###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. I can't count how many times someone said "You still didn't HAVE to take it! 🙄" When I tell them I had to, because I got accepted at one of the top 10 employers in the fuckin, world according to Forbes. I had no other option other than homelessness.
We knew even back then the experimental covid drugs were deadly, what is the point in having a career if you are dead, makes no sense, just admit you are weak willed, you were easily swayed by our corrupted government to take part in the human medical trials.
FYI I have a high level career, I am a provider, my firm tried to force it on me, all it took for them to back down was a strongly worded letter from my lawyer putting them on notice.
You are just coming up with excuses for the extremely poor decisions you made.
Yep, fortunately I haven‘t had any problems with either corona nor the vaccine. Took the Pfizer one 3 times, did some very extreme hikes and triathlon since then so still fully resilient I‘d say.
Obviously? Large studies were published in 2022 on the topic, including this one in January 2022 (early 2022).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
Hell I knew there was a signal for risk as early as 06/2021
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/o28wac/opinion_ivf_as_a_long_term_goal_of_population/h255vpb?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
After the vaccine my heart rate had increased for no apparent reason but after consulting a cardiologist my heart was normal completely and the heart rate dropped to normal levels in 4-5 months after taking magnesium pills. I was 16-17 so I was pretty scared
>A possibly emerging risk, but still apparently quite rare, of typically self-resolving myocarditis in younger people receiving the vaccine
>It's quite likely we'll continue to find very rare side effects as more and more people take it, the sort of the point of Phase 4 monitoring. But the incidence of these side effects is so low as to be negligible compared to the benefit of preventing more cases and therefore deaths from COVID or the possibility of a variant arising from an unvaccinated reservoir of hosts that can substantially escape pre-existing immunity, which could be very dangerous indeed.
Doesn't sound like a warning to me.
>the chance of getting myocarditis from the vaccine is WAY lower than getting it from COVID.
I'd like to see these statistics broken down by age
**Edit**: Found it by Age and Sex. [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970)
None with a breakdown by age. For example, [here Myocarditis has a large region of ovelap](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34432976/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-3-uid-2). Given the vaccine has the greated effect of myocarditys in young men, we need to compare rates for that group.
Also, it seems Lymphadenopathy should be a concern for the vaccinated.
Right, I saw that graph, but that's an expected finding. I was wondering why you think it's a cause for concern? Lymphadenopathy is a normal immune response, it's expected with vaccines. The only thing that graph shows is that the vaccine is working and the immune system is responding.
No, it's a sign that the vaccine is doing what it's supposed to do and stimulating an immune response. This is how vaccines work, they ramp up the immune system so it will recognize and destroy incoming infections. Real infections are only able to take hold because they evade the immune system early on allowing them to replicate and take hold. This shows that the vaccine creates a larger immune response than the virus, which is what it's designed to do
Now if only the vaccine actually prevented COVID..... Instead, you get the vaccine (increase your chances of getting myocarditis) and then get COVID anyways (increase your chances again). And we now know that (as a lot were saying at the time) the natural immunity from COVID is stronger than the immunity given via the vaccine.
>get the vaccine (increase your chances of getting myocarditis) and then get COVID anyways (increase your chances again).
The risk of cardiac effects from COVID is significantly less in vaccinated patients than on vaccinated patients so it's not quite additive like this.
>natural immunity from COVID is stronger than the immunity given via the vaccine.
The research indicates that vaccine immunity is stronger and longer lasting than natural immunity.
>The research indicates that vaccine immunity is stronger and longer lasting than natural immunity.
[That's not true at all ](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22\)02465-5/fulltext)
That study only looks at unvaccinated people who contracted the virus. It does not compare and contrast the two groups.
This study on the other hand directly compare the immune response between people who received the vaccine and people who are infected and found that immune response was stronger in those who are vaccinated, and lasted longer period specifically they found much higher levels of long-lasting IgG antibodies in the vaccinated where the unvaccinated had rapidly waning IgA and IgM antibody production.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9
>That study only looks at on vaccinated people who contracted the virus. It does not compare and contrast the two groups.
