Measles is the canary in the coal mine of endemic diseases

If a population is vaxxed enough for it not to spread, it dies out.

Read your comment that mine was a response to again.
Bogus narratives may have a greater potential to work somewhat if they're kept consistent.

Nope, the vax rate fell of because measles where not present in the USA for several decades. This is a fact and my comment is consistent, but you're non-sense response is based off your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

Nope, it was eradicate in the USA because the population that was vaxed was enough for it to die among the population of the USA. Both constants are statement, you're just grasping at straws.

Czech Republic COVID Vaccine Study

“Vaccinated Women are 66% less like to give birth than unvaccinated Women”

Wow - perhaps it was a depopulation/sterilisation tool after all.

Is that correlation or a causation? I'm a guy that doesn't want children, so it doesn't affect me personally. Older people that are more likely to doe of covid shouldn't have the problem with this either.

Here's your citation for you, https://kirschsubstack.com/p/czech-republic-data-vaccinated-women

What's the purpose, you keep pretending to disagree with something by agreeing with it.

The reason measles vaxing fell off is because the disease was not present in the USA and therefore no one was catching it keeping the spread at zero for quite some time. It was this combined with the reintroduction that caused it to spread so much now.

Now if it was a wordwide eradication, like smallpox, vaxing would no longer be necessary.

So you think antibodies die like Fauci said and you need a booster every week ?

My My testy you

Go away Punchyouation Nazi..

Source? Funny you keep mentioning "source" throughout this thread. I remember asking YOU for a source once and you gave me a Wikipedia link. Classic!

FART

You only disagreed. You proved nothing.

He also pointed to his own medical history. While anecdotal - that's important and significant - unless you're just looking for excuses to tow the DNCIA/Big Pfharma party line, as seems to be your assignment on this website.

Just because you don't agree with a study - doesn't mean that it's flawed. Go ahead and do a better study... It's likely to pay better than this job that you're currently doing.

It's ONLY YOUR OPINION - that the factors you claim were omitted were significant. If it passed peer-review - obviously seasoned professionals who deal with the topic, disagreed.

As for Covid - it's been remarked by Luc Montagnier who found HIV (allegedly) that he recognized sequences from it, directly incorporated into Covid. The 'Cytokine storm' effect of both has been noted and commented upon. Hence, since the study mention "AIDS" according to our reporter - we see you once again being deliberately obtuse.

It hardly seemed extraordinary. Heterodox to prevalent narratives, perhaps... But he documented his claims adequately.

Work on your reading comprehension. It proved YOU wrong. Not him. Just because the official definition made claims about vaccine efficacy - doesn't mean they were correct. In fact, there's plenty of reasonable debate on the subject of the efficacy of many popular (actual/traditional) vaccines. The point, is that the Experimental Synthetic mRNA Gene Therapy injections aren't properly understood to be vaccines, under the accepted definition, that had been in place since vaccines became 'a thing'.

Not only are the highly lethal Covid Kill Shots an entirely different and novel type of injectable attempt at prophylaxis... The testing was designed not to measure their actual efficacy in preventing the targeted illness - but rather, a mere increase in antibodies, which don't automatically equate to effective protection. So those shots are not only incredibly dangerous, relative to the traditionally-made shots, they aren't comparable in effectiveness.

As with any medical intervention, the key question indicated by the Hippocratic Oath, is "primum non nocerum", or "first, do no harm". This means that the risks of injuries and drawbacks of an intervention must be outweighed by the potential benefits - and not just what profits Big Pfharma and the Medical Profession, the most. A great example is the HPV vaccine. Not only doesn't it show appreciable benefits in terms of warts and cancers - but any benefits it may have, are clearly outweighed by the adverse event possibilities associated with its use.

"Yeah so you've been to the stream... And yet I don't recall you ever trying to challenge ALL of the studies behind the "horseshit".

I guess ALL of the peer reviewed studies linked there in the comments - must be "flawed" - since they conclusively prove that your employers (and you) have been deliberately lying, all along."

So that's an "I can't" on my request that you copy and paste the pre-2020 definition of "vaccine" which disallows the COVID vax as a viable candidate then?

Don't confuse Can't - with NOT WORTH MY TIME, to try to convince a guy, who's paid to never acknowledge evidence, or logic. http://whale.to/m/disin.html

If you CAN produce evidence that the definition wasn't changed, you've missed several opportunities now, to do so. But like your 'partner' - it seems that you never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity.

