The standard three-shot dosing regimen did not help young kids avoid medical care for Covid. Why does the Centers for Disease Control continue to push jabs on them?
The time for turning the other cheek has long since passed. Prosecute any and all government/public health officials and/Elected Things/doctors who were and continue to spin the COVID grift. Additionally, lift the civil immunity and let the litigation fly. Revenge is a dish best served cold...
Yes. And if health care "experts" can train parents to accept that only they, not parents, are best qualified to make determinations about what children need, despite the lunacy of official positions on lockdowns, endless vaccines, gender affirming "care", etc, then they can disrupt one of the most important human relationships God ever created. And if officials can do that, what can't they accomplish? I'm sorry, I feel I have always been a sober-minded, rational thinking person, but it seems to me that we are beyond logic at this point.
You are correct. My doc recently closed his practice and I had to find a new primary care doc. The new doc started asking about vaccines obviously not caring for my view on the covid vaccine then dropped it. Next time I go I am going to ask if she recommends that my 13 year old get the new booster. If she says yes then I will find a new doctor.
I fired my doctor when he downplayed natural immunity and slagged Dr. Marty Makary. To make matters worse, he accused me of falling for some “Right Wing” conspiracy theory. Bye, bye...
Lately the entire conversation is being framed around the shots for young people. How about we question the shots for anyone? Can we have those conversations instead of boxing the questions inside the narrow window of children/young people? I'm still waiting for the data that supports getting these injections for anyone. Is there any data that the injections protect against severe disease? (I think not.) I am also truly stumped--considering the admission that any alleged protection wanes within months--what protection (against severe disease/hospitalization even if these injections do provide protection) is there 3 or 4 months after injection? I am also confused by why we even need these shots for an illness that is something akin to a cold and dangerous only to those who face imminent extinction and are soon to die simply by living. I have a lot of other questions, but no answers.
the article Yuri posted will show you the shots were only good for those that want to eradicate the population of this world, the likes of gates, schwab and soros.
I always wonder if Soros pours many millions into backing all his leftist DA's who hate locking up rapists and killers (and of course never, ever, never releasing them near Soros' neck of the woods with his big giant house and rolling green lawns sitting behind very high walls and ornate iron gates with his well armed private security locked and loaded and ready to ROLL, baby!) because A) he gets a huge kick from watching lower and middle class women and children cowering in fear of roaming repeat offenders in already devastated blue city neighborhoods or B) he just hates America, and his pet DA's throw in the cowering women and children for shits and giggles.
it is difficult to understand normal people. It is totally impossible to understand a sick mind (even if it is from dementia). I think it is also impossible to understand a psychopath.
you might want to check out both Yuri and Steve Kirsch's posts.
Here is yet another article - Epoch times
A scientific journal is rejecting a request to retract a study that found people who received a COVID-19 booster were more likely to become infected when compared to unvaccinated people.
Analyzing numbers from California's prison system, a research group found that those who received one of the bivalent boosters had a higher infection rate than people who have never received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Their study was published by the journal Cureus following peer review.
Memento, your comment above had questions that many of us have been asking for more than two years, and not only were they not answered by anyone in any official capacity, the mere attempt to ask these questions in mainstream outlets were systematically, efficiently, and quickly banned, censored, and the questioner ridiculed. Yet you were very quick to write that Ingrid's post is "nonsense". Again, answers have been missing for years now, and you'd (apparently) be surprised how often some easy quick research turns up the word "depopulation"; when I saw it coming from a few vaccine zealots like Bill Gates (during a Ted Talk), I quit my knee jerk response of "nonsense" and began thinking "Hmm, this might explain some of these stone cold sociopaths who have been fascinated with all things vaccine and mass populations for years. Or not? Too bad we never get ANY answers".
Thanks RK&TW, but you are more articulate than me, so I'll keep being polite and you keep posting your great articulate comments, and maybe one day my (still unconvinced) friends will also be hitting the "likes".