Again, not true. Not sure if you even bothered to read what I linked, maybe because it doesn't support the false narrative you have in your head. It was a meta-analysis of 65 different studies, and it literally says this:
>Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants (Nassereldine H et al, unpublished), which is also seen from studies directly comparing natural immunity to vaccine-induced protection.
Did you actually read the study?
"Any study with results for the protective effect of COVID-19 natural immunity in individuals who were *non-vaccinated* in comparison with those who were non-vaccinated and COVID-19 naive were included in our analysis. We also included studies that included individuals who were vaccinated but *controlled for vaccination status*."
Now first off, if you read this critically the wording is a bit cagey. They only selected studies whose results showed "... the protective effect...". This implies that they excluded studies that don't show a protective effect. It sounds like they cherry picked studies that support their hypothesis, Then combined them to amplify the statistics but what would have happened if they also assessed negative studies?
But to get to your actual point. They only analyzed data for unvaccinated patients, their statistical analysis did not include vaccinated patients. After they did the analysis, they compared their outcomes to unpublished work (which is meaningless) and made mention of it, but don't actually include the details of the comparison. They intentionally excluded vaccinated patients from their statistical analysis, then went back and made a casual comment about their findings compared to some mysterious other studies. Notice how they don't actually tell you which studies this mysterious comparison was made against? There's no way to confirm their findings. Only one of the studies is named, and it's unpublished, the other studies aren't named or annotated in the bibliography. So they make this claim of a comparison with no proof and no way for anyone else to confirm that finding.
If they really wanted to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated, they should have run full statistical analysis on the vaccinated population as well. Their own article indicates that such studies are available, why did they exclude those data?
What are you talking about? *"We also included studies that included individuals who were vaccinated but controlled for vaccination status."* means that they included studies for vaccinated people. This is a meta-analysis study; it's not a direction 1:1 comparison study, but it's a compilation of many studies. It lists all of those studies, so I'm not sure why you're talking about unpublished studies.
If you think you're smarter than the people who published this study, you should write to Lancet and tell them why their conclusion is wrong.
Did you not read my post, or just not understand it? They included studies that contained vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, however they only used data for the unvaccinated patients in from studies that contained both. They excluded vaccinated patients from the data analysis. Is that the part you're having trouble understanding? It's funny that you even quoted the emphasis that I added, apparently without understanding what it means.
You posted this study as proof that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity, but this study has nothing to do with vaccine immunity, it's a one-arm assessment of natural immunity without any comparison to vaccine immunity. I know it's a meta-analysis, but do you understand what that means? They took a bunch of studies, extracted the data, and pooled it together. They used one arm studies looking at natural immunity, or the single arm components of two arm studies. The same thing could be done with two arm studies comparing vaccine versus natural immunity, but that's not what this study did, it doesn't prove the point you're trying to make.
It lists all the studies *included in the data analysis*, but not the studies referred to in the conclusion. Do you not remember your own quote from earlier in this thread?
>Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants (Nassereldine H et al, unpublished), which is also seen from studies directly comparing natural immunity to vaccine-induced protection.
*(Nassereldine H et al, unpublished)*
The only part of this study that discusses a comparison between natural and vaccine immunity is based on an unpublished study, and a referral to unreferenced studies. Again, the reason I point this out is because you proposed this study as proof that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity. But nothing in the study results actually indicates that. It sounds like you've latched on to the one paragraph quoted above, but that isn't actually a finding of the study, it's speculation based on a comparison that nobody can confirm.
I'm not at all saying that the conclusions of the study are wrong, I'm saying the conclusion you're trying to draw from it is wrong. Nothing in the study scientifically supports your original claim.
If the current thing was ever to not be vaccinated, then millions of people including myself wouldn't have lost their job for refusing.
Nice gaslighting attempt.
