Not surprised the least bit

It's offensive to compare current events to those past events ...

but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... ya know, it just might be a duck! And if somehow/someway it's NOT, why is it trying so hard to imitate that nazi duck!?

this cuts to the quick of the difference between those who promote the CDC line on this virus ... and those who recognize what time it is

Had my first experience with being "culled" in the Burbank/Universal City Sheraton yesterday ... zee papers ... to sit down and eat in the very same hotel restaurant where I've dined 5 times in the last 4 months. I have been working in very close proximity to thousands of people who are from all corners of the world for hours on end the past two years. I ended up having one of college age sons contract the disease. He stayed with us during his quarantine from school and used the early treatment therapeutic nebulized budesonide protocol. My operation is part of why this virus spread so quickly ... we connect the world in hours. Are we there yet? Not parked at the gate, but we're definitely WELL into the sterile period (below 10K feet)

Praise be to God I have not missed a day of work because of being sick due to covid (and the health standards for doing my work is "slightly" more restrictive than "everyman's job") and have worked full time for all but 3 months ... and that was a sanity leave. I think I need another one after yesterday, but I recognize the insanity is spreading fast and getting stronger; that tells me I need to spend more time in "the war room" on my knees to keep "the old man" in check, get back/remain in sync with The Holy Spirit.

With thousands of my professional colleagues, I am facing employment termination on 4 Jan, yet, there are folks who think getting the jab isn't being forced ... that I'm choosing to lose my job over the jab rather than understand I am being forced to decide between playing russian roulette and retaining my job.

You folks who somehow believe the vast majority of prophesy was fulfilled in 70 AD need to reconsider. Failure to do so means failing to be "prepared" to receive the Holy Spirit as Peter prophesied ... greater than the Day of Pentecost and greater than the Asuza Street (sp?) revival ... ironically ... in the same "City" where I was just culled for lack of 'papers.'

 

you are talking in the definition circle. I made a single reference to the definition in a post with greater field of view. You padlocked on that and started building (another) straw man.

I am comparing the relative effectivity of the two ... injections ... and rather than rebut the data, you're spinning a web about definition and using the same side-effect risk of the mRNA cv vax to the MLV shingles vax ... and they're NOT the same at all.

One has killed thousands (conservatively) ... the other ... maybe a handful because the standard practice is to pull the vax when it has killed 50 total. That's not me ... that's a guy who has served on the very body which has made that decision; Dr. Peter McCullough.

and upon review ... I may have been unclear ... I've YET to take the shingles series but will because there is a risk/reward benefit to it. I will approach this vax after it seems clear I've been fooled on "what time is it" ... because I'll know that before I punch 60 --- as a nice round number. Evidently there's no "too late" on the shingles vax unless ... of course, you contract shingles first.

So I'm rolling the dice for a while, >50 ... had the chicken pox as a kid.

The shingles vax share three things in common with the cv vaxes; they have needles and syringes, and both advertise to safely train the immune system to enhance its ability to prevent the pathogen from infecting the body. After the liquid is injected ... there are no more legitimate comparisons to what happens henceforth.

 

unfamiliar with your reference. I'll standby for a dozen/more meems on this.

Noted is a continued dodge of my primary point in this thread.

the cv vax is riskier and less effective than the shingles vax.

 

had never heard of McCullough before covid plandemic. Were you aware of covid 19 before December 19?

Is that a shock? Am I supposed to be familiar with various specialists who have done work in various levels in their field for them to be legitimate ... or if I'm not, then they're illegitimate?

Is the only way for me to have become familiar with this man is because I searched for someone to confirm my views?

The vaxed never "just search for those who support their views?" (your absolute terminology, by the way)

Jon ... you're a master projectionist. have you stopped beating your wife?

I appreciate the reference source ... assuming what is alleged is true (it's a lawsuit, guilty until proven innocent, right? oh wait) ... does any of that invalidate his professional opinion on this pathogen? OK, perhaps it means dont' take his word to be "gospel" ... but that's unnecessary. He's HARDLY alone in his objections to this all vax immediately nonsense or you choose to sacrifice your professional job.

 

Do you bother to check or just spout leftist talking points? Many of your posts are considered as lies by me, Jon, like this one where you lie about others. You spout figures like 17% are not vaxxed, yup 17% & a whole lot more, but no one bothers to call you out. Why bother?!

COVID-19 expert Dr. Peter McCullough sued by Texas-based health system - LifeSite

 

yessir ...

when jon threwdown the 17% number ... I thought ... OK ... gonna dispute the 50% nationwide.

but didn't. Odd.

I don't recall who posted the data summary link by state, but, yeah, the nationwide number is just over 50% and I'll be dipped if that isn't the proportion of cv vaxed/non cv vaxed cases.

Doesn't sound too effective to me.

 

brother ... knock it off. You have NO idea what I did or did not do beyond what I've posted here.

FWIW ... because it seems like it won't matter what I post ... your mind is already made up on my own opinion. You apparently know me better than I know me ... I didn't search for McCullough at all. His name/presentations were associated with last year's searches for options because it didn't pass the smell test for the standard protocol to be "go home" with NOTHING in the way of meds ... which remains the most likely scenario of one visits their PCP for being sick (does one see their PCP in their office with an appointment for anything else in less than 98% of the examples?)

folks who went to their PCP for bronchial issues in Jan '20 ... loaded-up on prescription drugs ... steroid shots ... et al.

folks who went to their PCP for bronchial issues in April '20 ... to current ... declared covid19 and sent home with directions to quarantine. if breathing becomes difficult, goto the ER ... where they'll be connected to a ventilator. Hello!

But it seems, Jon, you'd rather continue to use your signature statement (literally) to redirect all input.

You make statements about people you do not know, assumptions about what they have done or not done as if it's precisely correct ... and the only thing you got right was correctly spelling the screen name in your reply ... and you have a computer program to do that.

it's exhausting trying to have a conversation with you about this topic because you will not read for comprehension. I don't suppose to have every detail solved, but I know what we have sustained has been just about the absolute WORST course of action. We'd have been better off if we'd just ignored this thing and carried on, but we didn't.

You know why? Because it's time to consolidate the world's power ... and this plandemic response has made end rows to the end rows in this inevitable eventuality. It'd be nice, though, if there was a bit of respect shown to a brother even if there IS a difference of opinion and that would be revealed in abstaining from all the presumption and projection.

You discredit the challenge of being a projectionist with a curt response ... so clearly you reject the challenge in spite of having explained HOW you are doing that very thing.

tiresome.

 

at least you're finally addressing my main point in this thread.

one of the BBers posted this link from John Hopkins the other day ...

perusing this (assuming it's accurate) ... it looks like approximately 50% ... of course some states are more populated than others having > 50% jabbed ...

but using nice round numbers of the percentage jabbed overall ... not just on 5th Avenue in NY ... and the numbers revealed about the breakout of the current covid19 cases ...

Seems basically equivalent and therefore ... reveals the 97% effectivity claim is FAR from true.

See the latest data in your region - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center

 

more projection.

you listen about well as stump, Jon.

 

3% of 150 million

(that'd be the 3% who got jabbed and didn't get a "good stick")

vice what percent of the remaining 150 million who aren't jabbed which is comprising an approximately equal percentage of the cv cases.

There's the math problem for your solving ... and MAYBE understanding the math isn't working for that 97% number.

 

ok ... you're probably right.