Burial costs covered for Canadians killed by approved vaccines

[revelarts]

Well, I guess we can both have our own intuitive reviews but I'll go with my intuition until whatever shows me otherwise based on my subjective opinion on the quality of what I've seen. But without getting on the merry-go-round again I feel the need to ask; Do you think the vaccines are a net positive, net negative, or inconsequential in treating COVID?

Just speaking of the vaccines themselves (not the politics around them)
I think Long Term 3-7 years they will be shown to be a net negative.
For people under 50, i think they are a net negative RIGHT NOW.
For people under 25 I think they are criminal.

And one reason I start it as a negative, is the fact (supposed) that there are more covid deaths U.S. AFTER the vaccine than before.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...-trump-1661528
so the "vaccine" didn't SLOW anything and the side effects for many are worse than the disease.

As for the political actions surrounding covid1984 it's a complete negative.

FJ Have you watched the video links i posted above?
whats you take on what's presented.

[fj1200]

Just speaking of the vaccines themselves (not the politics around them)
I think Long Term 3-7 years they will be shown to be a net negative.
For people under 50, i think they are a net negative RIGHT NOW.
For people under 25 I think they are criminal.

And one reason I start it as a negative, is the fact (supposed) that there are more covid deaths U.S. AFTER the vaccine than before.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...-trump-1661528
so the "vaccine" didn't SLOW anything and the side effects for many are worse than the disease.

As for the political actions surrounding covid1984 it's a complete negative.

FJ Have you watched the video links i posted above?
whats you take on what's presented.

Well I disagree with most of that. I don't think other vaccines are a net negative so why would this be the first one (I'm sure I'll be peppered with exceptions). The fact that there are more covid deaths now doesn't really speak to the vaccines. There's plenty more that it can speak to than just how many people are vaccinated.

I don't watch videos.

[revelarts]

Well I disagree with most of that. I don't think other vaccines are a net negative so why would this be the first one (I'm sure I'll be peppered with exceptions).

The fact that you already know that there are exceptions goes to show your logic is faulty
Plus The label "vaccine" doesn't confer any efficacy or safety.
Just because one drug works and is safe doesn't mean all others have the same record.
Each drug stands on it's own.
The human body doesn't give a d@mn what label is on the package.

The fact that there are more covid deaths now doesn't really speak to the vaccines.
There's plenty more that it can speak to than just how many people are vaccinated.

"doesn't speak to the vaccines." ? really?
so the fact that when there was NO vaccine their were LESS Covid deaths, and with Vaccines there are MORE Covid Death...
means nothing.
We aren't supposed to draw any conclusions from that as to the vaccines efficacy?
Seriously?

We are to ,by default, attribute MORE deaths FROM covid to other factors than a crap vaccine? And give the vaccines the benny of the doubt?
why?

I don't watch videos.

Then your opinions and conclusions are far less informed than they could be on the matters here that you are trying to correct/influence others about.

[fj1200]

The fact that you already know that there are exceptions goes to show your logic is faulty
Plus The label "vaccine" doesn't confer any efficacy or safety.
Just because one drug works and is safe doesn't mean all others have the same record.
Each drug stands on it's own.
The human body doesn't give a d@mn what label is on the package.

Actually no. I'm well aware of vaccine horror stories but they're generally on initial roll out and not on the long term safety and effectiveness. Long-term problems do not tend to show up years after roll out.

"doesn't speak to the vaccines." ? really?
so the fact that when there was NO vaccine their were LESS Covid deaths, and with Vaccines there are MORE Covid Death...
means nothing.
We aren't supposed to draw any conclusions from that as to the vaccines efficacy?
Seriously?

We are to ,by default, attribute MORE deaths FROM covid to other factors than a crap vaccine? And give the vaccines the benny of the doubt?
why?

Correct. Unless one is to think that vaccines are magic they can't protect those who don't get it if the virus continues to spread. You don't want to draw conclusions from the outcomes of those who are vaccinated vs those who are not vaccinated. You're bound and determined to focus solely on a VAERS type list of horror stories without taking into account the whole picture. Does VAERS contain actual adverse effects of the vaccine? Undoubtedly. Does VAERS contain listings of supposed adverse effects that are not related to the vaccine? Undoubtedly.

Then your opinions and conclusions are far less informed than they could be on the matters here that you are trying to correct/influence others about.

Incorrect. Most videos I've gotten suckered into watching are rehashes of links that I've gotten suckered into reading. At least with reading I can move through it much faster and quickly identify and quote something that isn't correct so whoever linked me to it will know where my disagreement lies. If you can't link me to a text version then it's not worth the time.