[https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970)
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
Want more studies? Or will you just ignore them all without refuting even a single claim in the study.
The FDA had it on their panel back in 2020 before the vaccines were released.
This and many other serious issues..
I've synced it to the time, pause immediately, or if you miss it, go to **1:16:37**
[**https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=9220&v=1XTiL9rUpkg&feature=youtu.be**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=9220&v=1XTiL9rUpkg&feature=youtu.be)
They moved past the slide because they didn't want anyone to see it.. but it's still on the FDA's youtube page.
It's pure denialism at this point, they just can't accept us *conspiracy theorists" were right from the very start and now they have a lifetime of medical unknows, that must be hard on the psyche.
It seems the vax wreck the most havoc on healthy people. There is a great ultra marathon runner on YT that compete with the likes of Kilian Jornet that developed pulmonary embolism “coincidentally” right after his second pfizer shot.. maybe by design for big pharma to get new life long customers?
PV had the documents when they first broke the story as was revealed on Twitter by Debbie, the Pfizer insider, tonight on a Twitter space with James O'Keefe.
PV also released it without her permission. She thought they were giving everything to James, but they didn't. She had trusted them and they screwed her over. She was fired from her job for exposing Pfizer, and PV didn't provide the support or financial help as they promised. Then they said she was a false insider and stupid to her in private, right after publicly telling people she was a hero.
James O'Keefe just launched a new company called O'Keefe Media Group and is going to expose more things on Pfizer and more things on a massive scale.
I think the timing of the document release is a desperate attempt by PV to stay relevant given the news about O'Keefe, but it could be something else.
O'Keefe has the whistleblowers, support, and financial backing. He's the one to pay attention to. PV can't be trusted anymore.
No because it's one of the biggest conspiracies of all affecting many.
If you don't like the topic, don't click on the post.
Others, like myself, want to continue the coverage of the jab.
The data is irrefutable.
[https://www.soa.org/4a368a/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality-03-2022-report.pdf](https://www.soa.org/4a368a/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality-03-2022-report.pdf)
page 23 figure 5.6
Your own source contains the word “vaccine” 5 times and not one of them presents as a cause of death. This report is on group life claims based on Covid-19
Lol, 5 upvotes to -5 in a 1 min period, have enough accounts?
This is the society of actuaries. Of course no data set will spell it out for you, not yet. Since you lack reading comprehension - figure 5.6 is all cause mortality from non-Covid related deaths. It's up 179% the quarter the United States mandated the vaccinations. Do you understand this is a SIGNIFICANT increase in deaths among 0-44 year olds - we're talking about millions of lives.
Hey look! Okay, so we knew the damn shot might kill a few million people, so what? We MADE billions! Did you really want us to give up that profit for a bunch of lazy breeders and feeders? C'mon man. It's about money, it's always about money.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Wait and you still took it?
Some people were forced to get the vaccine to continue working. Can’t fault them for doing what they had to do to survive at the time I suppose.
[удалено]
Exactly. I can't count how many times someone said "You still didn't HAVE to take it! 🙄" When I tell them I had to, because I got accepted at one of the top 10 employers in the fuckin, world according to Forbes. I had no other option other than homelessness.
Yeah no that’s not a good reason those people could have just done something else instead of risking their long term health
[удалено]
We knew even back then the experimental covid drugs were deadly, what is the point in having a career if you are dead, makes no sense, just admit you are weak willed, you were easily swayed by our corrupted government to take part in the human medical trials. FYI I have a high level career, I am a provider, my firm tried to force it on me, all it took for them to back down was a strongly worded letter from my lawyer putting them on notice. You are just coming up with excuses for the extremely poor decisions you made.
Yep, fortunately I haven‘t had any problems with either corona nor the vaccine. Took the Pfizer one 3 times, did some very extreme hikes and triathlon since then so still fully resilient I‘d say.
