescription medications require stringent testing and are REQUIRED
to meet FDA approval by FEDERAL LAW before going to market.

The vaccines are not.

I answered. No political angle.

I answered your question, maybe you'll answer mine. Why would someone who's been fully vaccinated and believes their vaccination protects them be concerned with those who are unvaccinated?

You didn't answer my question. The reasons for not getting the vaccine have been because of potential side effects up to and including death. Why are these risks easily accepted otherwise? Approved drugs come with potentially deadly side effects as well.

To answer your question; why wouldn't I be concerned? The vaccine, like all vaccines, isn't 100 % effective. The only way to know if it wasn't effective for you is if you get sick. If everyone is vaccinated, what is already a low risk gets even lower. I hope that makes sense.

Aren't 3 out of the 4 examples youve given a choice?

Self induced illnesses (including almost all of those pesky co-morbidities) can 99x out of 100 be cured with diet and exercise some are just not willing to change their lifestyle, and must accept the side effects and consequences.


If it will reduce your anxiety about getting covid, that's a reason right there to get the vaccine IMO. They could even give you a placebo and you'd feel great, get outside and back to normal life.


Life expectancy in the US, 78.5 years.

No, sir. I did answer it. You just don't want to hear it.


Now, re-read my answer.

As I already mentioned in this thread, I get the flu vaccine every year. I don't care if others get it or not. I do what I think is best for me. That's why I don't understand why those vaccinated from Covid are so concerned about the unvaccinated.

I think Peter hit the nail on the head. It's another way to divide people, instead of something that should be heralded as bringing all people together regardless of our (political) views.

Hell if people want to committ suicide its illegal! WHY???

Just keep them on that hamster wheel as long as physically possible, and even longer sometimes.

LOL have you ever read some of the side effect profiles of APPROVED meds? Or listened to the commercials where it takes a speed talker 30 seconds to read them?
Or, as I've mentioned before, studied some of the APPROVED meds withdrawn from the market because they were killing people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

FDA approval indeed.

If a doctor prescribes you medication, he/she should inform you of possible side effects. You can also do your own research. In the end, its YOUR CHOICE whether to take the medication or not.

Here's where I'm losing you, Peter, and I'm not sure why because you're smarter than that. There hasn't been enough testing on the vaccine to know all the possible side effects. I think most people that decline the vaccine aren't antivaxxers, they're just concerned with the lack of testing and not knowing long term side effects. As I've already mentioned (multiple times now), I'll probably get the vaccine in 2-3 years if there are no known side effects. And, if there are side effects, I'll weigh my options and decide if the benefits outweigh the risks.

How many years of actual clinical post-marketing experience do you insist on before you'll take an FDA approved drug, David? Because guess what? Drugs can be approved on the basis of a single phase III trial, not years of actual experience. The amount of experience we already have, with hundreds of millions of doses administered, probably dwarfs what we know about most drugs.

Now you're just wanting to argue. A quick Google search shows, "In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your medicine cabinet."

12 years, Peter. 12 years.

Yes but most of that time is not the placebo-controlled phase III trial, it's research and development and feasibility studies and animal studies and so forth, none of which gather the data you crave.

Go tell me how much safety data there was on fen-phen when they approved it. Only to find out it killed people.

Maybe they care about their fellow human beings?? Is this a trick question or am I missing something?

Thank you for helping me prove my point. A lot of the side effects of drugs aren't discovered until years later. Now do you see my desire to wait on the vaccine?

Ah, ok. So they care so much about their fellow human beings, they make sure they're up to date on all their vaccinations? :rolleyes:

I understand your point here, but I think that number is misleading a bit. Everything I've read has said that the vaccine's basic formula isn't new, it was able to be modified to fit the cause. Kind of like putting a dune buggy body on a VW, much quicker than building a car from scratch.

You're all over the map. You've said you want to wait for FDA approval. My point is that FDA approval doesn't guarantee anything or mean that much. So now how long do you want to wait?

I'm not all over the place. My position hasn't changed. And to answer your question, please refer to posts 190, 229 and 269. Keep up, Peter. Keep up.

And again, where is all the concrete proof these vaccines are actually doing anything in protecting anyone from contracting covid?

I know one thing for certain, they have caused blood clots, balls palsy, anaphylaxis, thrombosis, severe respiratory problems, severe aches and pains, hospitalization and of course numerous deaths.

Why is it still being administered and not removed/banned?

Look at the other drugs that have been taken off the market for far less worse issues???

Also, if anyone was wondering, only about 50% of the employees at the CDC and the NIH have taken a covid vaccine.
Why is that, and why are all those other front line doctor's and nurses who also refuse to take it never talked about?
https://www.tiktok.com/@backwoodsgir...urce=copy&_r=1

I don't know what you watch in Canada, but here in the US the vaccines have been so effective that the CDC just dramatically lifted many restrictions. But maybe all the sources reporting that, and the CDC itself, and the studies (including a study of healthcare workers that was a key part of the CDC's decision) all are biased or something.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...ndates-rcna932

Or maybe you just see what you want to see.