[SassyLady]

Well I disagree with most of that. I don't think other vaccines are a net negative so why would this be the first one (I'm sure I'll be peppered with exceptions). The fact that there are more covid deaths now doesn't really speak to the vaccines. There's plenty more that it can speak to than just how many people are vaccinated.

I don't watch videos.

It is not the first.


https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-of-wild-virus

[SassyLady]

Well, I guess we can both have our own intuitive reviews but I'll go with my intuition until whatever shows me otherwise based on my subjective opinion on the quality of what I've seen. But without getting on the merry-go-round again I feel the need to ask; Do you think the vaccines are a net positive, net negative, or inconsequential in treating COVID?

Net negative for majority of those being forced to take it.

Covid is 98% survivable if in good health and able to treat with ivermectin and other supplements.

[fj1200]

It is not the first.


https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-of-wild-virus

It's not the first what?

While so-called vaccine-derived polio is a known risk, the emergence of these cases so soon after the announced eradication of wild polio in Africa is a setback.At issue is the fact that the oral polio vaccine – preferred in some places because of its ease of delivery and the lack of need for sterile syringes – uses an attenuated or weakened version of polio.
When a child receives the oral vaccine, the weakened virus replicates in the intestine, encouraging the production of antibodies, and can be present in excreta. In an area where there are high enough levels of immunity in the population, this usually does not present a problem, even if sanitation is poor.

Nice find but it's apparently not an unexpected risk for certain populations.

Net negative for majority of those being forced to take it.

Covid is 98% survivable if in good health and able to treat with ivermectin and other supplements.

Covid is more survivable when vaccinated. Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is a mass solution.

[SassyLady]

It's not the first what?



Nice find but it's apparently not an unexpected risk for certain populations.



Covid is more survivable when vaccinated. Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is a mass solution.

98% were surviving before the vaccine.

Ivermectin is cheap to produce and pharma doesn't make as much money as the vaccine.

[fj1200]

98% were surviving before the vaccine.

Ivermectin is cheap to produce and pharma doesn't make as much money as the vaccine.

Right. The money. Ivermectin is not a mass solution.

[SassyLady]

Right. The money. Ivermectin is not a mass solution.

Yes it is. India.

Rolling your eyes about life saving protocol is beyond silly.

[fj1200]

Yes it is. India.

Rolling your eyes about life saving protocol is beyond silly.

I rolled my eyes before I typed that.

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has removed usage of popular drugs Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) from the approved Covid-19 treatment guidelines.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/86469107.cms

Conclusions: In patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, a single oral administration of Ivermectin did not significantly increase either the negativity of RT-PCR or decline in viral load at day 5 of enrolment compared with placebo.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483029/

Authors' conclusions

Based on the current very low‐ to low‐certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID‐19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...5017.pub2/full



There is no evidence that it is a mass solution.

[revelarts]

Nice find but it's apparently not an unexpected risk for certain populations.

So they know it causes polio.
It's an unnecessary risk.
The problem is the assumption that everyone needs to get it.
when it's not a problem in population anymore. why ADD it?
would you give it to your kid seeing that's even without the vaccine it's extremely UNLIKELY that they'd get polio?

Covid is more survivable when vaccinated.

the numbers aren't bearing that out to any degree.
the number of deaths are MORE than before the vaccines came out.
And even with the reported numbers of vx to unvx deaths, they are only different in the SINGLE digits per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
the imagined benefit is not something that should rationally make anyone think the vaccines are a savior.
(especially since the head of the CDC has said most deaths are with those with 4 or more co-morbidities)

In LA county CA there are over 800 thousand children between 5 and 11... unvaccinated.
But since the covid1984 outbreak ONE child in that age group has died.
what benefit is the vaccine for these children?
ONLY benefits the vaccine manufactures $$$ flow.
What risks to children? UNKNOWN long term... and short term KNOWN neurological problems, Gillian Barr, heart problems, seizures, blood clots, brain aneurysms etc etc etc and DEATH.
giving covid1984 vaccines to children is CRIMINAL

Right. The money. ...
Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is a mass solution.

Hows that Covid testing "MASS SOLUTION" going right now?
(mass formation?)

Look FJ, anything is "mass solution" if the-powers-that-be want it to be.
If they powers that be said everyone should drink ICE TEA the ice tea manufactures would crank out tea...

they've cranked out mask and vaccines like it's the savior but now they are ADMITTING that mask are crap.
And the efficacy of vaccines vs non vaccinated is MINOR at BEST.
What if the powers that be had encourage early treatment with options like ivermectin and other safe drugs?
(which drs around the world have used with success with the studies and living patients to prove it.)
Wouldn't we know if they were better than mask and "vaccines" by now?