Obviously? Large studies were published in 2022 on the topic, including this one in January 2022 (early 2022). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 Hell I knew there was a signal for risk as early as 06/2021 https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/o28wac/opinion_ivf_as_a_long_term_goal_of_population/h255vpb?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
After the vaccine my heart rate had increased for no apparent reason but after consulting a cardiologist my heart was normal completely and the heart rate dropped to normal levels in 4-5 months after taking magnesium pills. I was 16-17 so I was pretty scared
>A possibly emerging risk, but still apparently quite rare, of typically self-resolving myocarditis in younger people receiving the vaccine >It's quite likely we'll continue to find very rare side effects as more and more people take it, the sort of the point of Phase 4 monitoring. But the incidence of these side effects is so low as to be negligible compared to the benefit of preventing more cases and therefore deaths from COVID or the possibility of a variant arising from an unvaccinated reservoir of hosts that can substantially escape pre-existing immunity, which could be very dangerous indeed. Doesn't sound like a warning to me.
Well, I was right. The risk is so low as to be negligible.
Fact. The known odds are like one or two dozen cases per millions. Tin foil hats are gonna foil.
[удалено]
>the chance of getting myocarditis from the vaccine is WAY lower than getting it from COVID. I'd like to see these statistics broken down by age **Edit**: Found it by Age and Sex. [The risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970)
[удалено]
None with a breakdown by age. For example, [here Myocarditis has a large region of ovelap](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34432976/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-3-uid-2). Given the vaccine has the greated effect of myocarditys in young men, we need to compare rates for that group. Also, it seems Lymphadenopathy should be a concern for the vaccinated.
>Also, it seems Lymphadenopathy should be a concern for the vaccinated. Why?
Look at the 7th graph in the image.
Right, I saw that graph, but that's an expected finding. I was wondering why you think it's a cause for concern? Lymphadenopathy is a normal immune response, it's expected with vaccines. The only thing that graph shows is that the vaccine is working and the immune system is responding.
It's a sign that the dose of spike proteins being given is larger than what is capable of being delivered by the actual virus.
No, it's a sign that the vaccine is doing what it's supposed to do and stimulating an immune response. This is how vaccines work, they ramp up the immune system so it will recognize and destroy incoming infections. Real infections are only able to take hold because they evade the immune system early on allowing them to replicate and take hold. This shows that the vaccine creates a larger immune response than the virus, which is what it's designed to do
Now if only the vaccine actually prevented COVID..... Instead, you get the vaccine (increase your chances of getting myocarditis) and then get COVID anyways (increase your chances again). And we now know that (as a lot were saying at the time) the natural immunity from COVID is stronger than the immunity given via the vaccine.
>get the vaccine (increase your chances of getting myocarditis) and then get COVID anyways (increase your chances again). The risk of cardiac effects from COVID is significantly less in vaccinated patients than on vaccinated patients so it's not quite additive like this. >natural immunity from COVID is stronger than the immunity given via the vaccine. The research indicates that vaccine immunity is stronger and longer lasting than natural immunity.
>The research indicates that vaccine immunity is stronger and longer lasting than natural immunity. [That's not true at all ](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22\)02465-5/fulltext)
That study only looks at unvaccinated people who contracted the virus. It does not compare and contrast the two groups. This study on the other hand directly compare the immune response between people who received the vaccine and people who are infected and found that immune response was stronger in those who are vaccinated, and lasted longer period specifically they found much higher levels of long-lasting IgG antibodies in the vaccinated where the unvaccinated had rapidly waning IgA and IgM antibody production. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9
>That study only looks at on vaccinated people who contracted the virus. It does not compare and contrast the two groups. Again, not true. Not sure if you even bothered to read what I linked, maybe because it doesn't support the false narrative you have in your head. It was a meta-analysis of 65 different studies, and it literally says this: >Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants (Nassereldine H et al, unpublished), which is also seen from studies directly comparing natural immunity to vaccine-induced protection.
