Many many people are so proud to be getting their "1st dose" of some unnecessary experimental mystery shot

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

K.

The IFR of COVID-19 is many times greater than influenza

Well, the WHO data says it's less deadly, so take it up with them.

Good luck being experimented on, because you will have no legal recourse. None.

These gene therapy manufacturers cannot be sued for any damages, so you're 100% on your own.

Maybe you have a wise boomer relative who can spoon feed you in your wheelchair.

Good luck with all of that, and may God bless you.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

  1. You've previously said to not trust the WHO

  2. The WHO have said, along with numerous other organizations and independent researchers, that the IFR of COVID-19 is many times greater than the flu.

Good luck being experimented on, because you will have no legal recourse. None.

When you agree to be vaccinated you agree to the terms of the EUA, which means immunity for the corporations that made the vaccines. If you don't accept that, don't get the vaccine until it has full approval in some months. Advise others to do the same all you wish, but you won't convince rational people unless you can formulate rational arguments that can withstand basic scrutiny.

These gene therapy manufacturers cannot be sued for any damages, so you're 100% on your own.

I never said otherwise, though it's not gene therapy

Maybe you have a wise boomer relative who can spoon feed you in your wheelchair.

You've offered not even a hint of evidence that the vaccines could do this, and have continuously retreated from all your past arguments when challenged and given specific counter-claims that were then your duty to rebut, but you did not. Why should I take this claim any more seriously?

Good luck with all of that, and may God bless you.

If you have my best interests at heart you are duty-bound to take this argument seriously and not continually abandoned your previous lines of reasoning, and actually address my counter-claims. For if you believe what you say, you could save my life by mustering an actual defense that's grounded in evidence and medical observation.

Instead, I've used your own sources, like VAERS, against you, showing that what you were claiming about the vaccine side effects has not been recorded, as you claimed.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Thanks for the robot response.

It's obvious that you're a bot.

Anyone with a grey cell would have moved on.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It's nice to see you have such an opinion of your own value about as low as I've come to conclude

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

That's nice to know, because insults from shills are a form of high praise.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

When someone forces you to confront errors in your argument which you can't refute, and calls you to task for your attempts to ignore those faults, they're obviously a shill. Because otherwise that'd mean that you're making mistakes, and that can't possibly be the case.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Sure. Can you refute the WHO stating that this is only as deadly as the flu?

That fact alone makes this a moot point.

Since this is a fact, why are you adamantly pursuing this moot point?

It doesn't take a genius to guess the answer.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You previously said not to trust the WHO. Also the WHO has said it's more deadly than the flu.

But using non-WHO sources, here are American researchers who calculated a range for the IFR of COVID-19 infection: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

The "Scenario 5: Current best estimate" is 0.002%, 0.05%, 0.6%, and 9% for age ranges 0-17, 18-49, 50-64, and 65+, respectively.

The gross IFR regardless of age brackets is 1.15% for first-world countries (where old people don't die from other causes first) and 0.23% for third-world countries: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201030/covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-is-about-one-point-15-percent

The IFR for normal influenza is 0.039%: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3883/rr

So the gross IFR is 5.9 to 29.5 times higher for COVID-19 when compared to influenza. WHO sources are also similar to these.

It doesn't take a genius to guess the answer.

Any conclusion you come to on any topic is evidence that it doesn't take a genius to do it.

Will you now return to your failure to defend the flaws in your argument that I pointed out by showing you the VAERS data?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

So the gross IFR is 5.9 to 29.5 times higher for COVID-19 when compared to influenza.

Your figures are trash.

The CDC admitted that only 6% of deaths were from Covid. With an avg of 4 additional comorbidities.. ADDITIONAL!

On avg these people were dying of 4 additional factors. *4 ADDITIONAL FACTORS?!*
It's so weak that it takes an average of 4 extra factors to tip the scales to death.

So for every single Coco death, there is someone with 8 additional deadly issues.
These are the official figures.

If someone wrote a book and this was the pandemic story line it would be laughed out of the publisher's office.
It's absurd. A complete joke.

You can't make this nonsense up, but the MSM scumbags do it every day.

The Coco only deaths were probably frail elderly people who were murdered in nursing homes.

6%: Murdered by ventilators stretching out their elderly lungs.. The crime of the century.

httpsss://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

Comorbidities and other conditions

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all deaths involving COVID-19 and by age groups. For 6% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.

I don't envy your position. You have to shill for a hopelessly indefensible crime.

The sleeping public is waking up. ;-)

Edit: Multiply your death figures by 0.06, and that's what the CDC admitted to.

No doubt is actually a smaller percentage.

[–]VirgilGriff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

You don't seem to understand the concept of an IFR. It takes into account comorbidities. Also, having a comorbidity isn't an invitation to just die. "Doctor, this heart attack victim has a comorbidity!" "Oh, well then don't bother with resuscitation and we won't even write down his death."

Here's a shocker, boomer: almost everyone has comorbidities for some disease. Especially age-d people, like yourself.

Edit: Multiply your death figures by 0.06, and that's what the CDC admitted to.

No doubt is actually a smaller percentage.

"People didn't die if they don't have comorbidities."

You're actually terrified of this disease, aren't you? You're fascinated by it and unable to do anything but cling to fallacious arguments and even ignore your own words, which moments ago you claimed were messages of deliverance from the tyranny of the disease. Still waiting on you to talk about VAERS, by the way.