Jump to content
27 Time World Champions

How’s that COVID-19 “Vaccine” working out for you?

Recommended Posts

If you have time, read this. It shouldn't be astonishing, but it is.

Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals

As with a great deal of health care regulation during the declared pandemic, changes were made to the VAERS system and also to safety signal analysis leading up to the experimental mass vaccination program officially targeting COVID-19. Without much fanfare, the CDC published a document on January 29, 2021 entitled Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19. There is a lot to talk about in this document, but let us focus on Section 2.2, which begins on page 14. Here, the CDC states that, "A series of tables will be generated using the VAERS automated data," and that these, "will be refreshed daily for internal use," but "not for public release". One might wonder why the CDC would not want additional outside eyeballs on such data---particularly since it took them two full months to figure out that myocarditis was an issue with the vaccines despite Israel warning about it two full months before the CDCs scheduled, delayed, and finally held meeting in late June. Maybe the CDC should hire somebody to read the pertinent news?

We get to section 2.3, and this is where things get really crazy. This is where signals (for assessing safety/danger of the vaccines) get defined. Subsection 2.3.1 begins (emphasis mine),

CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed. PRRs compare the proportion of a specific AE following a specific vaccine versus the proportion of the same AE following receipt of another vaccine (see equation below Table 4). A safety signal is defined as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest.  

Only a real dork would emphasize the word 'and', right? A logic dork, mind you, but we'll get to that...

First, note that PRR is the proportional reporting ratio, and these PRR numbers are the outputs of a function defined by the CDC based on four variables (which they list in a table as capital letters, then apply in a function as lower-case letters, which always makes me a little uncomfortable as I rarely see such sloppy transition from definitions to application, and somehow they always seem to come from government documentation where I worry about ass covering and plausible deniability).

Look at the numerator of this formula. The variables a and b are specific to each vaccine. Now, consider what would happen if an extremely dangerous vaccine were introduced that resulted in 20 times as many AEs of all types as all the other vaccines to which it gets compared.

The PRR remains invariant in the scaling of adverse events!




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't  a logic dork 27. It's called comprehensive reading.  Something we could use a little more of. 

I said months ago I'm done with the science. Too many lies on the table and quite frankly, I can see what's going on my own backyard and in the backyards pretty much all over this state. 

Logic? Why are they saying the mRNA vaccine needs a booster? It's not supposed to work that way. Why are they saying it's only good for a certain amount of months? Ohhh the variants..you think people are going to keep injecting this every year? 

My very healthy daughter and her husband were sick for a week after getting the second dose. I seem to recall governor Cuomo stating companies couldn't penalize attendance and had to pay sick time out for people with side effects.

You think that's going to go on forever? Doubt that.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bo Marsh said:

That article is a perfect example of how journalism has declined over the past few decades.

When a person reads a news article, they should not know where a writer stands on an issue. It should be written completely neutral.

Notice that it is filed under "News" and not "Opinion" or "Editorial" (see the red tag right above the article's headline).

And, as such, it should not include phrases such as "joined a group of conspiracy theorists," "she spewed misinformation," "she went on to falsely claim" and others.


Falsely claim?

Those are not facts. Those are opinions. Including emotions meant to sway readers over to the writer's personal views.

Proper journalism says things such as "a group who some have labeled as 'conspiracy theorists'" (it's important to put that term in separate quotes, as it is not an official label) or "material which many government officials and medical experts consider misinformation."

Unfortunately, the majority of the public still believe that the Fourth Estate are unbiased recorders of news and events. And that nothing is printed (or said on air) unless it is true.

The New York Post is a major print publication which has been around for 220 years. It should know better.

If anyone would like some background on this topic, an excellent book is Bias by Bernard Goldberg (formerly of CBS News). It came out 20 years ago, before the Internet completely changed the landscape.

To give a brief summary, Goldberg comes out at the very beginning of the book and admits to being a dedicated liberal. However, he considers himself foremost a professional journalist, and he makes sure he always checks his personal opinions at the door. Unfortunately, he feels, the majority of his colleagues refuse to do so, or are blind to the biases they bring to their work.

A very educational and applicable book considering current news, as well as the subject of this thread.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctors Are Reporting the Severe Side Effects They Experienced After Taking the Vaccine

Did you ever hear of the website called Medscape?

Their website says:

"Our mission is to improve patient care with comprehensive clinical information and resources essential to physicians and healthcare professionals.

"Medscape is the leading online global destination for physicians and healthcare professionals worldwide, offering the latest medical news and expert perspectives; essential point-of-care drug and disease information; and relevant professional education and CME."

It's not a site for any ol' Joe or troll to post material.

And their comment pages say:

"Commenting is limited to medical professionals. To comment please Log-in.
Commenting is moderated. See our Terms of Use."

So it is very interesting — and disturbing — to read first hand testimony of what has happened to practicing physicians after they took "the jab."

But they're all just conspiracy wackos, right?



Currently 950 posts are on that page (some are of course follow-ups or responses to comments).

Good luck getting health care in the coming weeks and months. I have an elective procedure scheduled for late fall. Not sure if I want any sort of cutting done to me under these conditions.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2021 at 12:54 PM, YankeeDoodle said:

62% Of One Doctor's Patients Who Took the Vaccine Have Blood Clots!




This is what happens if you are a doctor and voice concerns about the "vaccine." You are told to be quiet, or risk losing your career.

Which is exactly what happened to Canadian Dr. Charles Hoffe, the person who found so many blood clots in his patients.