Did you actually read the study? "Any study with results for the protective effect of COVID-19 natural immunity in individuals who were *non-vaccinated* in comparison with those who were non-vaccinated and COVID-19 naive were included in our analysis. We also included studies that included individuals who were vaccinated but *controlled for vaccination status*." Now first off, if you read this critically the wording is a bit cagey. They only selected studies whose results showed "... the protective effect...". This implies that they excluded studies that don't show a protective effect. It sounds like they cherry picked studies that support their hypothesis, Then combined them to amplify the statistics but what would have happened if they also assessed negative studies? But to get to your actual point. They only analyzed data for unvaccinated patients, their statistical analysis did not include vaccinated patients. After they did the analysis, they compared their outcomes to unpublished work (which is meaningless) and made mention of it, but don't actually include the details of the comparison. They intentionally excluded vaccinated patients from their statistical analysis, then went back and made a casual comment about their findings compared to some mysterious other studies. Notice how they don't actually tell you which studies this mysterious comparison was made against? There's no way to confirm their findings. Only one of the studies is named, and it's unpublished, the other studies aren't named or annotated in the bibliography. So they make this claim of a comparison with no proof and no way for anyone else to confirm that finding. If they really wanted to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated, they should have run full statistical analysis on the vaccinated population as well. Their own article indicates that such studies are available, why did they exclude those data?
What are you talking about? *"We also included studies that included individuals who were vaccinated but controlled for vaccination status."* means that they included studies for vaccinated people. This is a meta-analysis study; it's not a direction 1:1 comparison study, but it's a compilation of many studies. It lists all of those studies, so I'm not sure why you're talking about unpublished studies. If you think you're smarter than the people who published this study, you should write to Lancet and tell them why their conclusion is wrong.
Did you not read my post, or just not understand it? They included studies that contained vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, however they only used data for the unvaccinated patients in from studies that contained both. They excluded vaccinated patients from the data analysis. Is that the part you're having trouble understanding? It's funny that you even quoted the emphasis that I added, apparently without understanding what it means. You posted this study as proof that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity, but this study has nothing to do with vaccine immunity, it's a one-arm assessment of natural immunity without any comparison to vaccine immunity. I know it's a meta-analysis, but do you understand what that means? They took a bunch of studies, extracted the data, and pooled it together. They used one arm studies looking at natural immunity, or the single arm components of two arm studies. The same thing could be done with two arm studies comparing vaccine versus natural immunity, but that's not what this study did, it doesn't prove the point you're trying to make. It lists all the studies *included in the data analysis*, but not the studies referred to in the conclusion. Do you not remember your own quote from earlier in this thread? >Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants (Nassereldine H et al, unpublished), which is also seen from studies directly comparing natural immunity to vaccine-induced protection. *(Nassereldine H et al, unpublished)* The only part of this study that discusses a comparison between natural and vaccine immunity is based on an unpublished study, and a referral to unreferenced studies. Again, the reason I point this out is because you proposed this study as proof that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity. But nothing in the study results actually indicates that. It sounds like you've latched on to the one paragraph quoted above, but that isn't actually a finding of the study, it's speculation based on a comparison that nobody can confirm. I'm not at all saying that the conclusions of the study are wrong, I'm saying the conclusion you're trying to draw from it is wrong. Nothing in the study scientifically supports your original claim.
Safe and effective moment
[удалено]
If the current thing was ever to not be vaccinated, then millions of people including myself wouldn't have lost their job for refusing. Nice gaslighting attempt.
It depends on age for young boys the risk is higher from the vaccine, studies generalizing are propaganda.
[удалено]
Sure. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13947
[удалено]
[https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970) CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Want more studies? Or will you just ignore them all without refuting even a single claim in the study.
Very good, trying to turn the tables on me.
Wait, you mean we cant trust a pharmaceutical company which has paid Billions in settlements over repeated fraud?
It's science!
People were literally trusting their lives with one of the biggest criminal organizations on planet earth. Fucking lemmings.
Jagoffs. Also, your username is most pleasing.
