Vax - I trusted the government, now I'm abandoned!

Just because she thinks it's because of the vaccine, doesn't mean that's the real cause. She's been worked up without conclusion, not abandoned. Nothing wrong with using her case as a hypothesis for research, I suppose. But public health makes decisions about vaccinations by aggregate cost-benefit. It's not a matter of complications never happening, but rather the vaccine being more likely to help than harm.

Definitely a coincidence, other than the arm swelling. Lymphomas are caused by mutations that break safety checks in the cell cycle. Carcinogens and some viruses can cause this, like EBV, but there is no mechanism by which the covid vaccine could cause this particular complication. And if it could, it would not develop that quickly. There are real complications it can rarely cause, but this is not one of them. And when billions of people get vaccination worldwide, such coincidences are definitely going to happen.

 

You'll have to forgive me but I am going to remain skeptical.

Have you been in the medical field very long?

 

Because it invokes a temporary immune response but does not immunize!

David Martin;
I'm fascinated with the audacity of some of the worst forms of human behavior. I think that there is always a fascination, whether we talk about a serial killer, whether we talk about a corrupt researcher, I think it's fascinating when people do unethical or illegal behaviors, and then almost as a challenge to humanity, they leave a talisman or they leave a token behind as though they are challenging someone to find them. And so I look at what happens in the innovation space, around biological and chemical weapons and toxins and munitions, as kind of the same way I'd look at a serial killer who leaves an artifact behind at the crime scene to almost taunt you into finding them.

We all know that we were told in the latter part of 2002, going in 2003, there was an outbreak of coronavirus stimulated pathogen in Asia that ultimately gave rise to about 800 deaths and number of people that got ill. But it was very fascinating that in April of 2003, the CDC decided to patent the coronavirus isolated from humans, and specifically they wanted to patent the SARS version of coronavirus. They reportedly did it because they wanted allegedly to make sure that the virus was not available for commercial exploitation and it could be used for research.

However, tiny little problem with the storyline, is that it flies in the face of the actual written record. Because if you look at the written record, it turns out that in2005 and 2006, the United States Patent Office actually rejected-

- [James] Yeah, can you point it out to us?

- Yeah. I'm sorry. In 2005 and 2006, the Patent Office actually rejected the CDC's patents. In fact, it specifically said that the claims are rejected under 35 US Code, section 102, because all of the genome that allegedly was being patented by the CDC was already publicly available in GenBank accession number submissions. And they actually go through and list the fact that this alleged novel coronavirus, this alleged novel virus isolated from humans, was somehow different from the fact that there was already a public record, a published record, and therefore, all of this information was already in the public domain. It would have made a patent on this illegal, and, not surprisingly, the Patent Office came to that very conclusion.

But despite the fact that the Patent Office rejected it, and then rejected it again, the CDC continued to fight for a patent.

What you find is at least 80% of the patents that we have reviewed, the 70,000 plus patents that we've reviewed since 1980, that have been issued to large pharmaceutical companies have either non-final or final rejections in which the actual application as submitted to the Patent Office is found to be an illegal patent filing, not conforming to patent law.

In my congressional testimony back in the late 90's, early 2000s, I made the point that about a third of all US patents are functional forgeries. And by that I mean that they do not contain any unique information.

But when you look at the pharmaceutical patents specifically about 80% of them, out of the roughly 70,000 that we've recently examined with respect to the current drugs that are in the market, vaccines and other interventions that are in the market, about 80% of those have both non-final and final rejections, meaning that the patent examiner, looking at what has been sought by the company in question, actually comes to the conclusion that the patent as submitted is actually not legally grantable.


But very very seldom do the actual objections get overcome. What happens is that there is a negotiation between the patent examiner and then the applicant, and it goes back and forth. And very often, like in the case of the CDC patent, the patent examiner is left with a conclusion that says that the patent should not be granted. And then a supervising examiner or some other administrative practice is engaged to overturn the determination of the patent examiner. And so it's very common within the patent landscape that enormous numbers of patents ultimately get issued, even though the statutory and legal basis for granting that patent are not met by the application.

