Re: making our own nasal spray.
I have been reusing plastic nasal spray bottles and filling with colloidal silver and a few drops of concentrated GSE, grapefruit seed extract. GSE is known to be antiviral, antifungal and antibacterial. We also use colloidal silver in a nebulizer at first sign of cold or bronchial problems.
It’s more nuanced than that, davefairtex. Even the WHO guidelines on recording death say that it’s not simply the test for COVID-19 that matters; there must be a plausible sequence from COVID-19 to the proximate cause of death.
I do know that VAERS is a voluntary reporting system that anyone can enter into, so treating it as gospel is not science.
I’m glad that Chris didn’t take the line that vaccines are unsafe, in the video. It seems clear to me that a claim that they are unsafe, even if made on VAERS data, is not reasonable (unless “safe” = “no adverse events”).
The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine developers took their own vaccine.
The Pfizer CEO took his company’s vaccine.
Any more?
At least these companies are producing vaccines that they think are safe.
Sofistek - After all the lies and mistruths why in gods name would you post this as if it is fact? Oh… because they said so… why would they lie?
Jim H,
You always find such good stuff. Looks like quinine is once again a world saver. Vodka tonics through the apocalypse I guess.
Well, how do you define safe? I tend to think of owning goldfish as safe. Or maybe playing cards with my family. Or things like that. Everything else seems to have risk. Now how much risk defines how unsafe it is. Airplane rides are supposedly safer than cars. But what about those 3 BA pilots? The regular vaccines are way less deadly than the disease. But the Pfizer vaccine covid trial had equal death rates. So I guess they could be said to be as safe as covid.
I tried to “run this up the flagpole” as well. Here’s what I learned – and no, there is no documentation other than this message, because there isn’t anything available to anyone. It is 100% heresay, to EVERYONE, the epidemiologists, the health department, etc.
So…
- The county sends "a selection" of the tests they get to the state. The selection is up to the county, and I guess each one is different.
- The state lab picks the one with the most viral load. Ostensibly this is because the tests are not that accurate, so you need the the most "stuff" to work with. How they make the determination and what their selection process was turned out to be a complete mystery, even to the one person at the state I asked.
- If it is positive, then they use a "specific" PCR test to determine which variant it is. What is that test? Not only could nobody tell me what it WAS, nobody had ever heard of one that could make the differentiation. But "somehow" you can "look at it" and sort of "tell the difference." If you are thinking "tea leaves," then you are on the same page as I am.
- After doing the nostradamus deal, "someone" declares there are X tests that are the Delta variant. Then "someone" multiplies X by Y, and reports to the county how many folks they have with the Delta variant.
- Since nobody tracks how many samples had "enough" of a viral load, and since nobody tracks how many of those were positive (it <should> be 100%, right???), then how do you determine what Y should be? How do you even know what X is? If you're still thinking "tea leaves," then we're tracking together.
- A "selected number" of positive "delta variant" tests are sent to some other lab to be examined at the genetic level. But the folks who were talking to me were not sure if there was a way for the lab to report back what the actual variant was.
I spent a fair number of years working in and around the medical industry. I saw more then one doctor administer the “flu vaccine” to themselves and his/her staff. The forms were all official, with appropriate signatures, etc, and everyone got a shot. But instead of the flu vaccine, they all got a healthy dose of B-complex.
Knowing what they have to know, I could imagine all of these folks went on record as getting the experimental gene therapy (AKA “vaccine”), but what was injected was something vastly different.
I do know that VAERS is a voluntary reporting system that anyone can enter into, so treating it as gospel is not science. I'm glad that Chris didn't take the line that vaccines are unsafe, in the video. It seems clear to me that a claim that they are unsafe, even if made on VAERS data, is not reasonableYou have no idea what you are talking about. VAERS, for all it's faults, is the vaccine safety signaling system we have. Total Bullshit to say something is not science if it's not perfect. Science is about understanding and accounting for bias, and lack of accuracy and precision in data. It's signalling like crazy. For all the cover ups, and all the doctors terrified to speak out and blame the vaccines for all the damage they are creating, it's still quite obvious to anyone with eyes. It's people like you that come up with oxymoronic bullshit like, "mild mycarditis". I will call you out for doing it here. You can comfort yourself all you want that the vax is safe.. you are not convincing anyone here though. Vax damage discussed here: https://twitter.com/Mrnavse And here: https://twitter.com/HPVSideEffects And here: https://www.c19vaxreactions.com/real-testimonials.html 96 pages documenting why the mRNA vaccines are not safe; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AD0lL3Rm4lDExo4q7McBxeeHOqO8bCWWerlGu7YJubQ/edit#
OK, Netlej. I get it, you believe nothing that counters your beliefs. That’s entirely up to you. Of course they would have a reason to lie but your take is that they definitely are lying. You don’t know that and I feel that they are telling the truth. To put it the other way, why would they put out a product that is unsafe? They are setting themselves up for an almighty settlement in the future if they did. But remember that health authorities the world over have also looked at the data and decided it is safe enough to use.
