What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

I have a theory

OP
Ziggy

Ziggy

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
592
Reaction score
600
Points
483
So this is what bothers me. I will highlight the parts that catch my attention for my theory:

Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of Unprecedented Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following. 1.First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent 3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market 4.First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction 5.First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text) 6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths 7.First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 40vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations. The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data releasedto the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna


So if it takes at least 12.5 years to devekop an unprecedented vaccine, How is it they were able to market this in 2 years?
And my theory would be, that at the same time they were experimenting vith this new unprecedented virus, they also were creating an unprecedented vaccine.

Which means if that is the case, they knew the risks and covered their own azzes by creating a cure for themselves if it ever got loose.
But like I said..
This is just my theory.

Thank You for sharing LordBrownTrout

Hugs
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
23,310
Reaction score
3,926
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Hello, I am new to the forum.
Just getting my feet wet figuring out how to get around to various threads.
Nice to meet you.

I have a theory about these vaccines.
A lot of people here can agree that this virus was a planned event from somewhere back in 2014 or even before that.
Information is coming out in emails and other documents able to prove that money and actions were taken to produce a virus that was animal to human transmissable.
Somehow this virus escaped. Uninentionall, intentionally isn't part of my theory.
Regardless how it escaped,
wouldn't you think the ones creating it in the first place would have a "system" in place, let's say a vaccine just incase it ever did get loose?
Now most vaccines take years to experiment with. What is the least damage a vaccine can do to counter the effects of a virus getting loose.

Enter Warp Speed.

I don't know how many are familiar with the Georgia Guidestones and it's 10 commandments for an ecollogically green new agenda world order 2030. But it's out there. And the very first commandment on the list is to maintain population no more than 500 million people.
There are over 7 billion people on the planet. That means some 6.5 billion have to go.

What if there was already a supply of let's say 500 million vaccines ready to roll out if and when this virus ever escaped?
Who would recieve the first vaccines?
Why the people who created them, funded them, were aware of them first.
Then the people in your closest circle of family and friends.
Then the people that would care for your food and your health.
In other words, frontline workers.

Perhaps that is where the line would have been drawn, except... they got caught. And because they got caught, these same vaccines were then given to those who would be most affected by the virus.. the 6.5 billion left out of the equation.
The elderly, the sick, the compromised...

Every medicine has it's almost endless list of side effects. And not everyone reacts to medicine or vaccines in the same way.
Some people get very ill, some diasabled, and some die. Even an aspirin may kill someone if their body can't handle it.

Now we have two opposing views. Those that say take it no matter the cost and those that say don't take it no matter the cost.
This division between the people.. who does it benefit? Surely not the people. It benefits those who originally would have hoarded the cure for themselves.
Remember when Harris said.. If Trump has a vaccine I'm not taking it?
This was the origen of doubt being placed in the mind to take something they had planned to be only for themselves.
When Trump started pushing the vaccine, many became suspicious because we know he is usually an anti-vaxxer.
So why the change of heart?

Then the push for every human being on the planet to get vaxxed. Pushing it, bribing for it, non-stop advertisements, incentives.
Which only caused more confusion. Fear on one side saying run go get it, and the other side saying run as far away as you can.
Crazy isn't it?

I don't think the so-called scientist actually knew what the results of the virus would be . How many it would affect, what age groups, what demographics. They just knew some people were going to die. And they knew regardless how it turned out, they already had a vaccine waiting in the wings for those they chose most worthy to get it.

I'm not a vaxxer, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. Frankly I don't care what side you decide is best for you. That's your choice. And this is America. And we still have the freedom to choose. so far..

This is just a theory..
Again nice to meet you,
Thank you for a space to speak my thoughts.
May you all stay healthy, wealthy and wise, while we all traverse the matrix of this thing we call life.
Hugs
Although China did not share all the genetic sequencing up front right away, by the time they did release this to medical researchers across countries worldwide, that starting point was still fast enough for artificial antigens to be produced in this short timeframe.

One research group in the Woodlands North of Houston had an artificial prototype in a matter of weeks, which then just needed to be expedited through test runs.


The REAL shortcut was taken in only testing tens of thousands of people, excluding any testing on pregnant women, and just rushing these experimental vaccines through.