- [James] And can you just list a few of the reasons why they would be rejected?

- Well, there are three basic reasons for rejection. So the most fundamental is a 35 US Code section 101 rejection, which is non-patentable subject matter. When somebody tries to patent nature, for example. One of the criticisms of the coronavirus isolated from humans patent, which is the actual sequence ID, is in fact nature. It is not a human manipulation, it's not a human effort. It's actually just a fragment of nature. And therefore, not legally patentable under section 101 of the law. Section 102, which has to do with anticipation, meaning that somebody already has published the information, they've already disclosed the information, and in that case, there's really no basis for granting a patent.

And then section 103 and several other sections that have to do with whether or not you've disclosed adequately something that can actually be practiced. Because at the end of the day, a patent is supposed to be educating the public on useful arts and sciences, to quote the constitution.

There's a bunch of other statutory reasons. But when it comes to CDC, when it comes to the coronavirus, when it comes to a number of these particular patents, the real fundamental question that we try to raise is that, if in fact, the CDC was trying to file a patent on a naturally-occurring virus, that application would be an illegal application because you are not allowed to patent nature. If the virus had been tampered with, or if the protein sequence, the nucleic acid sequence, which is actually what the patent claim is about, in fact was manipulated and wasn't natural, then there's a whole cascade of other issues that definitely need inquiry, which is how did we go about getting coronavirus? Which in the CDC's own patent, they state that historically coronaviruses have not been associated with significant illness in humans.

How is it that suddenly in 2002, going into 2003, we have this magical alteration in betacoronaviruses that suddenly makes them lethal? And that question is the fundamental question that is behind an inquiry that we've been on since 1999 and Ralph Baric and NIAID's first efforts to figure out a way to increase the pathogenicity of betacoronaviruses. In 1999, there was a grant given to Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. And in that grant, there was an effort to figure out how to amplify a certain pathogenicity of what was called recombinant technology around coronavirus. Ralph Baric had a decade plus history in working with coronaviruses generally, had done a lot of work in veterinary science, around cardiac conditions for rabbits. There was a huge amount of research on cardiomyopathy in rabbits that had something to do with coronavirus. But in 1999, NIAID funded a project in which we first see the amplification of pathogenic components of the betacoronavirus.

And it's very important to understand that happened in 1999, and the work that was done between 1990 and 1999, and then published in 2002, in 2003, actually started suggesting that there were parts of the coronavirus that could be modified. Specifically, the ACE2 receptor and the S spike protein that could be modified to increase the degree to which coronavirus could represent a health threat to humans.

I want that to settle in for a minute.

Three years before we have the first SARS outbreak, we have researchers who are working on amplifying the pathogenicity of the things that make coronavirus extremely harmful to the human system.

- [James] So you find that suspicious? - Now that feels like that should invoke in at least one or two people, a set of questions. Which is, how is it that we went for allegedly whatever our evolutionary timeframe is, where we were coexisting with coronaviruses, and suddenly we start manipulating them with recombinant technology in 1999, 2000, 2001, and suddenly nature figures out a way to make these things also highly pathogenetic using the exact same mechanism that we've done in the lab in 2002, in 2003? Possible? Yes. Plausible? Not a chance.

What makes it even less a chance is if we actually look at what was being patented at the time, because we're actually looking specifically at the sections of coronavirus that are those sections that are specifically modified in the laboratory, which happened to also be the things that allegedly become modified by nature. Suspicious? Yes. Possible? Of course! Nature and humans could have been just following this exact same trajectory. Plausible? Not so much.

And what makes it less plausible is that we start seeing that the coronavirus, in its alleged zoonotic and alleged, you know, kind of natural pathogenicity enhancement happens to be happening at the exact same place that researchers are doing the same work. That seems to be a highly implausible story, regardless of who is telling it. But what we saw in the wake of 2003 was the Department of Health and Human Services, remember, the umbrella organization that controls the Center for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, and the funding mechanisms that ultimately go to laboratories across this country and around the world, what we saw was an increased amount of funding going into coronavirus research. And the research was specifically focused on not only the detection of, but also the amplification of the pathogenicity of SARS coronavirus.

