If you have covid you are on your own. The experts cannot be trusted.

If I was vaccinated against a disease (Covid), why did I get that disease? The standard answer I get is because of all the unvaccinated people I caught the disease from. But wait, the historical definition of a vaccination is that it protects you from a disease, not people who avoid vaccinations. That answer is then bolstered with the statement that the effects of the virus were lessened by the vaccinations, and that kept me from the hospital. But then I would have to ignore all the unvaccinated people I know that got Covid and did not end up in a hospital. If you are developing an opinion that medical experts during a pandemic can be trusted about as far as a farmer can spit into the wind on the windiest day of the year, you are not alone. I am probably wasting my time, but here is an explanation of what is really going on:

The SARS CoV-2 pathogen invading our bodies is a weapon of mass destruction artificially formulated in a bioweapon’s lab in Wuhan China. The contagious, manufactured microbe escaped the lab sometime in October or November 2019 and began infecting residents of Wuhan generating a massive coverup and disinformation campaign to hide its origins. Dr. Anthony Fauci, a US virologist, was told directly by the Obama administration not to fund gain of function research giving coronaviruses the ability to jump from animals to humans.

If genuine history were taught in schools, people would know that the international community banned the use of chemical and biological weapons after World War 1 and reinforced the ban in 1972 and 1993. Reasonable people know that Dr. Anthony Fauci ignored the Obama era directives and used back channels to conspire with Dr. Shi Zhengyi and the People’s Republic of China to develop dire experiments weaponizing biology. Somehow Fauci, one of the richest bureaucrats in the world, was able to circumvent the decree from the Obama administration and resume the deadly research during the early Trump years. In a 2012 statement Fauci boasted that a worldwide pandemic was worth it if it advanced gain of function research.

Fauci has a history with killer pathogens. In the 1980’s many died of an HIV contaminated blood supply and whistle blowers were called conspiracy theorists then as they are now. You can’t trust any of these people. You are on your own.

 

I wouldn't believe a word out of their mouths even if their tongues came notarized.

 

Experts: “if you get the vaccine and get COVID you’ll likely have mild symptoms compared to if you don’t get the vaccine.

Me who got the vaccine,boosted and had COVID: “experiences mild COVID symptoms that did not require hospitalization”.

Me: wow the experts were right!

 

The 'experts' are usually funded by the pharmaceutical corporations. They are primarily 'experts' in continuing to get funding.

The CDC for example gets funding through the CDCF to study the efficacy of the drugs that the pharmaceutical manufacturers paying them to study the drugs want to sell, and they have been found by the OIG to be grossly violating their own standards (which are grossly inadequate to begin with, IMO) of conflict of interest.

"According to the CDC Foundation, a "nonprofit organization that forges partnerships between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and private and philanthropic sectors", CDCF forges "traditional philanthropic donor/grantee relationships, collaborative alliances between CDC and a single private-sector organization, broad multi-partner initiatives that may include more than one funding stream, and research collaborations to advance public health."
...
"CDC must evaluate when a gift offered by a private entity, e.g., company, foundation, enterprise, etc., may create a conflict of interest or may be from a prohibited source. A prohibited source is any individual or entity that is seeking official action by CDC; does business or seeks to do business with CDC; conducts activities regulated by CDC; has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of an employee’s official duties; benefits from work performed by CDC, such that they can use it to promote their business; or is an organization where a majority of its members are described in Section VI. I. 2 (5 C.F.R. Section 2635.203(d)). The fact that a potential donor is a prohibited source does not necessarily mean that a proposed gift may not be accepted; only that it must be carefully evaluated for possible conflicts of interest."
Public-Private Partnerships and Conflict of Interest Guidelines | CDC Foundation

Here's some highlights of the CDC's past corruption (pasted from another thread, thus possibly a few bits of out of context phrasing)

