The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist

~ She has interesting things to say. However, regardless of her opinions there is much to be suspicious about regarding the entire Covid19 fiasco.
As far as the "vaccine ", more countries are abandoning using them for those under 50 y/o. Others – UK and Australia — are going in partnership with Pfizer and Moderna to open mRNA vaccine manufacturing facilities

 

Yup.

The central issue to the "pandemic" claim was the way they tested.

The PCR tests were set to cycle 35 to 40 times. Only at 40 would a PCR test be acceptable for negative for Covid, thus below 40 cycles you're "positive".

Testing above 24 cycles didn't yield a live virus in testing.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32442256/

Thus, anyone who died of "covid" due to a PCR test above 24 cycles didn't even have an active Covid infection at the time of death.

 

Six foot distancing. Totally made up.

Masks stop transmission. Totally made up.

Vaccine stops transmission. Totally made up.

We're not the one's posting misinformation. That's the CDC and the media.

 

Nice strawman.

Nobody ever said covid doesn't exist.

 

Your entire post is - Totally made up.

Virtually NO one said any of those acts were to STOP transmission.
But to either slow it down or make it harder to transmit. Not to STOP it.

So, yes, they're the one's posting misinformation. As you did.

 

Sure.

CDC’s Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule Was ‘Arbitrary’, Says Former FDA Commissioner

https://www.forbes.com/sites/graiso...says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=5794511de8e6

That Study of Face Masks Does Not Show What the CDC Claims

https://reason.com/2022/02/07/that-study-of-face-masks-does-not-show-what-the-cdc-claims/

If you read the tiny footnotes, you will see that the result for cloth masks was not statistically significant. So even on its face, this study, which was published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on Friday, did not validate the protective effect of the most commonly used face coverings—a striking fact that the authors do not mention until the end of the sixth paragraph. And once you delve into the details of the study, it becomes clear that the results for surgical masks and N95s, while statistically significant, do not actually demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship, contrary to the way the CDC is framing them.

CDC Study Confirms That COVID-19 Vaccines Block Transmission In the Real World


https://www.verywellhealth.com/cdc-study-covid-19-transmission-vaccines-5121080

 

So where does it make the claims you said?

...
How Well COVID-19 Vaccines Work

• People who are up to date have lower risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19 than people who are unvaccinated or who have only received the primary series.
• Updated COVID-19 boosters can help restore protection that has decreased since previous vaccination. The updated boosters provide added protection against the recent Omicron subvariants that are more contagious than the previous ones. The recent subvariants, BA.4 and BA.5, are very closely related to the original variant, Omicron, with very small differences between itself and the original variant.
• CDC will continue to provide updates as we learn more.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...rent-vaccines/overview-COVID-19-vaccines.html

 

It's wonderful that you think your opinion so informed and accurate, but sadly it is not. I would ask you a sensible question but I get the impression you don't have that capability. But here:

Do you think it more or less likely that a person will catch a virus from somebody standing right next to them or 2m away? If you answered honestly, then there is your factoid. Social distancing is a measure to limit transmission, nothing more.

Ditto. The mask is not and never was claimed to be an impenetrable barrier. It is worn as a measure to limit transmission, nothing more.

Ditto. Vaccines are predominantly aimed at stopping the recipient from dying when catching the disease, better enabling them to deal with it and in some cases stopping them from getting it. The latter is most certainly a reason why they limit transmission.

Sadly you are, try not to automatically believe the batshit.

 

The clown back doctor, "checked her out". Ok. So where did she study, where is her doctorate paper? You mean the clown doctor didn't actually give this information?

And when in your all encompassing research criteria does that happen!? The woman has claimed she studied at an institution that 100% refutes her claim, what more is there to wait and see?

 

At the 1:35 time mark of this video...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-does-not-exist.594344/page-2#post-1073943768

......she tells us what her credentials are. What you posted...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-does-not-exist.594344/page-2#post-1073944510

...may or may not turn out to be bogus info. Time will tell.


Here's something for you to check out in the meantime.
https://vernoncoleman.org/articles/how-many-people-are-vaccines-killing

 

Plenty of people have.

But the post you made just a few posts up saying that certain things are made up are just as bad.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about and should be ashamed.

 

And I have already shown you the ONLY relevant ones are fraudulently claimed!

Time has already told. She is lying. This is what you do every single time, you post this bullshit spam line about something "may or may not turn out to be true" then continue to spam the same sources and make no attempt to verify that statement! It has already been verified by the email from the university she lied about.

What steps have you taken to verify his claims, where are they quantified? You just post this repeated crap and expect me to address it? VAERS data is and has never been a reliable source for causation and correlation. Period. Statisticians and scientists use it to isolate problems and always compare the data to non vaccinated population statistics to eliminate coincidence and conclude probable correlation. Batshit anti-vaxxers do not!

Now kindly read this short article. It isn't propaganda, it isn't damage control, it is a simple explanation for how VAERS works and how it can be misused.
Don’t Fall for the ‘VAERS Scare’ Tactic | Office for Science and Society - McGill University

 

Really.

Then I suppose you can provide some sources of people saying "covid doesn't exist".

 

Except I just linked articles that show all of the mask kabuki, worshiping of Pfizer and completely arbitrary invented social distancing nonsense did nothing.

All it did was keep you from hyperventilating when you were driving alone in your car wearing the mask that hung from your rear view mirror all summer.

 

Sure.

It's a complete coincidence that the system used for all other vaccines just happens to show covid has more negative events associated with it than all other vaccines combined over the last 50 years.