I do know that VAERS is a voluntary reporting system that anyone can enter into, so treating it as gospel is not science.I made an observation. Every death post-COVID-positive-test is called a "COVID death", unless someone actually points out a gunshot wound, or perhaps a decapitation. Every death post-vaccine is rigorously examined, with every benefit of the doubt given to finding any other cause of death besides the vaccine. "Oh look! A tumor! Cancer, not the shot, is the cause of death!" This hypocritical double standard is what I'm referring to. This double-standard is one key indication that "the fix is in." There is a monstrously large amount of money to be made in vaccines, and new on-patent drugs for this pandemic. Tens of billions - hundreds of billions - hang in the balance. The corruption in the regulatory system - called regulatory capture - has been there for decades. Once upon a time, all my favorite liberals knew this. Which is why I was one. Their skepticism helped keep me alive. But now - most of these same liberals have suddenly developed terrible cases of amnesia, and now act as though Pharma is run by people who are, without a doubt, the Second Coming of Our Lord and Saviour. I mean. How can smart people I used to admire become so incredibly...forgetful of what has come before? So brainwashed? I have no idea how this happened. All our usual watchdogs are fast asleep. Pharma is gonna Pharma. That's just what they do. Same as Big Tobacco. Same as Big Oil. They're all horribly sociopathic. They don't care whether we live or die, as long as they can make money off us. And they corrupt institutions of government with their money, they bend them to their will, and we pay the price. One way is by having a VAERS system that mis-functions by design. Another way is to construct hypocritical double standards - one "easy" one for their product, and another "hard" one for their competition. And when you give them a "liability free" opportunity to distribute their latest "miracle"...you are just asking to be hosed. I do not trust Pharma. Or Tobacco. Or Oil. Not this year, not last year, not last decade. I have a functioning memory. What about you?
Jim H, I merely said that taking VAERS data at face value without investigation is not reasonable.
Friedrichs_teeth, that’s news to me. Are you saying that the stage 3 trials for the Pfizer vaccine had the same death rate as the disease had? Do you have some reference for that, as I need to look at that. I can’t imagine the vaccine getting authorisation in so many countries which have looked at the data, if that was the case. It would put a whole new perspective on the situation and would make Chris’s top right quadrant suggestion (that older people with comorbidities should take the vaccine) invalid, too.
Trial:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf
supplementary link:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.supplementary-material
Tables in PDF form - see page 12:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true
Page 12: all cause mortality. Do you avoid death or not? This is the money shot.
Vaccine mandates now! To protect grandma!
Pharma gonna pharma.
Thank, davefairtex. Very good reference. On the face of it, we see similar (one more in vaccinated) all cause mortality and similar (but almost no) COVID-19 related deaths (2 in placebo, 1 in vaccinated), though there isn’t enough info to determine whether there’s more to that. Table S6 shows 30 severe COVID-19 cases in the placebo group but only 1 in the vaccinated group; maybe that suggests the placebo group got very good treatment so that only 2 died of the disease but the 1 severe case in the vaccinated group did result in death (from “COVID-19 Pneumonia”, whatever that means).
It would be good to see Chris analyse this.
Is this the data that Friedrichs_teeth was referring to? I guess, statistically, he/she is correct but one piece of data I couldn’t find was total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in each group (though it does have a severe COVID-19 count). Claimed efficacy is quite high but I don’t have the skills to check whether that’s a reasonable conclusion in the study. It’ll be interesting to see how the peer review goes.
As far as safety is concerned, the vaccine seems to be as safe as the placebo.
As far as safety is concerned, the vaccine seems to be as safe as the placebo.As far as safety/mortality is concerned, I agree. [Another way to view this is: the vaccine is just as dangerous as COVID19 is.] As far as "adverse events" are concerned - you tell me which group you'd rather be in (seen on page 11): "Any event" - Group 1: 30%, Group 2: 14% "Severe event" - Group 1: 1.2%, Group 2: 0.7%. Note: this is all happening in a context of NO TREATMENTS FOR YOU. If we had an early treatment that dropped our mortality by 70%, the shot looks like a terrible idea. Hey. Maybe that's why we don't have any treatments available to us in the US! Word of the day: "Regulatory Capture" [Bizarre. I keep trying to add in an uploaded image, but it won't add. I'll try one more time.]
Good points, Dave. Definitely food for thought but I would like to see some analysis of this from those with the appropriate skills. On the face of it, severe COVID-19 cases were much lower (but I don’t know whether that’s significant). I also did find some figures on all COVID-19 cases, in the main study paper, on page 6. Between dose 1 and dose 2, there were 46 cases in the vaccinated group versus 113 in the placebo group (a claimed efficacy of 58.4%). My uneducated guess is that this perhaps downgrades the severe case advantage that the vaccinated group apparently had. However, the paper then says that efficacy against being a confirmed case increased, at peak protection, to 96.2% but eventually declined to 83.7% by the end of the study. No actual numbers were given for post dose 2 cases.
Thanks again for the reference. Will try to keep track of how the peer review goes.
In an actual copy of a Pfizer contract - 1 dose of Covid-19 vaccine is $12.00 US. See https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/information-security-expert-on-revealed-pfizer-agreements-theres-good-reason-pfizer-fought-to-hide-the-details-of-these-contracts/
New data on costs for vaccines with Moderna being the most expensive - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv9IEBa2B14. New prices far higher than the original $12.00, now bordering on 20.00.
According to Chris in a recent video on the facts of Covid-19 vaccine - the second quarter profits for Pfizer is 33 billion dollars.
“Jim H, I merely said that taking VAERS data at face value without investigation is not reasonable.”
Your response reminds me of the suppression of Ivermectin; “We can’t see any evidence of its effectiveness b/c there are no RCTs” (and by the way We won’t be funding any just so you know)
The public health authorities are not giving the public safety briefings, and there is none (to my knowledge) any “investigation” by the authorities of the VAERS data. Why not? Because “The Vaccine is Safe”. See the logic there ? Don’t look for what you don’t want to find.
Each VAERS entry is reviewed and confirmed by the CDC.
VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public. https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html