Pandemic, Deadly Vaccinations, Coverups--Not the first time

Aldebaran said:

I was appealing to your common sense. Having to spell out a reason what be an insult to your intelligence.

Click to expand...

When I read a post like this, my common sense tells me that it wouldn't have been written if there actually was evidence for the claims it is trying to assert.

Aldebaran said:

Just because these doctors are being slandered by the MSM

Click to expand...

What slander?

Bradskii said:

Then 'evidence' to the effect that the vaccines are a direct cause of killing little old ladies after receiving it is just that: anecdotal. Which literally means 'not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.'

What is dishonest (and this doesn't apply to you) are people posting that thousands have died as a direct result of taking the vaccines and then when pushed numerous times for the evidence, says 'who says I had any evidence? Quote me saying that!' What is dishonest is posting information about doctors who are meant to be genuinely concerned about the side effects and then finding out that they are a right wing political group.

I get that people are concerned about taking it. I understand that people will decide not to. But for heaven's sake, let's all make that decision based on solid medical facts obtained from reliable sources. Not some Tea Party funded group with a political agenda.

Click to expand...

What is dishonest is that when presented with actual evidence of a specific example in which 23 people died, an autopsy performed and the doctor indicating that the vaccine side effects contributed to the death that the deaths are counted as not vaccine related.

The "anecdote" shows a specific case of misrepresentation of the data, and more specifically, underscores how the "data" is being collected."

No one on the "look at the data side" has even condemned the dishonesty of the data practice that has been shown as fact. In fact, every one of you has tried to find excuses as to why it doesn't matter.

The "solid facts obtained from reliable sources" are in dispute exactly because we can point to multiple examples of the data itself being collected in dishonest ways.

whatbogsends said:

What is dishonest is that when presented with actual evidence of a specific example in which 23 people died, an autopsy performed and the doctor indicating that the vaccine side effects contributed to the death that the deaths are counted as not vaccine related.

Click to expand...

From the link given re the 23 you just mentioned:

"However, there is no confirmation yet if there is direct correlation between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 jab and these deaths."

Where did you get the information about autopsys?

Bradskii said:

From the link given re the 23 you just mentioned:

"However, there is no confirmation yet if there is direct correlation between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 jab and these deaths."

Where did you get the information about autopsys?

Click to expand...

I already quoted the relevant part in post #76, but here it is again:

The Norwegian Medicines Agency in a press release on Friday revealed 23 patients died shortly after being stuck with the Pfizer/BioNTech shot for coronavirus. Of those deaths, 13 have been autopsied, with results suggesting that common side effects from the vaccine likely caused the high death toll.

Sigurd Hortemo, chief physician at the Norwegian Medicines Agency, said that typical reactions to the vaccine — like fever and nausea — “may have contributed to the fatal outcome in some frail patients.”

23 nursing home residents in Norway die after COVID vaccine - New York Daily News (nydailynews.com)

whatbogsends said:

I already quoted the relevant part in post #76, but here it is again:

The Norwegian Medicines Agency in a press release on Friday revealed 23 patients died shortly after being stuck with the Pfizer/BioNTech shot for coronavirus. Of those deaths, 13 have been autopsied, with results suggesting that common side effects from the vaccine likely caused the high death toll.

Sigurd Hortemo, chief physician at the Norwegian Medicines Agency, said that typical reactions to the vaccine — like fever and nausea — “may have contributed to the fatal outcome in some frail patients.”

23 nursing home residents in Norway die after COVID vaccine - New York Daily News (nydailynews.com)

Click to expand...

We know there are side effects such as nausea and fever. Nobody is hiding this fact. There's no conspiracy about this. Good grief, you'll often suffer from those symptoms if you have a flu shot. Is anyone hiding the truth about flu jabs? You are drawing the longest bow imaginable.

If there is a question to be asked in this regard it's why did a doctor approve the vaccine to frail and elderly people knowing what the side effects are likely to be in the first place. Well, I might take a shot in the dark here and suggest that he or she thought it was in the patients best interests. Maybe he's saved dozens of lives by doing it. But in some cases that proved to be not the case.

So what can we learn from this? I guess that if you are in your late eighties and there's a high risk of catching covid then you have a difficult decision to make. But please don't try to convince anyone that there's some sort of global cover up. The deails you posted were hardly secret. There wasn't a great deal of investigation involved in finding this out. It's publicly available.

Aldebaran said:

At least you don't refute it. I take that to mean that you at least agree with the statement, even if you don't like that it's true.

Click to expand...

No, I don't agree with the argument you made because I don't agree with the premise.

Bradskii said:

We know there are side effects such as nausea and fever. Nobody is hiding this fact. There's no conspiracy about this. Good grief, you'll often suffer from those symptoms if you have a flu shot. Is anyone hiding the truth about flu jabs? You are drawing the longest bow imaginable.

If there is a question to be asked in this regard it's why did a doctor approve the vaccine to frail and elderly people knowing what the side effects are likely to be in the first place. Well, I might take a shot in the dark here and suggest that he or she thought it was in the patients best interests. Maybe he's saved dozens of lives by doing it. But in some cases that proved to be not the case.