In one of the studies cited by the CDC, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was shown to be 97 percent effective at protecting against symptomatic infection and 86 percent effective at protecting against asymptomatic infection. Those results, published May 6 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, were based on a study of more than 6,700 vaccinated health care workers in Israel.

Walensky also referenced two recent U.S.-based studies that were published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. One study demonstrated that Covid-19 vaccines were 90 percent effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection among nearly 4,000 health care workers and front-line workers. A second study found the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were 94 percent effective at preventing Covid-19-related-hospitalizations among adults 65 and older who have been fully vaccinated.

Since Peter is blinded to what's happening in the US, I corrected part of his statement for him.

I knew it was all a conspiracy!! "They" have done it again. And to think, I thought Rochelle Walensky, who was an infectious disease doctor here in Boston for many years, had some integrity. "They" got to her I guess.

I'm not talking about the disease itself. I'm talking about the timing of lifting the restrictions. Let's cut the crap.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The timing. Which, as I read it, was based on the studies. You can disagree with the CDC -- in fact I wish they had kept the foot on the gas pedal. But it's not some left-wing plot.

Studies? What changed? If the vaccine is as effective as they say it is (and I'm not questioning its effectiveness), why weren't the restrictions lifted for fully vaccinated people several months ago? Again, what changed. Be specific, not just "studies."

Read what I quoted. There were further studies of actual real world experience that were published recently, combined with overall statistics showing rates declining and so forth.

If you believe that, I have some swamp land I could sell you, Pete. :rolleyes:

Could it possibly be, since many people are protesting the lockdowns, refusing the vaccines and basically just getting on with their lives, have anything to do with that? ​
Could it be the fact the heat is on Fauci and the NIH and the fact they funded the Wuhan lab even though Fauci has denied that from the very beginning, have anything to do with that?
​
I won't say anymore due to the political no no here but I suggest you do some digging/research, Pete, if you think there is nothing political behind this whole pandemic,,,,,,,, or is that a plan-demic?

But that aside, with so many still getting covid after receiving both shots, again, where is the proof they actually work besides some B.S. story, that only sheep would gobble up, that because they are lifting restrictions, they work?








​

OK Dale the studies are all fake. It's just a BS story you must be right. Tell you what go read them, come back and point out the flaws instead of spewing your conspiratorial BS, OK?

Deny everything that doesn't fit your narrative. Just call it fake. Hmmm, who do I know that does that a lot? Hell, people deny Newtown CT too.

Anyone can deny anything, just demand proof, when given proof call it fake, then demand proof again.

He'll pay top dollar too.

Peter, I read part of what you linked, but had to stop. Your Dr. Walensky was touting how effective the vaccine is. Ok, let's roll with that. If it's really that effective (and again, I'm not questioning the effectiveness), why are so many vaccinated people concerned with the ones that haven't been vaccinated? I keep asking this, but fail to get a logical answer.

Oh its finally OK NOT to wear a mask outside if you got your Fauci ouchie?


Use your friggin common sense sheeple.


Must be that new science that told us this

Because they would like to see the fucking pandemic end for the sake of the fucking world.

:D:D

And that's a stupid fucking answer. When I was in the Army, I worked in an Army hospital - 97th General Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany. I have received more vaccines in a matter of just a few years than you've received in your lifetime. Wanna bet? I'll open up my vaccine card and show you. I've also given more vaccines than most doctors have in their lifetime...literally thousands to soldiers going to Bosnia and Croatia came through my line (which seemed never ending) for weeks at a time. Never once when I received a vaccine did I ever scratch my head and wonder if 'ol Johnny got one too. And when I was administering vaccines I didn't care which soldiers received them and which ones didn't. So cut the compassion for fellow human beings bullshit.

It's amazing what some will believe!

Just a week or so ago, Fauci and sleepy Joe were telling people to double mask then magically, just like that, the vaccines have cured everyone and masks are no longer required?!?!?

How some can't connect the dots despite what's right in front of their noses, is simply mindboggling. :(

David just because you have no humanity doesn't mean others don't. Revealing post though.
Besides, it's very inconvenient to have a world functioning suboptimally, so there's a totally selfish justification.

Edit thank you for serving and I say that with all sincerity.

You've got it all figured out Dale. Now tell me the flaws in the studies. Oh wait, science is just part of the conspiracy, damn I forgot.

Instead of trying to distract us by lifting restrictions, I wish they just would've gone golfing!