But given the advances in genetic sequencing, all it took was China releasing the sequence they did capture from the Wuhan strain (and from there 8 more, then 30 were identified).

It isn't that time consuming to artificially match the sequences.

What takes the most time, and which govt allowed to be bypassed, was the longer controlled testing that was rushed.
 
Last edited:

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
23,310
Reaction score
3,926
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
A lot of people here can agree that this virus was a planned event from somewhere back in 2014 or even before that.
Yes, a lot of crazy people.
I keep hoping that's just here, and most of the rest of the world is sane. But lately, I'm not sure.
Everyone was already entrenched in biases. This just brought that out and made them worse. Not just 2 sides, but 3 in each issue. So it produced a media traffic jam gridlock.
 

Attachments

  • VENN chart 3.jpg
    VENN chart 3.jpg
    105.5 KB · Views: 9

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
34,280
Reaction score
13,824
Points
1,590
Location
South Texas Republic
So this is what bothers me. I will highlight the parts that catch my attention for my theory:

Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of Unprecedented Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following. 1.First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent 3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market 4.First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction 5.First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text) 6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths 7.First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 40vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations. The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data releasedto the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna


So if it takes at least 12.5 years to devekop an unprecedented vaccine, How is it they were able to market this in 2 years?
And my theory would be, that at the same time they were experimenting vith this new unprecedented virus, they also were creating an unprecedented vaccine.

Which means if that is the case, they knew the risks and covered their own azzes by creating a cure for themselves if it ever got loose.
But like I said..
This is just my theory.

Thank You for sharing LordBrownTrout

Hugs

Welcome, ziggy. I've asked those same questions for 8 months, especially the fact that it usually takes 8-12 years of clinical trials before it is brought to market, but very few care and are willing to participate in this experiment despite the glaring red flags. Ultimately, its each person's decision. The studies and facts about these new technologies, mRNA, are out there for all to see despite the massive censorship by the networks, government, tech, and media.
 
OP
Ziggy

Ziggy

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
592
Reaction score
600
Points
483
So this is what bothers me. I will highlight the parts that catch my attention for my theory:

Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of Unprecedented Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following. 1.First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent 3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market 4.First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction 5.First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text) 6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths 7.First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 40vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations. The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data releasedto the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna


So if it takes at least 12.5 years to devekop an unprecedented vaccine, How is it they were able to market this in 2 years?
And my theory would be, that at the same time they were experimenting vith this new unprecedented virus, they also were creating an unprecedented vaccine.

Which means if that is the case, they knew the risks and covered their own azzes by creating a cure for themselves if it ever got loose.
But like I said..
This is just my theory.

Thank You for sharing LordBrownTrout

Hugs

Welcome, ziggy. I've asked those same questions for 8 months, especially the fact that it usually takes 8-12 years of clinical trials before it is brought to market, but very few care and are willing to participate in this experiment despite the glaring red flags. Ultimately, its each person's decision. The studies and facts about these new technologies, mRNA, are out there for all to see despite the massive censorship by the networks, government, tech, and media.
They have overriden reason with fear.

Who benefits the most?
The ones bringing it to market.
And I'm assuming here.. ass u me I know..anywho
That all the media and cdc, who, nih, hollywood, any who are driving this fear, are making a pretty good cut.

It always comes back to money and power.

My dad (86) recieved the pfizer shots back in march. He had no adverse reactions. We also believe he had this virus back in late December early January which knocked him off his feet for 3 weeks. And has fully recovered, the best an 86 year old can that is.
His girl (74) also had the virus. Recovered. And had both Maderna shots. She had symptoms of soreness in the shoulder, fatigue,
and was bedridden for a couple days. But is doing fine. She has more energy than me and I am (56) ,

That's only 3 months ago. I'm more concerned with the long-term effects.
Fertility, modified genes, birth defects, etc..
These will take years perhaps generations to find out if there are any long lasting injuries.

But hey, I smoke cigarettes. Been smoking since I was 10.
I still remember the Marlboro man and doctors recommending Camels or Pall Malls or Lucky Strikes.
Then one day.. There is this disclaimer on the package. Cancerous, interfere with pregnancy. heart disease.. etc.

But it was safe, and now it's not.
How many years did it take to prove smoking was detrimental to your health?
How many lobbyists has to fight for or against labeling?
How much money was poured into both sides advertisements?