But somehow "vaccines" made by Big Pharma drug companies, and tested ONLY by the drug companies in less than a year. Declared safe and effective by the same companies. Companies that don't want to release it's study info. The drug companies that won't sell the drugs without 100% immunity from liability is somehow the "reasonable" mass solution?
Does that make any sense at all...
Only if you're working for big pharma or simply have been mind whipped by 2 years of mass fear and mass propaganda?

[fj1200]

So they know it causes polio.
It's an unnecessary risk.
The problem is the assumption that everyone needs to get it.
when it's not a problem in population anymore. why ADD it?
would you give it to your kid seeing that's even without the vaccine it's extremely UNLIKELY that they'd get polio?

It's a horrible thing but it isn't a scenario that plays out in most of the world.

But in areas where there is both poor sanitation and a lack of general immunisation the virus can survive and circulate for months, mutating over time until it poses the same risk of paralysis-causing disease as wild polio.

the numbers aren't bearing that out to any degree.
the number of deaths are MORE than before the vaccines came out.
And even with the reported numbers of vx to unvx deaths, they are only different in the SINGLE digits per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
the imagined benefit is not something that should rationally make anyone think the vaccines are a savior.
(especially since the head of the CDC has said most deaths are with those with 4 or more co-morbidities)

In LA county CA there are over 800 thousand children between 5 and 11... unvaccinated.
But since the covid1984 outbreak ONE child in that age group has died.
what benefit is the vaccine for these children?
ONLY benefits the vaccine manufactures $$$ flow.
What risks to children? UNKNOWN long term... and short term KNOWN neurological problems, Gillian Barr, heart problems, seizures, blood clots, brain aneurysms etc etc etc and DEATH.
giving covid1984 vaccines to children is CRIMINAL

Sorry, but no.

• From Jan. 15, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021, unvaccinated people were 40 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people.
• From Sept. 4, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021, unvaccinated people were 20 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people.
• For both periods, the impact was strong across all age groups with a somewhat smaller protective effect in older adults at least 75 years old.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/...nation-status/

Hows th

at Covid testing "MASS SOLUTION" going right now?
(mass formation?)

Look FJ, anything is "mass solution" if the-powers-that-be want it to be.
If they powers that be said everyone should drink ICE TEA the ice tea manufactures would crank out tea...

they've cranked out mask and vaccines like it's the savior but now they are ADMITTING that mask are crap.
And the efficacy of vaccines vs non vaccinated is MINOR at BEST.
What if the powers that be had encourage early treatment with options like ivermectin and other safe drugs?
(which drs around the world have used with success with the studies and living patients to prove it.)
Wouldn't we know if they were better than mask and "vaccines" by now?

But somehow "vaccines" made by Big Pharma drug companies, and tested ONLY by the drug companies in less than a year. Declared safe and effective by the same companies. Companies that don't want to release it's study info. The drug companies that won't sell the drugs without 100% immunity from liability is somehow the "reasonable" mass solution?
Does that make any sense at all...
Only if you're working for big pharma or simply have been mind whipped by 2 years of mass fear and mass propaganda?

Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is. Based on what I posted earlier it doesn't appear Ivermectin is any solution. I know you don't like that the government gets to declare it. Vaccines are made by drug companies. Vaccines are tested by drug companies. The covid vaccine isn't really different. There are certainly other factors involved that I could agree with you on but you're immovable in your vaccine position that doesn't allow you go look at the vaccine in any other way.

[revelarts]

It's a horrible thing but it isn't a scenario that plays out in most of the world.


Sorry, but no.


https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/...nation-status/

Sorry but Yes.




SINGLE digit "benefit".
By the "official" numbers

Ivermectin is not a mass solution. The vaccine is.

Your statement is just a raw assertion.
You know very well that ANYthing the powers that be promote will BECOME a "mass solution", period. Despite it's level of effectiveness.
The only thing that would blind you to that fact is an overwhelming bias against anything other than what the MSM and gov't promotes.

But even if you can't get past that mindset, in general, simply Based on the above data per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND, the shots are not a 'mass solution' at all.