"See below. American Viking was kind enough to provide you the evidence from December 2019 (the around the first time that I'd caught it, myself) that the federal definition was changed to allow synthetic RNA and DNA sequences to be considered "vaccines". So you can STFU, any time now... As I explained in response to his (honest) comment - even dictionaries of the common tongue were updated, to reflect that change in Globalist policy, and TheSCIENCE™, as codified in US Law."

I love that you flail away trying to put yourself in the right while exposing that you either didn't even bother to read the thing you're pointing to someone else pointing to or couldn't understand it's the definition of "biological product" and doesn't even come close to unseating the COVID vax. 🤣

Oh, hey... point of courtesy: before you put stock in anything Viki posts in the future, think about the fact that, with two detailed pictures of the White House in simultaneous view, they couldn't tell the difference between the triangle-topped north entrance and the railing topped south entrance, required it pointed out to them. Sooo... yeah, just sayin'

"Don't confuse Can't - with NOT WORTH MY TIME"

...he said as he demonstrated he has all the time in the world to waste on writing a novella about anything but proving the COVID vaccine doesn't meet the pre-2020 definition of "vaccine".🤣

See below. American Viking was kind enough to provide you the evidence from December 2019 (the around the first time that I'd caught it, myself) that the federal definition was changed to allow synthetic RNA and DNA sequences to be considered "vaccines". So you can STFU, any time now... As I explained in response to his (honest) comment - even dictionaries of the common tongue were updated, to reflect that change in Globalist policy, and TheSCIENCE™, as codified in US Law.

http://whale.to/m/disin.html

"Newsflash - I don't work for you - a fact which your demand for proof ignores." blah-blah-blah, yap-yap-yap, multiple paragraphs (and multiple pages worth at this point) of yammer instead of simply posting what? -maybe two, three sentences worth of proof that would completely shut me down, truly make you the champion of facts you seem to believe yourself to be. 🤣

How would my retyping something be proof. As is currently the case - you could just claim that I made it up - even though I paraphrased what we both seem to know that you'd find, if you actually looked for yourself.

"NO - in fact that's NOT what the chart showed. Covid actually hit in July 2019" blah-blah-blah, "still an unsolved mystery" yap-yap-yap.

I like that way you demonstrate right at the start you're running on the product of your fevered imagination and then plow on ahead like you didn't just say what you just said. And, four paragraphs later, despite all that pointless yapping and excuses, there's a conspicuous lack of the requested copied-n-pasted pre-2020 definition of "vaccine".

Also, I love how you copped out with "do your own research" when pressed to simply provide the alleged pre-2020 definition of "vaccine." I mean... seems like if the thing that that would instantly, completely shut me down existed, you'd by champing at the bit to fire that li'l doozy off, right? But then, that's the problem, isn't it? You can't do it, can you? You ran paladin for someone spouting speculative garbage, spouted your own speculative garbage, yapped yourself into a corner and now that you're stuck, your pride won't let you abort will it? That's okay, I'm feeling magnanimous this morning so one last chance: copy and paste the accepted, pre-2020 definition of "vaccine" disallowing the COVID vax as a viable candidate.

Oh, and thank you for pushing the "COVID 'truth'" stream... I've been there before, seen the horseshit that's being pushed as reality, followed the citations that usually don't really prove/support what's alleged or prove/support something other than what's alleged.

Yeah so you've been to the stream... And yet I don't recall you ever trying to challenge ALL of the studies behind the "horseshit".

I guess ALL of the peer reviewed studies linked there in the comments - must be "flawed" - since they conclusively prove that your employers (and you) have been deliberately lying, all along.

Newsflash - I don't work for you - a fact which your demand for proof ignores. I've seen the evidence of the definitional change, myself, as has the guy you were dishonestly arguing with, originally. If you say what we both wrote was untrue - you go ahead and provide your evidence to that effect. A simple web search should provide some substance in excess of your baseless denials and groundless demands. This is commonly known outside of Biden Regime Information warfare circles (and probably within, as well, though y'all will never cop to that, publicly). I've seen several articles written witj documentary evidence included. But I don't need to waste time, going through my more than 1000 bookmarks, looking for a cite, that you'll just ignore, or dance around and try to disparage, once it's produced.