Now a number of people have not paid attention to the evolution of this. But what you have in the written record, in the published record from Ralph Baric's lab, in the public record from a number of other laboratories, you see from 2003, right up until 2012, a proliferation of work around the amplification of attributes of coronavirus that are specifically targeting tissue that is going to be highly susceptible in the lungs and potentially susceptible in the kidneys. Because the ACE2 receptors seem to be something that has an enormous amount of attraction in terms of the research. But we see all of this work being done, and we've been told that the Department of Health and Human Services was doing it because they were very interested in making sure that they could control a response to potential outbreak somewhere down the road.

But during that entire period, there was no vaccine, there was no treatment, and there was no diagnostic developed. And that is because the Center for Disease Control also filed patents on the detection of coronavirus and on the treatment for coronavirus. In other words, they built a patent thicket around betacoronavirus stimulating SARS. And they built a thicket through which independent inquiry could not happen, outside of the important exception, which is people who would play their game.

- [James] So to inquire tests and measure the coronavirus, you'd be infringing upon their patent?

- That's exactly right. We're in a situation where you control the actual thing to test, you actually control the means of its detection, and you control the mechanism of doing anything that actually involves the treatment of that. And it turns out that the patents held by Ralph Baric, the patents held by the Center for Disease Control, and ultimately the 5,111 patents that were issued across the period from 2003, right up until 2019, the 5,111 patents that were issued were all issued within this interesting funding and research and interrelated directorates and interrelated corporate, private, public partnership, kinds of relationship, all of those patents issued around the core platform that said that the CDC was going to adjudicate who could or could not make an independent inquiry.

and thats why no one can touch it but dance and sing along!

Friends are always the best for peer review!

 

Translation: "Being unable to back up what I say with facts, I will proclaim victory, then take my ball and go home in a snit."

 

It's easier to just call someone a liar about the cancer of a loved one than question his own blind faith in the vaccination cult of true believers. Doesn't speak highly of his character but apparently that is worthless to him.

 

Your operating off of bad information. Chances of an adverse reaction are huge from this vax .. way higher than other vaccines. Chance of a "Serious Adverse Reaction" are off the charts .. 1 in 5000 and lower .. 1 in 10,000 chance of myocarditis for males 16-30 . both very conservative estimates .. as many of cases do not get reported as caused by the vax... Society will need time to sort through the data after the fact .. but your idea that this is some kind of "one off" .. simply not true ..

 

I didn't say this was I one off. I said this report was a 'one off' event. The difference is evidence has to be based on multiple (think thousands) of reports similar of identicle symptoms (swollen lymph nodes etc). Not one single report. This is because multiple millions of doses of vaccine that have been administered.

 

Yup .. and we have this data .. which tells us this vax is not safe . and every reason to believe the effects to this lady were caused by the vax .. but not reported as from the vax.

 

Prove it.

 

Data for Canada - https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

41,600 - Adverse effects .. 8600 of which were "Serious"

Canada Population 38 million ~ 80% vaxed = 30.4 million.

Do the math .. in overall population 1 in 730 with adverse effect 1 in 3500 with "Serious" adverse effect.

Odds of a healthy male 16-30 dying from Omicron - 1 in a million ...

 

Only if the 'adverse' effects are directly linked to the vaccine e.g. person X suffers heart attack after receiving drug Y. Person X is obese, has poor blood stats and falls within the parameters for being at risk of heart disease. Did the vaccine cause the the heart attack or not? Answer we don't know until there is further investigation.

This is the basic mistake anti-vaxers make about adverse event registers all the time. They do NOT prove cause and effect. They even carry disclaimers which state they are not proof of causation but (surprise, surprise anti-vaxers consistently ignore that small detail). Don't believe me? Look up any national directory of adverse medical events and look for the disclaimer. It's there.