And people ask, "if the vaccine is so dangerous, why haven't more doctors and nurses spoken out, and why hasn't the media reported on it?"

Basically, this is why:



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bo Marsh said:

Any bet his doctors refused to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin?


  1. There have not been any long-term clinical studies where either of those two drugs were used specifically to treat Covid, so they can't risk the safety of the patients.
  2. Unlike the vaccines which had no long-term trials, neither drug had the FDA issue an EUA — Emergency Use Authorization — so they can be used.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of medical studies say no:


Hydroxychloroquine does not benefit adults hospitalized with COVID-19



Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2Colorized scanning electron micrograph of a cell (blue) heavily infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus particles (red), isolated from a patient sample. Image captured at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility (IRF) in Fort Detrick, MarylandNIAID

A National Institutes of Health clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has formally concluded that the drug provides no clinical benefit to hospitalized patients. Though found not to cause harm, early findings in June when the trial was stopped indicated that the drug was not improving outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Final data and analyses of the trial, which was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH, will appear online Nov. 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association(link is external).

The trial, called Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among Inpatients with symptomatic Disease (ORCHID), began after lab studies and preliminary reports suggested that hydroxychloroquine — commonly used to treat malaria and rheumatic conditions like arthritis — might have promise in treating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. 

The Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Clinical Trials Network of NHLBI started the trial in April at 34 hospitals across the United States and enrolled 479 of the expected 510 patients. By June, preliminary evidence indicated hydroxychloroquine was unlikely to offer any benefit.

NIH officials said the careful design, implementation, and oversight of the study was key to its results, as well as the recommendation by a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) to stop the trial early.

“Having a rigorously designed clinical trial that captured patient-centered, clinically meaningful outcomes was critical to reaching the unequivocal conclusions about the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. ORCHID shows that hydroxychloroquine does not improve clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said James P. Kiley, Ph.D., director, Division of Lung Diseases at NHLBI. “We hope this clear result will help practitioners make informed treatment decisions and researchers continue their efforts pursuing other possible safe and effective treatments for patients suffering with this disease.”

The ORCHID trial enrolled participants between April 2 and June 19 who were a median age of 57. They included 290 Hispanic and Black participants and 212 female participants. All participants received clinical care as indicated for their condition. Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group and received 10 doses of either hydroxychloroquine or a placebo over five days. Researchers then assessed each patient’s clinical status 14 days after being assigned to a treatment group. They used a seven-category scale ranging from one (death) to seven (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). Researchers also measured 12 additional outcomes, including death that occurred 28 days after the participants’ assignment to a treatment group.

At day 14, those who received hydroxychloroquine and those who received a placebo had a similar health status, with most participants in both groups discharged from the hospital and able to perform a range of activities. The number of participants in both treatment groups who died at day 14 was also similar. At day 28, 25 of 241 patients in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 patients in the placebo group had died.

“The finding that hydroxychloroquine is not effective for the treatment of COVID-19 was consistent across patient subgroups and for all evaluated outcomes, including clinical status, mortality, organ failures, duration of oxygen use, and hospital length of stay,” said Wesley Self, M.D., M.P.H., emergency medicine physician at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and PETAL Clinical Trials Network investigator who led the ORCHID trial. He also noted that the finding was consistent with similar trials in the United Kingdom and Brazil.

“Our diverse teams of clinicians and research staff worked nimbly, under extremely difficult circumstances to accomplish what NIH and the PETAL Network do best: ‘gold standard’ studies of important questions for patients suffering from life-threatening conditions,” said Samuel M. Brown, M.D., M.S., a critical care physician at Intermountain Healthcare and PETAL Network investigator who helped lead the trial. “While we hoped that hydroxychloroquine would help, even this is an important result as we work together to find effective treatments for COVID-19.”

As of Nov. 2, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(link is external) has reported more than 9.1 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 230,000 deaths in the United States. Many other randomized clinical trials are currently evaluating the effectiveness and safety of other agents versus a placebo in the urgent race for effective therapies to treat COVID-19.

The ORCHID trial was funded by NIH/NHLBI grants 3 U01 HL123009-06S1, U01HL123009, U01HL122998, U01HL123018, U01HL123023, U01HL123008, U01HL123031, U01HL123004, U01HL123027, U01HL123010, U01HL123033, U01HL122989, U01HL123022, and U01HL123020. Additionally, the research was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Awards UL1TR001102 and UL1TR002541.

About the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI): NHLBI is the global leader in conducting and supporting research in heart, lung, and blood diseases and sleep disorders that advances scientific knowledge, improves public health, and saves lives. For more information, visit https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®


Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.22240(link is external).


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bo Marsh said:



this dude allegedly dies in May.....why is that headlines now? why is this obit looking so suspect too...not one mention of covid in the comments either

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bo Marsh said:

Hydroxychloroquine does not benefit adults hospitalized with COVID-19

Absolutely correct. Because Hydroxychloroquine by itself does nothing.

It needs to be paired up with other minerals, antibiotics and/or supplements, one of the most important being ZINC.

In fact, pairing with zinc was the protocol first advocated by the doctor in France (Dr. Didier Raoult) who was having so much success treating Covid patients back at the very start of the pandemic in early 2020.

Unless I overlooked it, I saw no mention of anything else being used in conjunction with Hydroxychloroquine in that study.





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Joseph Varon has had great success treating Covid patients in Houston.

What's his secret? Watch and find out.

Pay close attention to the roadblocks that have been thrown in his way. And how the media has been ordered to not discuss his treatment protocol, and edits it out should any reporter not have gotten that memo.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now