"We can however look at how it has handled such things in the past. If you want the long version, its here: huntoon.pdf (jpands.org) For a short version, here's some highlights:

this regarding an article in the BMJ-
"The CDC accepts millions of dollars in “conditional funding” from entities, including pharmaceutical corporations. Conditional donations are donations that are specifically earmarked for specific projects.3 In 2012, for example, Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C….The CDC issued guidelines in August 2012 recommending expanded (cohort) screening of everyone born from 1945 to 1965 for hepatitis C virus…. Industry has donated [more than $26 million] to the coalition [CDC’s Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition] through the CDC Foundation since 2010.3 According to a BMJ article, “Conflict of interest forms filed by the 34 members of the external working group that wrote and reviewed the new CDC recommendation in 2012 show that nine had financial ties to the manufacturers.”3 The CDC Foundation also accepted conditional funding from Roche for the Take 3 flu campaign.3 CDC subsequently posted a recommendation on its website recommending influenza antiviral drugs (e.g. oseltamivir). It cited studies in support of its recommendation, including one which CDC described as an independent study. “However, the study was sponsored by Roche, and all four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir and Gilead holds the patent).”3 In 2015, the president and chief executive of the Institute for Family Health in New York, Neil Calman, commented: Industry funding undermines trust and introduces a bias in the presentation of results and treatment recommendations that is deplorable for a government agency. If the allegations of industry funding and influence are true, we will have to look very carefully at recommendations we are following now and those made in the future by the CDC…. Industry claims their scientific methodology ensures their studies are unbiased—just as the CDC claims money doesn’t affect their recommendations. Yet multiple studies clearly—and repeatedly—show that who sponsors a study, or issues a guideline, makes a difference.3"
3. Lenzer J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Protecting the private good? BMJ 2015;350:h2362. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2362. Available at:
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362. Accessed Aug 14, 2020.

This regarding an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association summarizing finding from the OIG-

"An article summarizing the OIG’s findings concerning CDC’s Ethics Program, published in JAMA in 2010, reported:15 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 25 Number 3 Fall 2020 69 "The US Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) failed to identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest among its 2007 advisory committee members more than half the time, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)…. 97% of the 212 disclosure forms the agency certified in 2007 contained at least 1 omission, the report noted…. The CDC failed to identify potential conflicts on 124 individuals (58%) with certified forms…. Even when a potential conflict of interest was identified, the agency often did not take the steps necessary to address it. Nearly one-third (67 persons) of the 212 certified individuals had conflicts the CDC identified but failed to resolve.15 The detailed 47-page OIG report is both shocking and very disturbing.16 Its Findings included: For almost all special Government employees, CDC did not ensure that financial disclosure forms were complete in 2007…. CDC did not identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest for 64 percent of special Government employees in 2007…. CDC did not ensure that 41 percent of special Government employees received required ethics training in 2007…. Fifteen percent of special Government employees did not comply with ethics requirements during committee meetings in 2007…. 3 percent of SGEs voted on particular matters when their waivers prohibited such participation. Four SGEs both participated in committee meetings without current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file and voted on particular matters when their waivers prohibited such participation.16 The OIG report concluded by stating: “We found that CDC had a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program for SGEs. That is, CDC and its SGEs did not comply with ethics requirements in 2007.”16
15. Kuehn BM. Office of Inspector General: CDC lax in policing advisor’s conflicts of interest. JAMA 2010;303(5):412. Available at:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185312. Accessed Aug 14, 2020.
16. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. CDC’s Ethics Program for Special Government Employees on Federal Advisory Committees; December 2009. Available at:
CDC's Ethics Program for Special Government Employees on Federal Advisory Committees (hhs.gov). Accessed Aug 14, 2020"

 

These people talk out of both sides of their mouths:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1474946202714079236

 

I think we're well past the point of making a case out of the word "vaccination". Yes, the vaccines don't prevent you catching the virus. This is old news. Arguments like this are mostly just semantics by people who are already anti-vaccine and are grasping at anything they can use to criticize them.