They are simply registers of medical events that researchers can use to investigate and see if there are links between drug Y and adverse event event X. That's it, end of story, all they are is a list events. Researchers then have to methodically investigate cases on that list to see if any one type of medical event is directly linked to a specific medication.The only reason adverse effect registers exist at all is so that researchers know to start looking. If adverse events weren't recorded somewhere to begin with they wouldn't know to look!

 

All "Adverse Effects" and especially the Serious ones are directly linked to the vax - if anything.. the numbers are low. You don't know what you are talking about .. are making things up .. and yes .. we know the difference between a pre existing heart condition and one brought on by the vax ..

You asked for proof .. having absolutely no idea what the numbers were .. drinking the spoon fed propaganda ... and because you were shocked when the "Proof" was given to you .. went into denial mode.

I gave you the data for Canada .. it is similare elsewhere .. but .. there have been many studies done .. recording the same figures.. The generally accepted "Conservative" number for myocharditis - a serious adverse condition - which you can look up the exact figure in site previouly given .. which you obviously didn't go to.. .. is 1 in 10,000 .. for males 16-30 .. In Israeli Study .. one replicated many times by other studies .. and the general data giving similar numbers no matter where you look.

You wish to talk BS data .. and false narrative based on that data . Dr. Fauci is your man.

For example numbers like chances are 7 times greater to visit ICU for unvaxed. If you believed this lie .. you would be the majority.
The question is .. now knowing there is a lie .."lying" in the numbers and the narrative .. can you spot it ? since you know so much about "Cause and effect" and all that "Science stuff"

Tick Tick Tick .. did you spot the lie ? How about a Hint .. The number is correct "for some folks" but not for others.

There it is .. You guessed it .. or did you ? The number does not apply to healthy people. Yes .. if you have 3 comorbs and have immune deficiencies .. and/or highly pneumonia succeptible - the number applies to you .. but not to the vast majority of the unvaxed... The idea that these folks have 7 times greater chance of dying/hitting the ICU .. is a Lie ... generalization fallacy - and pure bad science - bad statistics.

So .. you been lied to .. The Truth can be found here

 

You do realise don’t you that we classify anaphylaxis as a serious event and that can be triggered by ANYTHING. Even fainting can be classified as a “serious side effect” because every incident requires ambulance attendance even of it is just some young previously cocky male taking a good look at a needle.

So, without a list of what is and what is not considered “serious” you attempt to spread misinformation is just that

 

You do not have “proof”

You have suppositions
You have surmises
You even have more than a few wild guesses

And one large very idiotic conspiracy theory

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-vaccine-idUSKBN2AM0SS

Martin is making good money from vaccine skepticism

 

So causal relationships always involve high proportions? Interesting.

And you invoke “science”?

To be clear, there is no evidence I’m aware of these vaccines cause cancer. But the idea causal relationships don’t exist under a certain proportional threshold is as unscientific as it gets.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about - and obviously did not go to the link

The Canadian "Side Effects following Vaccination site" gives this definition.

Further contrary to your "without a list" nonsense .. a list of exactly what the "Serious Adverse reactions were is given -how many of them is given - and you can break down by age group.

The proof was given - the data from the Canadian Gov't site .. you are the one engaging in "one large very idiotic conspiricy theory"

No supposition - no opinion. Just the calculations Data for Canada - https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

41,600 - Adverse effects .. 8600 of which were "Serious"

Canada Population 38 million ~ 80% vaxed = 30.4 million.

Do the math .. in overall population 1 in 730 with adverse effect - 1 in 3500 with "Serious" adverse effect.

Were is this "Idiotic Conspiracy" that you are accusing others of .. to the contrary it is you who is on the Anti Science side ..peddling the Biden-Fauci false narrative and lies..

 

1) Did you look up the disclaimer like I told you to? Answer: No.

2) How do you know the events you are talking about are 'directly linked'? Answer: No, you don't. You just insist they are while offering no evidence.

The rest of your post is a collection of rants and unsupported claims.