As for "[MY] speculation" - it's hardly just that. There's significant evidence from sewage samples and levels of antibodies in the population (collected by blood samples at the time of donations, I'd guess) that suggest that the official timeline is all wrong. It's analysis that's shared by the parties that were targeted for the big attack, long before it occurred, by a parallel track of research being sponsored, at the Oswald Institute of Virology, in Wuhan... https://web.archive.org/web/20200713161459/https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/china-state-tv-host-covid-19-came-lab-leak-united-states

So what we have isn't so much "speculation" as it is the well-informed and highly experienced Covert Operations analysis, of not just myself, but also the Chinese Intelligence Servicedls. It's also recently been shared, by another researcher, whose name escapes me at the moment - but which I can find much more quickly, if you continue-on in this unidirectionally skeptical and obtuse manner...

Did I see correctly that you Moderate the Psychology stream, in addition to your (comments off) agit-prop work in Politics, and your participation in the narrative-and-moderation-controlled environment at PolToo? If so, to me - and this IS just speculation - that you might be akin to those APA members who assisted the CIA and Pentagon establish their Torture Program, under Barack Obama's cousin, Dick. The same organization that then tried unsuccessfully to COVER-UP their unethical and unlawful participation as accessories (at a minimum) to the Federally and Internationally recognized crime of TORTURE... Surely, this 'Sealioning' pattern of yours could be similarly construed.

Congress made a crucial change to vaccine definition weeks before COVID-19
The US government’s definition of ‘biological product’ up until December 2019 may have prohibited the mRNA COVID-19 products from being labeled as vaccines.

The December 2019 change to the definition of “biological product” is found in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020
SEC. 605. BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT DEFINITION.

Section 351(i)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)(1)) is amended by striking “(except any chemically synthesized polypeptide).”

Without a quiet change to federal law just before the onset of COVID-19, the experimental, mRNA COVID jabs may never have been labeled as vaccines.

That's an interesting chart... which demonstrates nothing other than there was a spike in mortality when COVID hit; all the other information in it is merely an assertive overlay provided by someone with an agenda.. That you automatically deduce a new SARS variant isn't responsible for said spike, rather the vaccine developed to immunize against against said variant is at fault for said spike demonstrates you're more interested in pushing an opinion than dealing in fact.

Additionally, as you've decided to make this about reading comprehension and assuming that somone with a specific interest in getting a complete picture before they decided to start spout off, did you not comprehend the VAERS system's own warning concerning its unreliability when you read it?

Oh, also, since we're on the subject of reading comprehension, this is sort of off-topic but rather important to the overall discussion:

"Just because the official definition made claims about vaccine efficacy"

Definitions don't make claims; people make claims, definitions simply describe words as they are commonly understood. Frankly, given that you've now demonstrated you don't understand the nature of definitons, believe they make assertions, I'm experiencing some difficulty in viewing you as anything other than just one more anti-vaxx kook desperately trying to fight a war that doesn't exist.

But... I'm willing to give you one more chance: copy and paste the accepted, pre-2020 definition of "vaccine" disallowing the COVID vax as a viable candidate.

Nice irrelevant soapboxing, BTW -that was impressive. I mean... it was meaningless, but still impressive.

NO - in fact that's NOT what the chart showed. Covid actually hit in July 2019, at the latest - reflected in this news item from a CIA source, you're bound to respect: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/07/17/third-person-has-died-after-respiratory-illness-outbreak-greenspring-village-fairfax-officials-say/ and then the "Mysterious Vaping Illness" of Summer 2019 - still an unsolved mystery thar killed at least one guy who vaped nothing, and which had an identical symptom presentation.

The chart shows a huge surge in deaths - but only once the shots were rolled out, at the beginning of 2021, a full year and a half after the first waves of Covid. Which funnily enough didn't cause a statistically significant increase in deaths - from the time that it was actually acknowledged - to the Fall/Winter of 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201126163323/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

VAERS is run by the same Industry captured HHS bureaucracy that declared a bogus emergency in March of 2020, and recently extended it to 2029. OF COURSE they're going to attempt to downplay the significance of what the evidence in of their own database suggests. Nearly half of the FDA's budget comes directly from Big Pfharma. The CDC owns patents in use in all kinds of these dangerous shots. But let's not pretend that the chart I showed you was the only evidence to suggest a direct correlation between those shots and all of those deaths (which are a gross undercount, because of the cumbersome and passive reporting methodology). This small text box isn't big enough to correct all of your foolishness... So PLEASE - avail yourself of the Covid Truth stream - even if just to more accurately confirm your own null-hypothesis. We have years of memes, and the corresponding studies and publications and expert testimony - usually linked in the comments section of each meme.