Based on what I posted earlier it doesn't appear Ivermectin is any solution.

based on what i and others have posted in several other thread show otherwise.
However some of the info is found in videos and audios of Drs and researchers and the research so you may be somewhat less informed than you could be.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...ght=ivermectin

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...ght=ivermectin

I know you don't like that the government gets to declare it. Vaccines are made by drug companies. Vaccines are tested by drug companies. The covid vaccine isn't really different. There are certainly other factors involved that I could agree with you on but you're immovable in your vaccine position that doesn't allow you go look at the vaccine in any other way.

I know you like the government telling you what you can and cannot take, and can and cannot do... (unless they tell biz what to do or tax the rich).
But believe it or not Ivermectin was made buy a drug company FJ, and approved 40 plus years ago by the gov't even. and has OFF label use. Just as 20+% of other gov't approved drugs are legally used off label.
and even though you assume I'm immovable on vaccines, you've presented no facts that would sway my POV.
All the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT. Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.

the vaccines don't stop transmission, they don't stop infection and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway, and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.

AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.

the case FOR these vaccines is WEAK at best. and that's based on the data I've seen. not some immovable POV.
But hey, If UNCENSORED data and debate were ALLOWED, maybe i'd get to see info that made your assertions seem reasonable, but at this point
after looking at the pros and cons, I see less and less to recommended covid1984 shots to anyone... except for the benefit of the drug companies and their share holders.
you don't happen to own or sell shares do you Fj?

[fj1200]

Sorry but Yes.




SINGLE digit "benefit".
By the "official" numbers

Sorry, "single digit benefit" with a distinct difference between those two numbers. For example there's a single digit difference between 1 and 9 but there's an 800% difference between the two numbers. Over 3 and under 1 is a not insignificant difference.

Your statement is just a raw assertion.
You know very well that ANYthing the powers that be promote will BECOME a "mass solution", period. Despite it's level of effectiveness.
The only thing that would blind you to that fact is an overwhelming bias against anything other than what the MSM and gov't promotes.

But even if you can't get past that mindset, in general, simply Based on the above data per ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND, the shots are not a 'mass solution' at all.

I was presented with a raw assertion that India is on the Ivermectin bandwagon and based on what I found it is no longer true if it ever was. I also quoted some studies which showed no statistical difference in treatment outcomes with Ivermectin and without. So my raw assertion stands along with the fact that there is a larger number of obese in this country who probably insist that drinking Diet Coke gives them a positive outcome. So, to get those people, and the mass population, to adopt Ivermectin over a two shot vaccine is a fools errand.

based on what i and others have posted in several other thread show otherwise.
However some of the info is found in videos and audios of Drs and researchers and the research so you may be somewhat less informed than you could be.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...ght=ivermectin

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...ght=ivermectin

Show me some links to actual studies please. I've seen plenty of crap in video form on the internet.

I know you like the government telling you what you can and cannot take, and can and cannot do... (unless they tell biz what to do or tax the rich).
But believe it or not Ivermectin was made buy a drug company FJ, and approved 40 plus years ago by the gov't even. and has OFF label use. Just as 20+% of other gov't approved drugs are legally used off label.
and even though you assume I'm immovable on vaccines, you've presented no facts that would sway my POV.
All the "vaccines" are New and NO ONE has a CLUE of their long term side effects. this is a FACT.
All the "vaccines" are displaying horrible side effects in all age groups many have been downplayed, dismissed and censored. this is a FACT.
The vaccine risk to benefits ratio for people under 40 is low to ZERO. this is a FACT. Especially in the light of the unknown long term side effects and known(admitted) heart issues.

the vaccines don't stop transmission, they don't stop infection and they are low benefit since MOST people, 98+%, recover anyway, and for the percentage of those it might help the help is LOW.

AND there are other safer treatments AND things like raising vitamin D levels and lowering body weight will lower chances of hospitalizations and death ...for the masses.... by a greater degree.

the case FOR these vaccines is WEAK at best. and that's based on the data I've seen. not some immovable POV.
But hey, If UNCENSORED data and debate were ALLOWED, maybe i'd get to see info that made your assertions seem reasonable, but at this point
after looking at the pros and cons, I see less and less to recommended covid1984 shots to anyone... except for the benefit of the drug companies and their share holders.
you don't happen to own or sell shares do you Fj?

How did you know that I simultaneously own and work for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen selling my wares to any unsuspecting independent thinker getting them on the vaccine bandwagon with the knowledge that I'm protected from lawsuits from aforementioned suckers!!!!!!!!!!! BwahhahahahahaajrWE;KJHFASD'LK.

Believe what you like. Each of your points can be, and have been, refuted or at the very least aren't as cut and dry as you want them to be. So go ahead and get on your bandwagon of getting everyone on a diet. Because that'll work.