ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1625 of 1817
« First < 625112515251575161516211622162316241625 1626162716281629163516751725 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Are you going to take the vaccine?
GloryDayz 08:48 AM 12-01-2020
I know I'm going to try to be first in line, but what about the rest of you? I'm not sure if the death count is where the science community wants it to be, plus Birdbrain hasn't been sworn in, so I expect there will be delays, but that's beside the point.

You can be honest.
SuperBowl4 01:59 AM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Lmao I'm going to enjoy making fun of people who got vaccinated for years
This is ONLY temporary.. Read the LOCKSTEP ROCKEFELLER PLAN. This is just a part of the Agenda. There is so much more in store.
BucEyedPea 06:09 AM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by SuperBowl4:
This is ONLY temporary.. Read the LOCKSTEP ROCKEFELLER PLAN. This is just a part of the Agenda. There is so much more in store.
Food insecurity is already appearing. That's on the agenda too. I think Schwab is making a revision—> The GREAT Narrative is coming next. Sounds like it's right out of playbook of Goebbles.
BucEyedPea 06:14 AM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by :
there is a 2 week window of immune suppression post vaccination. it roughly doubled the base rate chance of healthy people getting covid back before even delta
. I read before, which is why I posted it, that this happens but that it takes about 4 weeks before they make enough antibodies. So they're contagious in that period.
Bob Dole 08:14 AM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by louie aguiar:
I’m triple-vaxxed and tested positive a couple days ago. In our house, the only one that hasn’t tested positive is my unvaxxed three year old daughter. Odd.
They'd have you believe it's odd, but it's not.
Bob Dole 08:24 AM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
Nothing inspires trust like, "We're pivoting our language".
0372 08:44 AM 01-22-2022
Remember all the Conspiracy Nutter and Anti-Vaxx stigma charged against those who raised concerns about them putting Graphene Oxide into the Covid Vaxx?

Peer reviewed on PubMed/NIH

Recent progress of graphene oxide as a potential vaccine carrier and adjuvant

Vaccine is one of the most effective strategies for preventing and controlling infectious diseases and some noninfectious diseases, especially cancers. Adjuvants and carriers have been appropriately added to the vaccine formulation to improve the immunogenicity of the antigen and induce long-lasting immunity. However, there is an urgent need to develop new all-purpose adjuvants because some adjuvants approved for human use have limited functionality. Graphene oxide (GO), widely employed for the delivery of biomolecules, excels in loading and delivering antigen and shows the potentiality of activating the immune system. However, GO aggregates in biological liquid and induces cell death, and it also exhibits poor biosolubility and biocompatibility. To address these limitations, various surface modification protocols have been employed to integrate aqueous compatible substances with GO to effectively improve its biocompatibility. More importantly, these modifications render functionalized-GO with superior properties as both carriers and adjuvants. Herein, the recent progress of physicochemical properties and surface modification strategies of GO for its application as both carriers and adjuvants is reviewed. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Due to its unique physicochemical properties, graphene oxide is widely employed in medicine for purposes of photothermal treatment of cancer, drug delivery, antibacterial therapy, and medical imaging. Our work describes the surface modification of graphene oxide and for the first time summarizes that functionalized graphene oxide serves as a vaccine carrier and shows significant adjuvant activity in activating cellular and humoral immunity. In the future, it is expected to be introduced into vaccine research to improve the efficacy of vaccines.
MahomesMagic 08:51 AM 01-22-2022
The experimental injections...

The bad batch problem, quality control?

I've read a lot of different takes on the lot#s and differences -- perhaps this has something to do with it.

I can't even believe what I am reading.

— Jean Rees (@JeanRees10) January 22, 2022

MahomesMagic 08:54 AM 01-22-2022

16/ Here is the Process Performance Quality specifications that was leaked with the Pfizer contract.

