• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?

Did you get your weekly newsletter from https://dailyexpose.co.uk/ by email this morning?

I didn't.

But it's not surprising to see government data shows the vaccine is more deadly than the virus.

But I'm sure you won't have taken any notice of it because the source has been reported by someone you deem untrustworthy.

The actual data source is all that matters.
 
I didn't.

But it's not surprising to see government data shows the vaccine is more deadly than the virus.

But I'm sure you won't have taken any notice of it because the source has been reported by someone you deem untrustworthy.

The actual data source is all that matters.

Yes - and I’d look at the actual data source in Australia as a first point of reference for me.

I’ve already pointed you in the direction of the people informing the decisions the various federal a state Australian Governments are making.

I’m not sure they’re right.... but I trust their interpretation of what’s going on over your’s and wherever you are pulling “opinion” from.
 
Our analysis demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold
increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those
previously infected.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf


So natural immunity is way way better than the vaccine according to a new Israeli study.

Has it been peer reviewed, verified, established?

You’re making a claim like it has?

Are you applying the same level of comfort across the board to other non-peer reviewed research.

Also - what about peer reviewed research- is That considered more acceptable or not?
 
Has it been peer reviewed, verified, established?

You’re making a claim like it has?

Are you applying the same level of comfort across the board to other non-peer reviewed research.

Also - what about peer reviewed research- is That considered more acceptable or not?

Oh look Stevie is refusing to engage with facts again.
 
Oh look Stevie is refusing to engage with facts again.

There’s no-one in ICU in Australia that’s been double vaxxed.

The spread of COVID in Australia has nothing to do with vaccination rates.

There’s a significant percentage of U10’s getting COVID - and they’re not vaccinated.

Deaths are still mainly in older people - but there’s a few happening in young people with no significant medical problems.

Medical services in major urban areas are under pressure when cases rise significantly due to COVID - it impacts their ability to deal with other medical issues.

These are all facts.

Nothing you’re punting is anything other than a skewed interpretation of whatever selective data you pick up from whatever shitshow of a website you’re hooked in to.
 
There’s no-one in ICU in Australia that’s been double vaxxed.

The spread of COVID in Australia has nothing to do with vaccination rates.

There’s a significant percentage of U10’s getting COVID - and they’re not vaccinated.

Deaths are still mainly in older people - but there’s a few happening in young people with no significant medical problems.

Medical services in major urban areas are under pressure when cases rise significantly due to COVID - it impacts their ability to deal with other medical issues.

These are all facts.

Nothing you’re punting is anything other than a skewed interpretation of whatever selective data you pick up from whatever shitshow of a website you’re hooked in to.
Have you got peer reviewed articles on all of that ?

I'm not reading it otherwise, and they can't be described as facts.

You're probably getting all the info from Murdoch's newspapers.
 
Has it been peer reviewed, verified, established?

You’re making a claim like it has?

Are you applying the same level of comfort across the board to other non-peer reviewed research.

Also - what about peer reviewed research- is That considered more acceptable or not?

What the hell do they teach you about "peer review" in school? I've forgotten. It amounts to little more than a pointless administrative oversight. Sometimes when you publish controversial high impact research, then your peers might argue about it at conferences, or submit comments to the journal, or contact you, and that process could be useful in improving the reliability of your research. I think you confuse peer review with this sort of debate. The debate never happens, ain't nobody got time to be reading and them critiquing someone else's work, who gives a shit, not even I do that. The only way to know if the research is good or not, is for it to make a prediction, and compare the prediction to experiment. If your predictions come true, you did your job. If they didn't, you still made money.
 
Have you got peer reviewed articles on all of that ?

I'm not reading it otherwise, and they can't be described as facts.

You're probably getting all the info from Murdoch's newspapers.

I’m at a loss with you sometimes.

The dog story you posted earlier in the thread - from a Murdoch paper.

The story had some truth, but was twisted to achieve a certain response.

Pretty sure you were ok there because I can’t see you giving two hoots about the dogs.

I don’t read the Murdoch press - I don’t read any Australian newspapers - but in Oz, Murdoch press is pushing pretty much the things you’re pushing - vaccines are bad, open up, blah blah blah.

I don’t watch Fox News - but I’d imagine it’s the same there.

You know you’re basically pushing drivel that even Murdoch Press would think twice about, don’t you?.

I certainly don’t have answers - but you aren’t getting facts from wherever you’re getting your “information” from - your head’s melted.
 