Actually Fred, although I am no fan WHATSOEVER of Bill Gates and his "health agenda," I watched that TED talk by Gates the other day and here's what I heard: Gates did say population control using vaccines but in context I think he was verbally "short-handing" something like this --
women (presumably in the developing world) who are having a lot of children will have less children if they use birth control and vaccinate the children that they do have so that presumably those children will live longer and maybe women won't continue having more
Look, I know that sounds like a lot of words to put in his mouth, but in fairness, I think people often speak "in lists" and assume that their audience understands the general message. I think getting "overly literal" here is really to misconstrue what he was communicating at the time.
Frankly it could be that Bill just isn't all that bright. He just has a lot of money and a huge ego to sway things in very bad directions. To me he seems mainly about 1) worldwide population reduction through birth control and 2) a "true believer" in every form of vaccination proven or not.
But if he really cared about health, he would have used his wealth to make sure that every village in Africa had clean water. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
So bottomline, we agree Gates does want less people on the planet, but not, I think, by killing them with a vaccine.
I see no evidence that anyone should get the jab. I see too many good scientist saying lazy things like: “well, older people are at more risk from C19” (yes, I agree that was true...is that true in the same way now? I think not.)....but that means nothing if the person gets net net no added protection from the new booster. Show me data that the new booster helps a person incrementally who already has 3 jabs and no (known) infection (so far). Where is that data. 18 mice do not count. We know lots of side effects! (And that NIH still chooses do little or no studies on side effects. WHAT?!)
Agreed to some extent, but vaccinating children to purportedly protect against COVID is sheer insanity. It’s nothing short of outright child abuse. As such, it should indeed engender a bit if a fixation, especially when the subject matter is in the news.
Not so, a good amount of my elementary students have been given the Covid shot and our school is not liberal. Young people do not know anything about Substack and the canceled doctors, etc. Until someone comes up with a genius way to get this out to the general public, this will continue. Many people on Substack are retirement age. We're not working and running our kids around depending on our physicians advice for healthy children. We did depend on the 6:30 news and physicians when we were young and we were just as manipulated.
I understand your point but must disagree. If they are immunocompromised and sick a lot or even acquire a serious disease (Due to the changes in the immune system caused by the modRNA shots) they are very useful to the revenue of doctors and Pharma.
My thoughts exactly. I believe Big Pharma wants as many people as possible to develop health issues so they can get them on endless Netflix-type medication subscriptions.
Just as war is big business for the military industrial complex, a proliferation of illnesses is big business for doctors, hospitals and Big Pharma. They are the virus. The system is the cancer.
Well of course it doesn't work. Three is clearly not enough!
"Seven is the key number. Think about it. Seven eleven. Seven dwarfs. Seven man, that's the number. Seven chipmunks twirling on a branch eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch ...you know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you are dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby."
Alex I’m an early big fan but at some point you need to start connecting the facts.
The people running the regulatory agencies all worked for the drug companies. They funded the research to develop the virus for the purpose of selling the drugs. (You can’t call them vaccines).
They literally killed millions of people.
These same people control the worldwide media. This is why there is no critical analysis of what they did in the media.
Of course they’re going to try and get this poison into the children.
They know what they’re doing.
Fortunately the rest of the world is figuring it out too.
I know it kind of hard to fathom, but when you keep asking why, it becomes the only logical conclusion.
At 60-69 they claim 0.501% so 70 and over was 1% or maybe a bit higher.
Now, as the Pfizer scientists admitted in Australia, every vaccine has side effects. The question is does the benefit outweigh the risk.
The CDC is advising people that they should get the modRNA gene therapy every year, perhaps twice a year.
The risk is additive.
So, a baby at 6 months old is advised to get at least 70 of those shots by the time they are 70, perhaps even 140. If we go with the 10-20% risk of a serious side effect per shot (from one of your previous posts) and be generous by assuming only a 10% risk of a serious side effect, the probability of a serious side effect by age 70 is: 1 - (0.9)^70.
That is: 0.99937.
You are ensuring a child will have a serious side effect in order to reduce their risk of dying from Covid-19 at age 70?
And, let's not forget that the modRNA Gene therapy wears off quickly.
It's amusing to also calculate when they should wait until to get the modRNA Gene Therapy.