You think you so smart... Go ahead and 'do your own research' - and you link me the pre-2020 vaccine definition, that you think would cover the injectable biologics, which MODeRNA's own financial disclosures referred to as "Gene Therapy" - prior to the change in the definitions for "vaccine". Go ahead and post a meme with screenshots, in reply... Until then, I'm not wasting additional time on a disingenuous, disinformation agent, like yourself. I've seen the different versions. I don't need to confirm for myself, what only your obtuseness denies.

So what was all of that Sealioning about then, if not 'asking'.

I'm glad you find yourself amusing. Aside from your tag-team partners, who else would?

No. In fact, they're FAR MORE CONCLUSIVE, than any one of the many peer reviewed studies that individually showed that Ivermectin works in the treatment of Covid - because the aggregation gives you far more participants in your sample size, and minimizes the flaws of any given study included, some of which are notoriously flawed - particularly the designed to fail "TOGETHER" Study, whose dosages, ingestion guidelines, and insufficient treatment protocols - were seemingly designed deliberately to produce a result confirming the CDC/FDA recommendation against ivermectin's use.

But EVEN IF, you disagree with using a Meta analysis of hundreds of studies, for some obtuse reason... You could much more convincingly attack each study favoring use, individually, based upon some specific criteria, as I just did, above ... However - that would require you doing some actual work, in reading and evaluating each study - though certainly, you could also just republish as a script-kitty, the ghost-written work that's fed to you by your handlers and employers. But at least it wouldn't be this kind of hand-waving "inconclusive" bullshit argument, that you're trying to get away with, here.

What's wrong with this individual study, oh pedantic-one? https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

Rather than asking Sealioning questions - why not make a statement?

You tell me - oh pedantic Gaslighter - what Propensity matching is, since you seem to claim to be an expert - and why whatever flaws that would have - would overcome this clear indication of a benefit: "Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001)."

"Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates."

I can tell you from personal experience, having had Covid without access to Ivermectin, once - and then having Ivermectin to treat Covid, several other times - the shit just plain works.

Without it, I was sick as a dog for at least two weeks - complete with Respiratory distress/Pneumonia.

With it, I had emerging symptoms of Respiratory Distress - took ~.3mg/kg of body weight - alongside a hearty meal (it's fat soluble, which is just one why the "TOGETHER" study was a complete sham, designed to produce a negative result) - and within 2 hours I was breathing easy. The next morning, instead of staying in bed all day, I surfed big waves... The time I had no Ivermectin - I wouldn't have been capable of paddling in calm water. And everytime I've used it - symptoms have been progressively improving and then totally resolved within less than a week.

Sure it's "anecdotal" - but it conforms with the clinical experience of actual doctors - who treat Covid patients successfully - like Doctors Fareed and Tyson - who treated 7000 patients, without a single death - a far better record than the AMA-approved average.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/i-care/#table-one

So aside from LYING about positions that he falsely claims that I've taken, your tag-team sealioning partner, pretends that by adopting the positions of others (your handlers, superiors employers, etc.) - the positions that you've taken aren't yours... Brilliant.

I've learned long ago not to waste my time reading this one's consistently dishonest propagandizing... So aside from the very top TL;DR.

The META ANALYSIS of over 100 studies - isn't flawed. It's HIGHLY CONCLUSIVE, as are the experience of clinicians and patients around the planet who've used the Nobel prize winning medicine for humans. That's tge humans' medicine that the CDC/FDA was forced by a Court settlement to takedown a disparaging tweet about - which tried to pretend that it was only a veterinary medicine... For someone who pretends to sophistication about information, you do seem remarkably gullible and naive, about the orchestrated PR Hit job, overseen by the US Government, and allied malign forces - that generated legit "Fake News" stories - like the one about Ivermectin Overdoses causing gunshot victims to wait for treatment. It was completely made up.

Oh, he does, he's just skewing it intentionally.... as per an agenda. That isn't his.

He's 'claiming' Ivermectin as a treatment for disease which he has claimed is bogus, a "scamdemic" made up to screw Donald Trump, the very Donald Trump he's a member of Antifa to combat.

But I digress.
According to him some time ago, Covid is fake. Yet shortly before claiming that, and I mean days before, he actually told me he had it. In 2019. Months before COVID-19 was a thing. Anywhere. With anybody. Even in Wuhan.

So he's arguing on behalf of a cure for a disease that does not exist that he had before said disease was invented to screw the reelection hopes of a president that he's a member of a anti-fascist group in order to fight his gestapo forces with with chains and sticks but that's on hold because said noe-fascistic president was robbed of the election by a staged pandemic created by the DNCIA.

It's a shame that we can't access comment history going far back directly through the site, because he's literally said all this stuff. And then some.