So what can we learn from this? I guess that if you are in your late eighties and there's a high risk of catching covid then you have a difficult decision to make. But please don't try to convince anyone that there's some sort of global cover up. The deails you posted were hardly secret. There wasn't a great deal of investigation involved in finding this out. It's publicly available.

Click to expand...

What we can learn from this is that the side effects of the virus were determined to have played a role in the deaths of 23 people, but the official statistics related to those people is that their death was "no connection" to the virus. Moreover, i'd wager they count those 23 people as unequivocal success - the vaccine definitely prevented them from getting Covid. 100% success rate.

It's not a "cover up". Their lying about their deaths being unrelated to vaccine right out in the open.

80-year old people get Covid then die. Covid's a killer!!!

80-year old people get the vaccine and die from side effects of the vaccination. They were old and going to die anyway.

If you don't count deaths from the vaccine side effects as deaths from the vaccine, then your statistics are lying.

Aldebaran said:

If not a cover-up, then what do you want to call it when patients are given a shot to supposedly save their lives, and it ends up costing them their lives, and then the tired old, "There's no evidence connecting the shot to the person dying" narrative? We've already established that there is a connection. Doctors denying it is covering it up.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? The doctors in this case have said that there is a connection. That side effects, well known to occur, may well have played a part in the death of some of the patients. It's apparently part of the autopsy report. How can you say there's a cover up when you can actually see the article that has this information and quote the doctor saying it?

The doctor took a chance giving a vaccine with known side effects to frail and elderly patients. I'm absolutely certain that he or she knew the risks. If you want to make an argument that the patients perhaps weren't informed of the risks and most definitely should have been informed then if that was actually the case then I would agree with you. But you're not. You're on some sort of crusade to try to convince everyone that there's a conspiracy.

Can't be much of a conspiracy when you're linking to the information you say is being hidden from us...

Aldebaran said:

The premise is that Socialism focuses on the collective rather than individuals.
Collectivism (Socialism) | tutor2u

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand much about socialist/marxist categories. The point of Marx's critique of capitalist individualism is that individuals cannot fully express their humanity as individuals, but only through solidarity with other human beings in their material conditions.

Which means your distinctions are foolish and ignorant polemics. "Individualism" isn't a positive value in light of that. "Collectivism" is just acting in solidarity with other human beings.

whatbogsends said:

What we can learn from this is that the side effects of the virus were determined to have played a role in the deaths of 23 people, but the official statistics related to those people is that their death was "no connection" to the virus. Moreover, i'd wager they count those 23 people as unequivocal success - the vaccine definitely prevented them from getting Covid. 100% success rate.

It's not a "cover up".

Click to expand...

Please explain that to Aldeberan:

"If not a cover-up, then what do you want to call it..."

And you're right. They didn't die of covid. They died of causes which were possibly exacerbated by known side effects of the vaccine.

Bradskii said:

Please explain that to Aldeberan:

"If not a cover-up, then what do you want to call it..."

Click to expand...

I call it a distortion of facts when compiling data.

Bradskii said:

And you're right. They didn't die of covid. They died of causes which were possibly exacerbated by known side effects of the vaccine.

Click to expand...

They died partially due to known side effects of the vaccine, but only in such a way as their deaths were officially not connected to getting the vaccine.

Doublethink much?

Aldebaran said:

The elderly were the first people authorized to get the shot. If those are the people that are most likely to die from it, then they are the exact ones who shouldn't have been getting it.

Click to expand...

Well, we'd need to find out how many old people over a range of ages took which particular vaccine, group each person as to their state of health at the time of the vaccine and correlate any deaths with the usual rate for those people at that age with their current ailments and then compare them like for like with other old people who didn't get vaccinated and died or survived correlating them with a percentage possibility of them catching covid in tbe first instance. We'd also need to allow for different levels of health access and levels of care. We'd also need autopsy results for all those who died.

I'll wait here while you correlate all that.

whatbogsends said:

I call it a distortion of facts when compiling data.



They died partially due to known side effects of the vaccine, but only in such a way as their deaths were officially not connected to getting the vaccine.

Click to expand...

There are official records kept as to the cause of death and if it's covid it will be listed as such. I'm not aware of any records that list contributory factors in any death. It might well be, and apparently was in the case at hand, noted in the autopsy reports.

But again, we are informed as to the risks. This is not a cover up. If you think the risk to you is personally not worth taking, then don't take it. If you have an elderly parent and you think the risk is not worth taking then don't allow it.

What on earth is there to say apart from that?

Aldebaran said:

Around 25% of the population is skeptical of taking the vaccine. Some want more information, some want to wait longer, and some don't want it at all. Some will accept that if they themselves already have the vaccine, but others seem to take a more hostile approach toward those who decide otherwise. Case in point:


This is the sort of statement I routinely see in these discussions. It presumes an obligation to the collective, even though it is a strictly personal decision for each person.

Click to expand...

I support your right not to take it if that is your choice. I reject completely the line you have been taking that there's a cover up and a conspiracy and that it kills thousands ('who said I had evidence?'). And I'm with @Strathos in pointing out that those who do not take it are endangering others.

Your responsibility isn't just to yourself. It is to others. 'The collective' as you call it. And it appears that you have no medical reason for not having the vaccine. And the people that you 'trust' not to take it are often no more than politically motivated charlatans who peddle witches and demons.

On that basis you will be judged.