If they wait until age 35, the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.99127. Such a huge reduction in risk.
If they wait until age 30 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.957.
If they wait until age 50 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.878.
Of course, if the actual risk of a serious side effect is larger than 10% then it is even worse.
I think I will wait until I am dead ... ha ha ha.
Hmmm, someone who is more familiar with statistics claims that it is not that simple ... so I would like to see a better argument.
I can really only say this ONE way top make the point. A rapist will rape until IT is not allowed too. This is and never has been rocket science. Its all simply "allowed" to continue. ZERO accountability is the greatest existential crisis we face and, yet there are still people who ask WHY. Its truly astonishing!
The CDC/current administration will never admit defeat. That is what defines a true autocracy. They cannot be defeated because they invent the definitions.
The time for turning the other cheek has long since passed. Prosecute any and all government/public health officials and/Elected Things/doctors who were and continue to spin the COVID grift. Additionally, lift the civil immunity and let the litigation fly. Revenge is a dish best served cold...
i'll turn 2 cheeks
Good for you.
They would rather continue to recommend a drug that injures children than admit they have been wrong since the beginning.
Yes. And if health care "experts" can train parents to accept that only they, not parents, are best qualified to make determinations about what children need, despite the lunacy of official positions on lockdowns, endless vaccines, gender affirming "care", etc, then they can disrupt one of the most important human relationships God ever created. And if officials can do that, what can't they accomplish? I'm sorry, I feel I have always been a sober-minded, rational thinking person, but it seems to me that we are beyond logic at this point.
You are correct. My doc recently closed his practice and I had to find a new primary care doc. The new doc started asking about vaccines obviously not caring for my view on the covid vaccine then dropped it. Next time I go I am going to ask if she recommends that my 13 year old get the new booster. If she says yes then I will find a new doctor.
I fired my doctor when he downplayed natural immunity and slagged Dr. Marty Makary. To make matters worse, he accused me of falling for some “Right Wing” conspiracy theory. Bye, bye...
The fact that he politicized the issue tells you it was tribal not scientific…
Well, I think most rationalize. They convince themselves that what they are saying is correct.
But, I think you are right -- that there are some slimes people who are just evil and do this knowingly to children.
Lately the entire conversation is being framed around the shots for young people. How about we question the shots for anyone? Can we have those conversations instead of boxing the questions inside the narrow window of children/young people? I'm still waiting for the data that supports getting these injections for anyone. Is there any data that the injections protect against severe disease? (I think not.) I am also truly stumped--considering the admission that any alleged protection wanes within months--what protection (against severe disease/hospitalization even if these injections do provide protection) is there 3 or 4 months after injection? I am also confused by why we even need these shots for an illness that is something akin to a cold and dangerous only to those who face imminent extinction and are soon to die simply by living. I have a lot of other questions, but no answers.
the article Yuri posted will show you the shots were only good for those that want to eradicate the population of this world, the likes of gates, schwab and soros.
I always wonder if Soros pours many millions into backing all his leftist DA's who hate locking up rapists and killers (and of course never, ever, never releasing them near Soros' neck of the woods with his big giant house and rolling green lawns sitting behind very high walls and ornate iron gates with his well armed private security locked and loaded and ready to ROLL, baby!) because A) he gets a huge kick from watching lower and middle class women and children cowering in fear of roaming repeat offenders in already devastated blue city neighborhoods or B) he just hates America, and his pet DA's throw in the cowering women and children for shits and giggles.
it is difficult to understand normal people. It is totally impossible to understand a sick mind (even if it is from dementia). I think it is also impossible to understand a psychopath.
Sorry but I think that is nonsense.
you might want to check out both Yuri and Steve Kirsch's posts.
Here is yet another article - Epoch times
A scientific journal is rejecting a request to retract a study that found people who received a COVID-19 booster were more likely to become infected when compared to unvaccinated people.