Now it's menthol they're going after. It never ends.
They don't really care if you smoke or not. It's how much money can they get for "programs" and "advertisements"
the salaries of administrators for these programs..

So maybe 10 years from now, or sooner, we'll have a better advetisement about these vaccines.
They sure are pushing the pro's right now.
It's like waving to the Marlboro man all over again.

Thank You
Hugs
 

LordBrownTrout

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
34,280
Reaction score
13,824
Points
1,590
Location
South Texas Republic
So this is what bothers me. I will highlight the parts that catch my attention for my theory:

Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of Unprecedented Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following. 1.First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent 3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market 4.First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction 5.First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text) 6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths 7.First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 40vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations. The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data releasedto the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna


So if it takes at least 12.5 years to devekop an unprecedented vaccine, How is it they were able to market this in 2 years?
And my theory would be, that at the same time they were experimenting vith this new unprecedented virus, they also were creating an unprecedented vaccine.

Which means if that is the case, they knew the risks and covered their own azzes by creating a cure for themselves if it ever got loose.
But like I said..
This is just my theory.

Thank You for sharing LordBrownTrout

Hugs

Welcome, ziggy. I've asked those same questions for 8 months, especially the fact that it usually takes 8-12 years of clinical trials before it is brought to market, but very few care and are willing to participate in this experiment despite the glaring red flags. Ultimately, its each person's decision. The studies and facts about these new technologies, mRNA, are out there for all to see despite the massive censorship by the networks, government, tech, and media.
They have overriden reason with fear.

Who benefits the most?
The ones bringing it to market.
And I'm assuming here.. ass u me I know..anywho
That all the media and cdc, who, nih, hollywood, any who are driving this fear, are making a pretty good cut.

It always comes back to money and power.

My dad (86) recieved the pfizer shots back in march. He had no adverse reactions. We also believe he had this virus back in late December early January which knocked him off his feet for 3 weeks. And has fully recovered, the best an 86 year old can that is.
His girl (74) also had the virus. Recovered. And had both Maderna shots. She had symptoms of soreness in the shoulder, fatigue,
and was bedridden for a couple days. But is doing fine. She has more energy than me and I am (56) ,

That's only 3 months ago. I'm more concerned with the long-term effects.
Fertility, modified genes, birth defects, etc..
These will take years perhaps generations to find out if there are any long lasting injuries.

But hey, I smoke cigarettes. Been smoking since I was 10.
I still remember the Marlboro man and doctors recommending Camels or Pall Malls or Lucky Strikes.
Then one day.. There is this disclaimer on the package. Cancerous, interfere with pregnancy. heart disease.. etc.

But it was safe, and now it's not.
How many years did it take to prove smoking was detrimental to your health?
How many lobbyists has to fight for or against labeling?
How much money was poured into both sides advertisements?

Now it's menthol they're going after. It never ends.
They don't really care if you smoke or not. It's how much money can they get for "programs" and "advertisements"
the salaries of administrators for these programs..

So maybe 10 years from now, or sooner, we'll have a better advetisement about these vaccines.
They sure are pushing the pro's right now.
It's like waving to the Marlboro man all over again.

Thank You
Hugs

I know several who had no reactions, several who had adverse reactions, and two people who died from taking the injection.
 
OP
Ziggy

Ziggy

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
592
Reaction score
600
Points
483
So this is what bothers me. I will highlight the parts that catch my attention for my theory:

Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of Unprecedented Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following. 1.First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent 3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market 4.First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction 5.First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text) 6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths 7.First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 40vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations. The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data releasedto the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna


So if it takes at least 12.5 years to devekop an unprecedented vaccine, How is it they were able to market this in 2 years?
And my theory would be, that at the same time they were experimenting vith this new unprecedented virus, they also were creating an unprecedented vaccine.

Which means if that is the case, they knew the risks and covered their own azzes by creating a cure for themselves if it ever got loose.
But like I said..
This is just my theory.

Thank You for sharing LordBrownTrout

Hugs

Welcome, ziggy. I've asked those same questions for 8 months, especially the fact that it usually takes 8-12 years of clinical trials before it is brought to market, but very few care and are willing to participate in this experiment despite the glaring red flags. Ultimately, its each person's decision. The studies and facts about these new technologies, mRNA, are out there for all to see despite the massive censorship by the networks, government, tech, and media.
They have overriden reason with fear.