 

What a joke ...like asking how we know the earth is round.. denial of reality kind of stuff. - then talking about some disclaimer you don't bother to post ..

You cried "Prove it" -- and you were Given Data From A Gov't site which tracks Adverse reactions from the Vaccine.

Now you claim this data is not legitimate .. saying that the adverse reaction was not directly linked to the Vaccine. Prove your claim .. which is a joke .. you having no knowledge of the subject matter .. nor any idea of how data is analysed - or studies are conducted ..no idea of what corrolation vs causation is in a medical science context.

but do feel free to attemp to support your nonsense assertion .. which is that these adverse reactions were not linked to covid .. "directly linked being a nonsense term you don't understand" as nothing in this kind of medical science is "directly linked" .. showing you have no clue what you are talking about.

As far as "Science" is concerned - for any kind of statistical calculation -- the data listed as "Serious Adverse Effect" was not just assigned willy nilly. When you have a 21 year old healthy male - never had a condition in his life - show up with scarring of his liver that will be with him for the rest of his life - spent time in hospital - on morphine the chest pain was so intense - a month after taking the Vax .. you claim .. OHHHH .. Not Directly Linked. but yes .. in science .. we call this directly linked .. as close as you can get to causation in this realm of medical science .. a realm in which you have no understanding..

but fortunately .. Subject Matter Expert .. here at your service.

a random google search ..
Myocarditis occurring within 7 days after the second vaccine dose was most common in:

• Adolescent males ages 16 to 17: 105.9 per million doses of the Pfizer vaccine
• Adolescent males ages 12 to 15: 70.7 per million doses of the Pfizer vaccine
• Young men ages 18 to 24: 52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/96844

Now this date is somewhat crappy .. want per individual not per number of doses as did these folks have one dose or two ? which is the difference between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 5,000 males 16-17. also had to be within 7 days.. . so if had adverse reaction .. some of which appear much longer after the fact .. you are not counted.

but this matters not to your education .. as .. even with the most conservative number .. 1 in 10,000 .. is the number I gave you originally ..then calculated directly from the Canadian Data..

Don't let your boys take that Jab .. moral of the story .. unless they have weakened or compromized immune system .. in which case they could use a good nitro boost of anti-bodies .







.

 

After it became evident that the vaccine didn't really work as promised, I had someone tell me "well, no one ever said the vaccine would keep you from getting covid, just that it wouldn't be so bad." Even though that was a total lie! And the tape is still available to prove it. Joe Biden saying "if you get the shot, you won't get covid and you won't spread it."

And if Biden had come out and made a speech something like this: "We want to apologize to the American people. We were wrong. However, we still believe the shot is worth taking because it appears to minimize the effect of the disease. In the future, my administration will refrain from saying things that we don't know are true." If he had said that, I would respect him. But instead, he ignores the lie and doubles down on it.

 

.

 

You have a crystal ball where you can see 10 years from now? Most drugs have to undergo 10 to 15 years of long term testing BEFORE it's released to the public, why do you suppose they do that? The logical reason is that they are looking for long term side effects. Since the drug has already been distributed to the public, what are they supposed to do when they find out some really bad news. Who knows, cover it up maybe so citizens that took the vaccine won't find out? The mRNA vaccines weren't supposed to alter human DNA, a Swedish study of the mRNA vaccines now shows it is converted into DNA in your liver. There's a reason for long term studies. Good luck!

 

My conclusions, the observation that the shots are bioweapons, is derived from the statements of many censored scientists, and common sense.

Some lack common sense.

 

now thats a familiar tune from our gov.
I remember that too, his claim that you wont get the virus if you get vax'd the funny thing is that what the vax does. Its gives you thr virus in a weakened state along with antibodies that supposedly are going to be powerful enough to fight it off for you.

You make a great point because I have heard of so many people that were perfectly healthy, young people that are now going to the hospital in ambulances with heart disorders!

 

I wonder what the average lifespan will end up years down the road between those who got and didn't get the "vaccine?"