I have humanity, but I'm also realistic. My vaccine card is nearly 20 years old. It has Smallpox, Polio, Tet-Dipth, Typhoid, Meningitis, Adenovirus, Plague #1, Plague #2, Rubella and a lot more that I just can't read - and some of them more than once. I don't know what most of that stuff even is. I bet you the Army still vaccinates against those same things today - 20 years later (especially for their hospital workers).

And here is where I'm realistic. A vaccine (even if 100% effective) is not going to make a pandemic end. If the Army still vaccinates against those diseases listed above, and I'm pretty sure they do, it's for one reason: they never went away. But if you (and others) want to think this pandemic is just going to go away with some magical vaccine, by all means believe that.

Polio and smallpox were essentially eradicated. It can happen. Realistically it may not because too many will hold out, but it can still be greatly greatly reduced.

I sure could go for a mean tweet and some $1.97 gas right now. But I heard 'ol Joe was going to put Hunter on that. He's a pipe expert don't you know?

Essentially eradicated? But they do still exist, no?

US has not had a polio case for 40 plus years.

As to smallpox
The last naturally occurring case of smallpox was reported in 1977. In 1980, the World Health Organization declared that smallpox had been eradicated. Currently, there is no evidence of naturally occurring smallpox transmission anywhere in the world.

Depends on how you look at it. The US hasn't had a case originate in the US in over 40 years. But surely you know that cases have been brought into the US by foreign travelers?

In January of 2020, the World Health Origination also decarded that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of Covid. But if the WHO is a source for information for you, I won't argue. :rolleyes:

A few, yes.

There must be some right wing organization that made the same declaration.:cool:

I must say it is pretty pathetic that you are quoting the OC (obese clown) or if you prefer PVCB&S (Paranoid, vindictive cowardly bully and simpleton) with your "Sleepy Joe" comment.

And as for smallpox, do you think there could be live viruses in labs somewhere that could somehow be "let loose?"

I've also heard about somewhere (maybe it was Russia) where the tundra was thawing and they thought that it could be transmitted via frozen corpses that died a century (or more) ago as they thaw. That was a few years ago, I don't know what happened with that.

I would guess there is some in one or more labs, somewhere. Perhaps the CDC, perhaps Russia, perhaps both. As to whether it's a threat, I don't know.

Smallpox
 

Smallpox is interesting as there is no animal vector..... you have to catch it from another person (or from a lab). The virus does exist in three places in the world under "ultra high security isolation measures"..... the CDC in Atlanta, Geneva, Switzerland, and Moscow, Russia. There had been serious discussion about getting rid of those but distrust among "friends" will not allow that. Plus the thought that the virus may be needed in the future to develop vaccines or for research. The sad truth is that for over 40 years if scientists wanted to create a killer virus that could wipe out most of the world they could do it in a lab with recombinant DNA. So far they have restrained themselves..... so there is one more thing to look out for like an asteroid or whatever has us in the crosshairs today!

Don't forget the flu! It's disappeared in 2021. We did it guys.

I just can't believe we've finally FOUND a cure for a virlent form of the common cold!

Science is progressing at a rapid pace

I assume you are referring to peer reviewed studies where the peer, if he/she doesn't like the result because it doesn't jive with the narrative nor fit the agenda, is tossed out?

Why did you get those vaccines if you didn't know what they were or why you were getting them?

Feel free to point out the flaws instead of spewing your BS and agenda driven soundbites. Ironically, your post is describing yourself to a tee -- because the studies don't fit YOUR narrative, you apparently reject them even though I am sure you haven't read them.

You do you, Peter, and I'll do me. How's that?

Eight people from the New York Yankees organization tested positive, despite having been fully vaccinated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/s...t-to-know.html

Family left with questions after Brampton senior's death.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-ne...ive-days-later

Langley-area man loses 2 metres of intestine after a blood clot following his AstraZeneca jab

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...fect-1.6027830

Some healthcare workers refuse to take COVID-19 vaccine, even with priority access.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...vaccine-access

I could list dozens more, and you know that, but what's the point as I'll just be called a conspiracy theorist and a strawman arguer or whatever other names you can come up with to shame me for pointing out the other side of the story that is rarely, if ever talked about, unless you look it up for yourself.

I was a soldier. I wasn't given an option. I did what I was told to do and didn't give it any thought at the time. Besides, most of those (if not all) I'd already had as a kid anyway.

I have never denied that there have been adverse effects. That is true of virtually all medical treatments. People bleed to death from common over the counter medications, or suffer liver damage. You, on the other hand, have denied efficacy in the face of numerous published studies. So show me the evidence that the vaccines do not have the claimed efficacy.

The question here, the value judgment, is the balance of efficacy (seriouses illness prevented and lives saved) versus adverse effects. But one can only have that discussion based on the facts and the science, not agenda.

Are sheep just woolves in disguise?