— gutwat (@gutwat1) January 22, 2022

24/ Does that mean that for a whole year, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE PROTEIN BEING TRANSCRIBED LOOKS LIKE? Our cells are making a protein and it hasn't been characterized in full. It is NOT the Wuhan spike.

Why has the EMA/FDA/HC accepted this? It is unconscionable.

— gutwat (@gutwat1) January 22, 2022

25/ SO1 (b)
The analysis of the main peak of the RNA integrity test representing the full-length RNA, should be also undertaken addressing 5’cap levels and presence of the poly (A) tail.
Please see table above.

These mRNA/LNP products are just garbage.

— gutwat (@gutwat1) January 22, 2022

RetiredSeniorChief 11:20 AM 01-22-2022
Coming here soon, you don't expect all them insurance companies to actually continue to pay out do you?

Picked this story up at La Quinta Columna TV's Telegram account, popped it into Google Translate (maybe the censors will learn something), et voila -- a qui esta: A Spanish newspaper, Noticiero Universal, reports that a French court has agreed with an insurance company that death after experimental vaccination is "suicide."

Is it possible? Seems too rational to be true, but here's the headline: "La justicia francesa exime a una compañía de seguros de cubrir la muerte de un vacunado por considerar un suicidio que se inyectara un producto experimental"

Google translate is a bit clunky, but the gist is clear:

French justice exempts an insurance company from covering the death of a vaccinated person for considering suicide who injected an experimental product.

Follow the money, but in this case it leads not to a corrupt den of killers 'n' cash but to a ruling of bottom-line-logic. Taking an experimental shot of gene-altering nano-wiring is, yes, suicidal.

Here's the rest of the translation.

A French citizen dies two weeks after receiving the vaccines, but the life insurance does not cover his death, arguing that he volunteered to inject himself with an experimental product that had not been properly tested.

The court in charge of the case has accepted the objections of the insurer considering, "in law, that adherence to the experiment of phase three, in which the proven innocuousness is non-existent", makes the death of the French citizen to be considered a "fatality". voluntary”, that is, risk not covered by the contract and legally admitted as suicide.

The family appealed this decision, but the insurer's defense was admitted as "founded and contractually fair", considering that "this known and public taking of mortal risk is legally like suicide", since the client had sufficient information and , however, "has voluntarily accepted to run the risk of dying without being forced to do so."

Consequently, death after vaccination is considered suicide by the French courts, which sets a disturbing precedent. For their part, the insurers will not repay the loans either because the lethal risk of the vaccine makes the contract null and void.

“This judicial decision came after the filing of a lawsuit (Recourse to Law 210/92) to obtain compensation, damages and interest after a death by vaccination, confirmed by autopsy. The request was not accepted because vaccination is not mandatory”, explains a source familiar with the case.

“Hence the race to impose the health pass on us, because the governments have signed leonine secret contracts with the laboratories, in which they have demanded that they not be held responsible in the event of adverse effects. These governments have therefore blackmailed the populations to avoid being responsible themselves”, he adds.

Of course, a few details more would be helpful -- the insurance company, the court, stuff like that. If/when they show up, I'll update.
MahomesMagic 11:58 AM 01-22-2022
Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now
BMJ 2022; 376 doi: (Published 19 January 2022)

Peter Doshi, senior editor, Fiona Godlee, former editor in chief, Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief, British Medical Journal

Data should be fully and immediately available for public scrutiny

In the pages of The BMJ a decade ago, in the middle of a different pandemic, it came to light that governments around the world had spent billions stockpiling antivirals for influenza that had not been shown to reduce the risk of complications, hospital admissions, or death. The majority of trials that underpinned regulatory approval and government stockpiling of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) were sponsored by the manufacturer; most were unpublished, those that were published were ghostwritten by writers paid by the manufacturer, the people listed as principal authors lacked access to the raw data, and academics who requested access to the data for independent analysis were denied.1234

The Tamiflu saga heralded a decade of unprecedented attention to the importance of sharing clinical trial data.56 Public battles for drug company data,78 transparency campaigns with thousands of signatures,910 strengthened journal data sharing requirements,1112 explicit commitments from companies to share data,13 new data access website portals,8 and landmark transparency policies from medicines regulators1415 all promised a new era in data transparency.