Who benefits the most?
The ones bringing it to market.
And I'm assuming here.. ass u me I know..anywho
That all the media and cdc, who, nih, hollywood, any who are driving this fear, are making a pretty good cut.

It always comes back to money and power.

My dad (86) recieved the pfizer shots back in march. He had no adverse reactions. We also believe he had this virus back in late December early January which knocked him off his feet for 3 weeks. And has fully recovered, the best an 86 year old can that is.
His girl (74) also had the virus. Recovered. And had both Maderna shots. She had symptoms of soreness in the shoulder, fatigue,
and was bedridden for a couple days. But is doing fine. She has more energy than me and I am (56) ,

That's only 3 months ago. I'm more concerned with the long-term effects.
Fertility, modified genes, birth defects, etc..
These will take years perhaps generations to find out if there are any long lasting injuries.

But hey, I smoke cigarettes. Been smoking since I was 10.
I still remember the Marlboro man and doctors recommending Camels or Pall Malls or Lucky Strikes.
Then one day.. There is this disclaimer on the package. Cancerous, interfere with pregnancy. heart disease.. etc.

But it was safe, and now it's not.
How many years did it take to prove smoking was detrimental to your health?
How many lobbyists has to fight for or against labeling?
How much money was poured into both sides advertisements?

Now it's menthol they're going after. It never ends.
They don't really care if you smoke or not. It's how much money can they get for "programs" and "advertisements"
the salaries of administrators for these programs..

So maybe 10 years from now, or sooner, we'll have a better advetisement about these vaccines.
They sure are pushing the pro's right now.
It's like waving to the Marlboro man all over again.

Thank You
Hugs

I know several who had no reactions, several who had adverse reactions, and two people who died from taking the injection.
Every individual is a unique as their fingerprint or a snowflake.
No doubt there would be individual reactions.
The question remains..
seeing the virus has a 99.8% recovery rate. Does the risk outweigh the cost?
How many would die if not taking it vs. how many will die if they do?
I suppose that is yet to be seen.

But like they catagorized almost every death in the US as covid related, they are now denying any deaths related to the vaccine.
Follow the money..
HUGS
 
OP
Ziggy

Ziggy

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
592
Reaction score
600
Points
483

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
23,310
Reaction score
3,926
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
So this is what bothers me. I will highlight the parts that catch my attention for my theory:

Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of Unprecedented Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following. 1.First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent 3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market 4.First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction 5.First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text) 6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths 7.First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 40vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations. The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data releasedto the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna


So if it takes at least 12.5 years to devekop an unprecedented vaccine, How is it they were able to market this in 2 years?
And my theory would be, that at the same time they were experimenting vith this new unprecedented virus, they also were creating an unprecedented vaccine.

Which means if that is the case, they knew the risks and covered their own azzes by creating a cure for themselves if it ever got loose.
But like I said..
This is just my theory.

Thank You for sharing LordBrownTrout

Hugs

Welcome, ziggy. I've asked those same questions for 8 months, especially the fact that it usually takes 8-12 years of clinical trials before it is brought to market, but very few care and are willing to participate in this experiment despite the glaring red flags. Ultimately, its each person's decision. The studies and facts about these new technologies, mRNA, are out there for all to see despite the massive censorship by the networks, government, tech, and media.
They have overriden reason with fear.

Who benefits the most?
The ones bringing it to market.
And I'm assuming here.. ass u me I know..anywho
That all the media and cdc, who, nih, hollywood, any who are driving this fear, are making a pretty good cut.

It always comes back to money and power.

My dad (86) recieved the pfizer shots back in march. He had no adverse reactions. We also believe he had this virus back in late December early January which knocked him off his feet for 3 weeks. And has fully recovered, the best an 86 year old can that is.
His girl (74) also had the virus. Recovered. And had both Maderna shots. She had symptoms of soreness in the shoulder, fatigue,
and was bedridden for a couple days. But is doing fine. She has more energy than me and I am (56) ,

That's only 3 months ago. I'm more concerned with the long-term effects.
Fertility, modified genes, birth defects, etc..
These will take years perhaps generations to find out if there are any long lasting injuries.