What the hell do they teach you about "peer review" in school? I've forgotten. It amounts to little more than a pointless administrative oversight. Sometimes when you publish controversial high impact research, then your peers might argue about it at conferences, or submit comments to the journal, or contact you, and that process could be useful in improving the reliability of your research. I think you confuse peer review with this sort of debate. The debate never happens, ain't nobody got time to be reading and them critiquing someone else's work, who gives a shit, not even I do that. The only way to know if the research is good or not, is for it to make a prediction, and compare the prediction to experiment. If your predictions come true, you did your job. If they didn't, you still made money.

I formally give up on you ever making sense.

From now on, every post shall be delivered as if it was an Eric Cartman soliloquy.
 
I formally give up on you ever making sense.

From now on, every post shall be delivered as if it was an Eric Cartman soliloquy.

You mentioned "peer review" multiple times as some sort of indication about the research being of high standard / checked / verified / reliable. That's just not true. You want it to be true, because you want there to be sources that are credible and trustworthy. You still want that, so go have it, don't worry about the truth.
 
I’m at a loss with you sometimes.

The dog story you posted earlier in the thread - from a Murdoch paper.

The story had some truth, but was twisted to achieve a certain response.

Pretty sure you were ok there because I can’t see you giving two hoots about the dogs.

I don’t read the Murdoch press - I don’t read any Australian newspapers - but in Oz, Murdoch press is pushing pretty much the things you’re pushing - vaccines are bad, open up, blah blah blah.

I don’t watch Fox News - but I’d imagine it’s the same there.

You know you’re basically pushing drivel that even Murdoch Press would think twice about, don’t you?.

I certainly don’t have answers - but you aren’t getting facts from wherever you’re getting your “information” from - your head’s melted.

All media is drivel
 
You mentioned "peer review" multiple times as some sort of indication about the research being of high standard / checked / verified / reliable. That's just not true. You want it to be true, because you want there to be sources that are credible and trustworthy. You still want that, so go have it, don't worry about the truth.

No Dantes - I want to know whether the study that Ross has put forward is credible.

I’m questioning whether it is.

If you want to take a look at it, verify it’s results, out your name to it and stand by its conclusions - please, be my guest, tell me it’s accurate and that all other data isn’t, explain why I should hold that study in higher regard that others.

But... for fucks sake.., can I not go through another one of your Cartmanesque diatribes about what constitutes credible research- because it’s beginning to sound like the only thing that’s credible is waiting for 40 years to see what happens, then presenting graphs.
 
It's a pre print but it has been put together by a dozen doctors for the Israeli health ministry. I mean there's probs quite a bit of truth in it
 
All media is drivel

Which means anything you, or I for that matter, is too - unless you’ve done actual research.

You haven’t. I haven’t. Dantes certainly hasn’t. We’re just posting opinions and interpretations - but they’re not all equivalent.
 
It's a pre print but it has been put together by a dozen doctors for the Israeli health ministry. I mean there's probs quite a bit of truth in it

I’ve had more than enough booze to know my sarcasm detector is working like a flaccid penis... so... I’m kinda spent here....
 
No Dantes - I want to know whether the study that Ross has put forward is credible.

I’m questioning whether it is.

If you want to take a look at it, verify it’s results, out your name to it and stand by its conclusions - please, be my guest, tell me it’s accurate and that all other data isn’t, explain why I should hold that study in higher regard that others.

But... for fucks sake.., can I not go through another one of your Cartmanesque diatribes about what constitutes credible research- because it’s beginning to sound like the only thing that’s credible is waiting for 40 years to see what happens, then presenting graphs.

The study has taken anonymous medical records off a database that is accessible to any other researcher who wants them, then analysed them in a way they have described in their paper, and present their results. This is 100% credible. If they lied, it would take another researcher or just a random conspiracy nut to repeat their research, find they doctored it, and then they're finished, academic suicide. So you can place 100% reliability on what they say being accurate. The modelling they do is not much harder than counting, so there is likewise zero chance they got the statistical calculations wrong.

The thing you're failing to understand is the type of research. They've looked into the past, they've found with 100% credibility that unvaccinated people who got infected are far more resilient to reinfection than vaccinated people who never got any natural immunity. This is a fact. A mathematical fact. My diatribes are that it's a useless fucking fact now, because it's too late to do a thing about it after the fact when you've fucking jabbed every man and their dog. I value research that is capable of predicting that this would have been the outcome a year before it happened, or failing that, correctly interpreting this from measurements taken after the jabs started to be administered.