Progress was made, but clearly not enough. The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated. Memories are short. Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come.16 This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.
Unacceptable delay

Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data.17 And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date, which is listed on as 15 May 2023 (NCT04368728).

The lack of access to data is consistent across vaccine manufacturers.16 Moderna says data “may be available … with publication of the final study results in 2022.”18 Datasets will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete,” which has an estimated primary completion date of 27 October 2022 (NCT04470427).

As of 31 December 2021, AstraZeneca may be ready to entertain requests for data from several of its large phase III trials.19 But actually obtaining data could be slow going. As its website explains, “timelines vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request.”20

Underlying data for covid-19 therapeutics are similarly hard to find. Published reports of Regeneron’s phase III trial of its monoclonal antibody therapy REGEN-COV flatly state that participant level data will not be made available to others.21 Should the drug be approved (and not just emergency authorised), sharing “will be considered.” For remdesivir, the US National Institutes of Health, which funded the trial, created a new portal to share data (, but the dataset on offer is limited. An accompanying document explains: “The longitudinal data set only contains a small subset of the protocol and statistical analysis plan objectives.”

We are left with publications but no access to the underlying data on reasonable request. This is worrying for trial participants, researchers, clinicians, journal editors, policy makers, and the public. The journals that have published these primary studies may argue that they faced an awkward dilemma, caught between making the summary findings available quickly and upholding the best ethical values that support timely access to underlying data. In our view, there is no dilemma; the anonymised individual participant data from clinical trials must be made available for independent scrutiny.

Journal editors, systematic reviewers, and the writers of clinical practice guideline generally obtain little beyond a journal publication, but regulatory agencies receive far more granular data as part of the regulatory review process. In the words of the European Medicine Agency’s former executive director and senior medical officer, “relying solely on the publications of clinical trials in scientific journals as the basis of healthcare decisions is not a good idea ... Drug regulators have been aware of this limitation for a long time and routinely obtain and assess the full documentation (rather than just publications).”22

Among regulators, the US Food and Drug Administration is believed to receive the most raw data but does not proactively release them. After a freedom of information request to the agency for Pfizer’s vaccine data, the FDA offered to release 500 pages a month, a process that would take decades to complete, arguing in court that publicly releasing data was slow owing to the need to first redact sensitive information.23 This month, however, a judge rejected the FDA’s offer and ordered the data be released at a rate of 55 000 pages a month. The data are to be made available on the requesting organisation’s website (

In releasing thousands of pages of clinical trial documents, Health Canada and the EMA have also provided a degree of transparency that deserves acknowledgment.2425 Until recently, however, the data remained of limited utility, with copious redactions aimed at protecting trial blinding. But study reports with fewer redactions have been available since September 2021,2425 and missing appendices may be accessible through freedom of information requests.

Even so, anyone looking for participant level datasets may be disappointed because Health Canada and the EMA do not receive or analyse these data, and it remains to be seen how the FDA responds to the court order. Moreover, the FDA is producing data only for Pfizer’s vaccine; other manufacturers’ data cannot be requested until the vaccines are approved, which the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are not. Industry, which holds the raw data, is not legally required to honour requests for access from independent researchers.

Like the FDA, and unlike its Canadian and European counterparts, the UK’s regulator—the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—does not proactively release clinical trial documents, and it has also stopped posting information released in response to freedom of information requests on its website.26
Transparency and trust

As well as access to the underlying data, transparent decision making is essential. Regulators and public health bodies could release details27 such as why vaccine trials were not designed to test efficacy against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.28 Had regulators insisted on this outcome, countries would have learnt sooner about the effect of vaccines on transmission and been able to plan accordingly.29

Big pharma is the least trusted industry.30 At least three of the many companies making covid-19 vaccines have past criminal and civil settlements costing them billions of dollars.31 One pleaded guilty to fraud.31 Other companies have no pre-covid track record. Now the covid pandemic has minted many new pharma billionaires, and vaccine manufacturers have reported tens of billions in revenue.32

The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.