Of course, Branch Covidians are fine with calling a 80 year old, 600 lb, dementia patient with renal failure and clogged arteries a "covid death" after the 40th cycle on a PCR test found some dead virus residue.

You should really examine your "correlation/causation" argument more deeply and attempt to put some objectivity into whatever passes for that though process you're having.

 

What complete hogwash. "Worshipping of Pfizer" is idiotic batshit-speak.

As for the social distancing issue, you merely pointed out that the CDC acknowledge that COVID-19 may also be transmitted via aerosols. I suspect your compartmentalized approach to this issue (on the side of batshit) made you read this statement:

"that Covid-19 can be spread through aerosols"

... and deduced that that was always the case. It is not. Google the meaning of the word "can".

The mask issue, firstly the footnotes in the CDC report are NOT tiny (a lie),they do not indicate any poor statistical significance at all. The claim doesn't even quantify where this significance lies, it just says so! If you disagree, go to the report and identify this statistic.

Vaccine transmission, I don't think your link does what you think it does! Point out where it makes your case.

Nope, you didn't even do that. All you did was show yourself to be easily led and gullibly susceptible to batshit.

 

Except for the evidence I have that shows the 6 foot rule was pulled out of someones butt, CDC's reports regarding masks are not true, and CDC did claim that the "vaccine" would stop transmission.

Other than proof, I don't have much.

Do you not know where our Covid plan came from?

It was a straight copy/paste from Communist China.

 

Detail exactly where you found this statistic.

Batshit-speak. Each case of mortality is to be taken on its own merit.

I don't need to examine any such thing. The burden of proof is on team batshit and you have so far failed to do anything other than make noise. Adverse reactions to vaccines have been occurring since they were invented and they have always been far outweighed by the diseases they were designed to restrict.

 

On VAERS.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

"Notes" "Serious" "Serious Code" "Year Reported" "Year Reported Code" Events Reported Percent
"Yes" "Y" "1955" "1955" 1 0.00%
"Yes" "Y" "1989" "1989" 3 0.00%
"Yes" "Y" "1990" "1990" 199 0.01%
"Yes" "Y" "1991" "1991" 1065 0.06%
"Yes" "Y" "1992" "1992" 1195 0.07%
"Yes" "Y" "1993" "1993" 1159 0.07%
"Yes" "Y" "1994" "1994" 1281 0.08%
"Yes" "Y" "1995" "1995" 1116 0.07%
"Yes" "Y" "1996" "1996" 1003 0.06%
"Yes" "Y" "1997" "1997" 963 0.06%
"Yes" "Y" "1998" "1998" 957 0.06%
"Yes" "Y" "1999" "1999" 1316 0.08%
"Yes" "Y" "2000" "2000" 1160 0.07%
"Yes" "Y" "2001" "2001" 1307 0.08%
"Yes" "Y" "2002" "2002" 1278 0.08%
"Yes" "Y" "2003" "2003" 1498 0.09%
"Yes" "Y" "2004" "2004" 1211 0.07%
"Yes" "Y" "2005" "2005" 1246 0.07%
"Yes" "Y" "2006" "2006" 1394 0.08%
"Yes" "Y" "2007" "2007" 2237 0.13%
"Yes" "Y" "2008" "2008" 2398 0.14%
"Yes" "Y" "2009" "2009" 2629 0.15%
"Yes" "Y" "2010" "2010" 2522 0.15%
"Yes" "Y" "2011" "2011" 1984 0.12%
"Yes" "Y" "2012" "2012" 1883 0.11%
"Yes" "Y" "2013" "2013" 1771 0.10%
"Yes" "Y" "2014" "2014" 1870 0.11%
"Yes" "Y" "2015" "2015" 1857 0.11%
"Yes" "Y" "2016" "2016" 1918 0.11%
"Yes" "Y" "2017" "2017" 1820 0.11%
"Yes" "Y" "2018" "2018" 2749 0.16%
"Yes" "Y" "2019" "2019" 2936 0.17%
"Yes" "Y" "2020" "2020" 2646 0.16%
"Yes" "Y" "2021" "2021" 63945 3.76%
"Yes" "Y" "2022" "2022" 34410 2.03%

 

I love when the Pfizer worshippers call us batshit crazy and don't even have basic working knowledge of what they're using their feels to guide them.

 

6 foot was arbitrary.

Masks did nothing except keep leftist from screaming and running in circles.

They claimed the vaccine would stop transmission.

All facts despite your emotional need to protest them.

 

What do you think that proves?

It seems to prove that people were doing the best they could with a new virus no one understood.

Unless one is inclined to believe everything is a conspiracy by evil people trying to do them harm.

You aren’t smarter than everyone else.

 

No, they weren't doing their best.

They took China's response to Covid, implemented it here, and used the government to disallow any disagreement with the narrative.

And the money flowed into their pockets like water for something with a 99.7% survival rate, even if you include 80 year olds with 6 comorbidities.

It was a complete farce.

 

Perhaps your linked articles are bogus opinions?
One can visually see how the how the curve was flattened in death and cases when all measures were in place.
And then opening up almost completely in the summer of 2022, cases went way up after summer, but deaths stayed fairly low.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

 

Facts and figures brought to you by PCR tests that required 40 cycles to get to a negative test. Any trace evidence of the Covid 19 virus in any death was counted as a covid related death. That's how they got their numbers, and that's how they got rich off the fear they spread and the lies they told.

An actual pandemic would not have required the CDC and the federal government to use Twitter to silence any questioning of the official narrative.

Plenty of people died during Covid.

People who missed life threatening diagnoses. People that killed themselves with drugs and alcohol. People that committed suicide.