So what will happen next is the "science" will change to take account of this fact going forward. Here's the important bit, going forward is the future. What happened in the past (natural immunity v vaccine immunity) is not a certain prediction of the future. We're perpetually wise after the fact, all the time. You'll never make the right predictions and therefore the right decisions until you overhaul the way research is done, like I told you the other day.
 
The study has taken anonymous medical records off a database that is accessible to any other researcher who wants them, then analysed them in a way they have described in their paper, and present their results. This is 100% credible. If they lied, it would take another researcher or just a random conspiracy nut to repeat their research, find they doctored it, and then they're finished, academic suicide. So you can place 100% reliability on what they say being accurate. The modelling they do is not much harder than counting, so there is likewise zero chance they got the statistical calculations wrong.

The thing you're failing to understand is the type of research. They've looked into the past, they've found with 100% credibility that unvaccinated people who got infected are far more resilient to reinfection than vaccinated people who never got any natural immunity. This is a fact. A mathematical fact. My diatribes are that it's a useless fucking fact now, because it's too late to do a thing about it after the fact when you've fucking jabbed every man and their dog. I value research that is capable of predicting that this would have been the outcome a year before it happened, or failing that, correctly interpreting this from measurements taken after the jabs started to be administered.

So what will happen next is the "science" will change to take account of this fact going forward. Here's the important bit, going forward is the future. What happened in the past (natural immunity v vaccine immunity) is not a certain prediction of the future. We're perpetually wise after the fact, all the time. You'll never make the right predictions and therefore the right decisions until you overhaul the way research is done, like I told you the other day.

Have you been vaccinated?
 
It's a pre print but it has been put together by a dozen doctors for the Israeli health ministry. I mean there's probs quite a bit of truth in it
But Stevie won't even read it to see it.

Cant have his truth affected by facts. Its exactly the same mistakes he made when he kept saying the Hunter Biden laptop didn't even exist. He doesn't understand evidence.

He foolishly thinks the mainstream news is reliable.
 
Last edited:
Japan's health ministry said Thursday that contaminants were found in some unused doses of Moderna Inc.'s COVID-19 vaccine and the use of around 1.63 million doses from the same production line has been suspended as a precaution.

At least 180,000 potentially contaminated shots have already been administered in 19 of the country's 47 prefectures including Tokyo and Osaka, according to a Kyodo News tally based on local government reports.

Both Moderna and Japanese drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., which is in charge of the sale and distribution of the vaccine in the country, said they had not received any reports regarding safety issues.

photo_l.jpg

Photo taken May 24, 2021, shows a syringe being filled with COVID-19 vaccine developed by Moderna Inc. in Sendai, northeastern Japan. (Kyodo) ==Kyodo
"To date, no safety or efficacy issues have been identified," Moderna told Kyodo News, adding it is "carefully assessing this matter and at this point does not have further comments on root causes."

Regarding possible problems in other countries, the U.S. company said, "On an ongoing basis, Moderna monitors and expeditiously assesses questions we receive about our products from global markets."

"Local authorities will make their own decisions about disclosure of information following these assessments," the company said.

Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga told reporters, "I have been briefed by the health ministry that it will not have a significant impact," when asked about the possibility of the suspension disrupting Japan's vaccination program.

The 1.63 million doses, which have been distributed to 863 vaccination centers, were manufactured on the same production line at the same time in Spain, and fall under three lot numbers -- 3004667, 3004734 and 3004956, the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry said.

The Tokyo metropolitan government said around 9,100 people may have received contaminated shots at two of the vaccination sites it runs. Among other prefectures, Osaka counted about 50,000 such shots, Hyogo 41,500 and Aichi 28,000.

Some companies conducting workplace inoculations were forced to suspend their programs.

All Nippon Airways Co., which has administered about 4,700 doses bearing the lot numbers to employees and their family members, decided to suspend its program on Thursday and Friday.

Toyota Motor Corp. and East Japan Railway Co. are among companies that have received the potentially contaminated doses. But both said they will continue their programs using other doses from their stocks.

The foreign substances have been confirmed since Aug. 16 at eight vaccination sites in five prefectures -- Ibaraki, Saitama, Tokyo, Gifu and Aichi. They were found in a total of 39 vials.

Takeda reported them to the ministry on Wednesday.

The composition of the foreign matter, a few millimeters in size, has not been determined.

The "small black materials" reported to the ministry could be metallic fragments, one of its senior officials said.

Takeda has requested an emergency probe by Moderna, while urging medical institutions and other entities not to administer any vaccine showing abnormalities, even doses not subject to the suspension.
 
Back
Top Bottom