 

There is not any real evidence that vaccinations mitigate the effects of the pathogen but there is compelling evidence that mRNA can cause dangerous side effects in some people. There is a veil over this that many either do not see or refuse to see. The people getting the sickest are already weakened by other things whether they are vaccinated or not.

 

Bullshit. I'm old, fat, and have diabetes. I got vaccinated and boostered early. I'm not eating anyone's brains yet ( though I DO want to get Windows 11)

If you want to end this pandemic tomorrow, it's very simple; don't treat people for COVID who are unvaccinated. If you come in with the symptoms we see your vaccine card or you can hit the road. If you survive, good for you (and you're immune) if you don't, Hail Darwin

AND the nurses stop committing suicide.

It's NOT like refusing to treat cancer patients who ate red meat. You have to eat venison for YEARS to get cancer, You can avoid Covid ENTIRELY by dropping by the white tents that are in EVERY parking lot nowadays for 10 minutes one Saturday.

THEN you can go back to saying how great it was when Trump was President and our only problems were how to better abduct refugee's kids along with plotting how to rob grandma's Social Security so as to give Elon Musk another tax break.

 

Experts: "if you don't get the vaccine and get COVID you'll likely end up in the hospital and die".

Me who did not get the vaccine and did not get boosted: "did not get COVID, or any illness for that matter"

Me: the experts were dead wrong once again...

 

If you have covid you are on your own. The experts cannot be trusted.​

~ Yes indeed - sad but true. If you are fortunate enough to have an MD who actually practices medicine and not politics you will have access to a few very effective therapeutics from independent pharmacy. Good luck to us all ... '

 

I hope you continue to do well, and it is correct to say that politics is involved here. Do you remember Alexander Fleming and Jonas Salk? Neither made a dime off their great discoveries that saved millions of lives. Fauci and company are different animals.

 

Giddeyup to that!

 

What 'experts' are you getting advice from? Because from day one our medical experts have stressed that the chances of dying from COVID is negligible at worst (unless you are very old or have severe co-morbidities in which case its more of risk). Their sole concern has been keeping COVID hospitalizations down to a minimum so that beds needed for other critical health issues don't get overwhelmed.

Hint: for future purposes far right wing political commentators and conspiracy theorists are not 'experts' - in anything. Epidemiologists, virologists and MDs are.

 

Im not vaccinated and had covid in a very mild form (not even a sinus infection).
See, I just busted your theory.

 

That’s great. How does it feel to be an exception?

 

For my age group, the chance of death is 0.1%. I’m not an exception - I’m the rule.

 

By my estimate we’re probably well over a million dead in the US, factoring in the underreporting. So you’re still the exception to me.

 

I'd sooner trust a rattlesnake than any of these people.

Or their useful true believers.


My girlfriend got the vaccine about a year ago, she was fine for the first shot and then her arm swelled up like a baseball on the second shot.

She said within the next day she started getting a sore throat and then a lump started developing inner throat and now she has cancer that she has to go to chemo and radiation for.

Of course the true believers would think that's just a giant coincidence. She wishes like hell she didn't get the shot and I sure as hell ain't

 

~ Now you popped the covid-19 catastrophe bubble...

~ Or factoring in the overreporting ...

~ I know someone who has a friend being treated for skin cancer after the 2nd poke.

 

Most experts agree and it makes sense, the deaths are underreported. Basically people don’t want the shame of having died from COVID.

 

You like playing Russian roulette by taking vaccines with no long term study's for side effects?

 

~ There are no "experts " or science on this mystery virus and experimental " vaccine " - only politics . That is the point of this thread .

 

"From" or "with" Covid 19?

Man who died in motorcycle crash counted as COVID-19 death in Florida: Report

 

Because I know enough about how vaccines get approved to know that the vaccine passed safety trials and was only rushed because it needed emergency deployment. Since then? It’s been safe. As for “long term studies”? It’s never enough for a vaccine denier. It’ll be long term then go on to generational and so forth. It’s never enough.

Science has always been political. Don’t be surprised when it turns into a political battle.