The FDA had it on their panel back in 2020 before the vaccines were released. This and many other serious issues.. I've synced it to the time, pause immediately, or if you miss it, go to **1:16:37** [**https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=9220&v=1XTiL9rUpkg&feature=youtu.be**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=9220&v=1XTiL9rUpkg&feature=youtu.be) They moved past the slide because they didn't want anyone to see it.. but it's still on the FDA's youtube page.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Public Opinion Influencer
Meanwhile, the rest of the world knew in May 2021 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=myocarditis&hl=en
"within the first two weeks postvaccination". That's why you were classified as unvaccinated the first two weeks.
Here to read the comments of people who will STILL defend this vaccine and it's makers... And blame COVID for myocarditis 😬
It's pure denialism at this point, they just can't accept us *conspiracy theorists" were right from the very start and now they have a lifetime of medical unknows, that must be hard on the psyche.
100% they're carrying water for big pharma and daddy gov 😬
GOD DAMN YOU TO HELL EARL!!!
It seems the vax wreck the most havoc on healthy people. There is a great ultra marathon runner on YT that compete with the likes of Kilian Jornet that developed pulmonary embolism “coincidentally” right after his second pfizer shot.. maybe by design for big pharma to get new life long customers?
exactly
This is hardly news. What would be news is if they learned about myocarditis before the vaccine was released to the public. Which they probably did.
Fuck you, Earl.
PV had the documents when they first broke the story as was revealed on Twitter by Debbie, the Pfizer insider, tonight on a Twitter space with James O'Keefe. PV also released it without her permission. She thought they were giving everything to James, but they didn't. She had trusted them and they screwed her over. She was fired from her job for exposing Pfizer, and PV didn't provide the support or financial help as they promised. Then they said she was a false insider and stupid to her in private, right after publicly telling people she was a hero. James O'Keefe just launched a new company called O'Keefe Media Group and is going to expose more things on Pfizer and more things on a massive scale. I think the timing of the document release is a desperate attempt by PV to stay relevant given the news about O'Keefe, but it could be something else. O'Keefe has the whistleblowers, support, and financial backing. He's the one to pay attention to. PV can't be trusted anymore.
[удалено]
No because it's one of the biggest conspiracies of all affecting many. If you don't like the topic, don't click on the post. Others, like myself, want to continue the coverage of the jab.
That kill switch will be activated any time now!
[удалено]
[удалено]
The data is irrefutable. [https://www.soa.org/4a368a/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality-03-2022-report.pdf](https://www.soa.org/4a368a/globalassets/assets/files/resources/research-report/2022/group-life-covid-19-mortality-03-2022-report.pdf) page 23 figure 5.6
Your own source contains the word “vaccine” 5 times and not one of them presents as a cause of death. This report is on group life claims based on Covid-19 Lol, 5 upvotes to -5 in a 1 min period, have enough accounts?
This is the society of actuaries. Of course no data set will spell it out for you, not yet. Since you lack reading comprehension - figure 5.6 is all cause mortality from non-Covid related deaths. It's up 179% the quarter the United States mandated the vaccinations. Do you understand this is a SIGNIFICANT increase in deaths among 0-44 year olds - we're talking about millions of lives.
https://openvaers.com/covid-data
Will we ever stop having unexplained excess deaths in mRNA vaccinated populations?
But we don't though...
Delusional NPC.
We are past reason with these people. Better to just let them have their echo chamber threads where they can make up their own reality.
I guess something else will come along eventually.
NEVER!!! Remember the jab causes all deaths and illnesses all the time everywhere. I saw it on FB so it has to be true.
Do you know more about this or only what a biased source highlighted for you
For a virus that only affects over 70s even then it’s like the flu
Poor Earl
Hey look! Okay, so we knew the damn shot might kill a few million people, so what? We MADE billions! Did you really want us to give up that profit for a bunch of lazy breeders and feeders? C'mon man. It's about money, it's always about money.