Twelve years ago we called for the immediate release of raw data from clinical trials.1 We reiterate that call now. Data must be available when trial results are announced, published, or used to justify regulatory decisions. There is no place for wholesale exemptions from good practice during a pandemic. The public has paid for covid-19 vaccines through vast public funding of research, and it is the public that takes on the balance of benefits and harms that accompany vaccination. The public, therefore, has a right and entitlement to those data, as well as to the interrogation of those data by experts.

Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims.33 The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.
BucEyedPea 12:56 PM 01-22-2022
Swiss Olympic Sprinter Gets Pericarditis After Pfizer Booster
22,193 Deaths After COVID Shots Reported to CDC
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,053,830 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 22,193 deaths and 174,864 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2022.
RetiredSeniorChief 02:38 PM 01-22-2022
NFL Eliminates Distinction Between Vaxxed and Unvaxxed Players in Admission of Stupidity

The NFL has been one of the most idiotic corporations in America with the way they’ve handled Covid-19 and vaccines. They did everything in their power through the regular season to demonize and pressure all players to get jabbed by segregating the league and creating different rules based on their medical choices.

It backfired spectacularly throughout the season, culminating in the weeks when Omicron started hitting teams with dozens of positive tests from “rare” breakthrough cases, demonstrating the complete inefficacy of the injections. They’ve been scrambling to change rules, reschedule games, and salvage some of their credibility ever since, but it really hasn’t worked. At this point, all they can do in the middle of the playoffs is hope nobody, vaxxed or unvaxxed, tests positive for Covid-19.

To that end, they’ve eliminated the distinction between the two for the remainder of the season. According to NBC Sports:

The NFL is eliminating the distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated players for the remainder of the postseason, Tom Pelissero of NFL Media reports.

In a memo to the eight remaining playoff teams, the league announced it is doing away with required daily COVID-19 testing for unvaccinated players. Only about a dozen unvaccinated players on the playoff teams have not tested positive for the virus, according to Pelissero, so those are the only players affected by the change to testing cadence.

Those unvaccinated players now join vaccinated players in testing for COVID-19 only if experiencing symptoms or are included in random testing.

Previously, unvaccinated players who tested positive for the virus were given a 90-day test “holiday” before resuming daily testing. Under the previous rules, Aaron Rodgers, an unvaccinated player who tested positive for COVID-19 in November, would have had to resume daily testing two days after the NFC Championship Game if the Packers qualified for the Super Bowl. Now, he won’t.

They started the season trying to be the beacon of Covid compliance. By the end of the season, they looked like fools for policies that protected nobody but put a bright spotlight on their idiocy.
JohnnyHammersticks 04:35 PM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Lmao I'm going to enjoy making fun of people who got vaccinated for years
It's going to be glorious :-)
GloryDayz 08:11 PM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Food insecurity is already appearing. That's on the agenda too. I think Schwab is making a revision—> The GREAT Narrative is coming next. Sounds like it's right out of playbook of Goebbles.
We had/hosted a group from corporate at the dive shop and (obviously) we do a lot of traveling, and the one lady had been to both St. Lucia and Turks, both islands clearly survive off of tourism, and while she was in Turks they saw people who were actually trying to grow food in their rather miniscule yards.

Yeah, this hoax pandemic really is killing the economies in certain parts of the world.

Fuck China!
Pawnmower 11:16 PM 01-22-2022
Originally Posted by JohnnyHammersticks:
It's going to be glorious :-)
thank God you losers finally have something worth living for
Page 1625 of 1817
« First < 625112515251575161516211622162316241625 1626162716281629163516751725 > Last »