Analyzing numbers from California's prison system, a research group found that those who received one of the bivalent boosters had a higher infection rate than people who have never received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Their study was published by the journal Cureus following peer review.
https://drtrozzi.org/2023/09/17/nurse-sarah-choujounian-lighting-up-dark-corners/
here is the testimony of a Canadian nurse, with Dr. Trozzi, of how the elderly in retirement homes faired.
https://hatchardreport.com/the-new-zealand-health-debate-fact-checking-ayesha-verrall-vs-shane-reti/
here are the numbers for New Zealand, and there is a site with those from Australia as well, for which I do not have a link
And here's another important Epoch Times article. US Govt essentially bribed/threatened OB-GYNs into promoting shots for pregnant women.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/government-gave-millions-to-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists-to-promote-covid-19-vaccines-to-pregnant-women-5486432?utm_source=Health_vaccine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=vaccine-2023-09-11&src_src=Health_vaccine&src_cmp=vaccine-2023-09-11&est=sFKZGBNiuBLGZDR1JFJwoBG1eD6mSSFKlH4err7vpcQky0Jt5k0rXJAUFJEQKIc6ZQ%3D%3D
Memento, your comment above had questions that many of us have been asking for more than two years, and not only were they not answered by anyone in any official capacity, the mere attempt to ask these questions in mainstream outlets were systematically, efficiently, and quickly banned, censored, and the questioner ridiculed. Yet you were very quick to write that Ingrid's post is "nonsense". Again, answers have been missing for years now, and you'd (apparently) be surprised how often some easy quick research turns up the word "depopulation"; when I saw it coming from a few vaccine zealots like Bill Gates (during a Ted Talk), I quit my knee jerk response of "nonsense" and began thinking "Hmm, this might explain some of these stone cold sociopaths who have been fascinated with all things vaccine and mass populations for years. Or not? Too bad we never get ANY answers".
Your reply to the above mentioned is much more polite than mine would’ve been…thank you.
Thanks RK&TW, but you are more articulate than me, so I'll keep being polite and you keep posting your great articulate comments, and maybe one day my (still unconvinced) friends will also be hitting the "likes".
Actually Fred, although I am no fan WHATSOEVER of Bill Gates and his "health agenda," I watched that TED talk by Gates the other day and here's what I heard: Gates did say population control using vaccines but in context I think he was verbally "short-handing" something like this --
women (presumably in the developing world) who are having a lot of children will have less children if they use birth control and vaccinate the children that they do have so that presumably those children will live longer and maybe women won't continue having more
Look, I know that sounds like a lot of words to put in his mouth, but in fairness, I think people often speak "in lists" and assume that their audience understands the general message. I think getting "overly literal" here is really to misconstrue what he was communicating at the time.
Frankly it could be that Bill just isn't all that bright. He just has a lot of money and a huge ego to sway things in very bad directions. To me he seems mainly about 1) worldwide population reduction through birth control and 2) a "true believer" in every form of vaccination proven or not.
But if he really cared about health, he would have used his wealth to make sure that every village in Africa had clean water. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
So bottomline, we agree Gates does want less people on the planet, but not, I think, by killing them with a vaccine.
I see no evidence that anyone should get the jab. I see too many good scientist saying lazy things like: “well, older people are at more risk from C19” (yes, I agree that was true...is that true in the same way now? I think not.)....but that means nothing if the person gets net net no added protection from the new booster. Show me data that the new booster helps a person incrementally who already has 3 jabs and no (known) infection (so far). Where is that data. 18 mice do not count. We know lots of side effects! (And that NIH still chooses do little or no studies on side effects. WHAT?!)
Agreed to some extent, but vaccinating children to purportedly protect against COVID is sheer insanity. It’s nothing short of outright child abuse. As such, it should indeed engender a bit if a fixation, especially when the subject matter is in the news.
While the shots may not be effective medically for kids, they are 100% effective in signalling you are not republican.
lots of republicans I know ran to the jab place as well. Yesterday one of them tried after 4 jabs to come back and re-friend me. No thanks
Not so, a good amount of my elementary students have been given the Covid shot and our school is not liberal. Young people do not know anything about Substack and the canceled doctors, etc. Until someone comes up with a genius way to get this out to the general public, this will continue. Many people on Substack are retirement age. We're not working and running our kids around depending on our physicians advice for healthy children. We did depend on the 6:30 news and physicians when we were young and we were just as manipulated.
Amazing isn't it how the average DEM still votes for all this
Change one letter in DEM and it becomes DUM!
Evidently children under 5 are useless.
To billionaires.
I understand your point but must disagree. If they are immunocompromised and sick a lot or even acquire a serious disease (Due to the changes in the immune system caused by the modRNA shots) they are very useful to the revenue of doctors and Pharma.
My thoughts exactly. I believe Big Pharma wants as many people as possible to develop health issues so they can get them on endless Netflix-type medication subscriptions.
Just as war is big business for the military industrial complex, a proliferation of illnesses is big business for doctors, hospitals and Big Pharma. They are the virus. The system is the cancer.
I think culling is primary.
Money and greed is one hell of a drug also.
Well of course it doesn't work. Three is clearly not enough!
"Seven is the key number. Think about it. Seven eleven. Seven dwarfs. Seven man, that's the number. Seven chipmunks twirling on a branch eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch ...you know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you are dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby."
AND WE'RE THE CRAZY ONE'S FOR CARING!
Alex I’m an early big fan but at some point you need to start connecting the facts.
The people running the regulatory agencies all worked for the drug companies. They funded the research to develop the virus for the purpose of selling the drugs. (You can’t call them vaccines).
They literally killed millions of people.
These same people control the worldwide media. This is why there is no critical analysis of what they did in the media.
Of course they’re going to try and get this poison into the children.
They know what they’re doing.
Fortunately the rest of the world is figuring it out too.
I know it kind of hard to fathom, but when you keep asking why, it becomes the only logical conclusion.
What? The killshots do not stop COVID in children?? The hell you say?
Mind.Blown.
Who is a vaxxers favourite inventor?
Alexander Graham Bell’s Palsy --Farrrrrrout
Can't admit defeat, much culling still needed.
It's been too good a grift to give up on.
Alex, it is worse than that. A recent paper suggests that the IFR for the virus is much lower than was claimed: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1
At 60-69 they claim 0.501% so 70 and over was 1% or maybe a bit higher.
Now, as the Pfizer scientists admitted in Australia, every vaccine has side effects. The question is does the benefit outweigh the risk.
The CDC is advising people that they should get the modRNA gene therapy every year, perhaps twice a year.
The risk is additive.
So, a baby at 6 months old is advised to get at least 70 of those shots by the time they are 70, perhaps even 140. If we go with the 10-20% risk of a serious side effect per shot (from one of your previous posts) and be generous by assuming only a 10% risk of a serious side effect, the probability of a serious side effect by age 70 is: 1 - (0.9)^70.
That is: 0.99937.
You are ensuring a child will have a serious side effect in order to reduce their risk of dying from Covid-19 at age 70?
And, let's not forget that the modRNA Gene therapy wears off quickly.
It's amusing to also calculate when they should wait until to get the modRNA Gene Therapy.
If they wait until age 35, the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.99127. Such a huge reduction in risk.
If they wait until age 30 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.957.
If they wait until age 50 the probability of a serious side effect drops to 0.878.
Of course, if the actual risk of a serious side effect is larger than 10% then it is even worse.
I think I will wait until I am dead ... ha ha ha.
Hmmm, someone who is more familiar with statistics claims that it is not that simple ... so I would like to see a better argument.
They are pushing hard for vaccination,masking, testing and isolation if positive for Covid. Even National Geographic is pushing it https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/sick-covid-refresher-tests-masking-isolation-medicine
I can really only say this ONE way top make the point. A rapist will rape until IT is not allowed too. This is and never has been rocket science. Its all simply "allowed" to continue. ZERO accountability is the greatest existential crisis we face and, yet there are still people who ask WHY. Its truly astonishing!
Three clot Shots sure did a lot to ensure many kids would be hospitalized for side effects of the Clot Shots.
The CDC/current administration will never admit defeat. That is what defines a true autocracy. They cannot be defeated because they invent the definitions.