But hey, I smoke cigarettes. Been smoking since I was 10.
I still remember the Marlboro man and doctors recommending Camels or Pall Malls or Lucky Strikes.
Then one day.. There is this disclaimer on the package. Cancerous, interfere with pregnancy. heart disease.. etc.

But it was safe, and now it's not.
How many years did it take to prove smoking was detrimental to your health?
How many lobbyists has to fight for or against labeling?
How much money was poured into both sides advertisements?

Now it's menthol they're going after. It never ends.
They don't really care if you smoke or not. It's how much money can they get for "programs" and "advertisements"
the salaries of administrators for these programs..

So maybe 10 years from now, or sooner, we'll have a better advetisement about these vaccines.
They sure are pushing the pro's right now.
It's like waving to the Marlboro man all over again.

Thank You
Hugs

I know several who had no reactions, several who had adverse reactions, and two people who died from taking the injection.
Every individual is a unique as their fingerprint or a snowflake.
No doubt there would be individual reactions.
The question remains..
seeing the virus has a 99.8% recovery rate. Does the risk outweigh the cost?
How many would die if not taking it vs. how many will die if they do?
I suppose that is yet to be seen.

But like they catagorized almost every death in the US as covid related, they are now denying any deaths related to the vaccine.
Follow the money..
HUGS
Here is another major area that isn't properly researched or represented in the media:

The worst problem isn't the survival or death rates.

It's the LONG periods of unpredictable and burdensome symptoms and treatment and recovery, which are exhausting both patients and families emotionally and straining medical staff and health care resources.

It is the RESPONSE to the virus, not just the deaths by it, that are wreaking havoc economically, emotionally and mentally, and politically on people's nerves and on social and state and national stability.

Ziggy even when people survive
1. They can have chronic conditions of such severe neurological, heart, or nerve damage, some of them cannot return to work but face lifelong medical costs which push liberals to demand govt health care while conservatives fight this by arguing it isn't proven.
2. The amount of medical resources and manpower it took to keep them from relapsing beyond the point of no return is not sustainable.

Again, this is what REALLY got doctors pitted up against liberal agenda and narrative: Doctors in New York and in Houston (also France and Singapore) argued early on and effectively used HCQ with blood thinners, steroids and or other supplements to deal with clotting and side symptoms of the virus to CUT risks and rates of longer recovery and keep people from NEEDING ICU and supervised hospitalization.

Because this was not practiced, we cannot know or see the real numbers of extended hospitalizations that could be prevented.

The response to vaccines is equally a mixed bag that can't be fully verified.

Just an ongoing experiment.

The good news is some of the longhaul Covid sufferers also get relief from taking the vaccine that can wipe out the symptoms in SOME people.

In short, the virus is unnatural and so is the vaccine. Both can produce longterm side effects in people, or people can die from either. The US having a population of people who live longer despite heart conditions, overweight or diabetic / high sugar conditions, will also see more men than women die and more people die who don't look like they have underlying conditions, because high sugar isn't counted as a medical condition in our culture.

Both the UNNATURAL virus and vaccine present risks, and people need to make their choice.

As for the politics and economics, the health care cooperative systems for DEMOCRATIZING medical associations and contract networks per district are the snartest way I found to reorganize resources so people can pay directly for the medical policies, providers and choices they want. I personally know the founder and his Libertarian lawyer friend who helped set this up to achieve both goals, both sustainable health care at cost AND getting govt out of health care and health care out of govt by cooperatives paying doctors more, while still cutting costs to consumers in half plus wiping out all deductibles copays and exclusions for preexisting because all conditions are covered without exception due to money saved this way.

Ziggy if you would like to talk with these founders personally, I planned to set up conferences with state and party leaders anyway on solutions to separate and democratize districts by party precinct instead of Texas threats to secede. We have in our laws the provision to split into 5 states, but I will propose a council of 5 parties that advises and mediates between political parties and the media. We can resolve the medical representation issues, an take on prolife and prochoice policies as well to separate funding by party.

Let me know if you want to get involved

Dr. Joseph Varron is the HCQ doctor in Houston who fought off the FDA.
Donald McCormick and Bret Schulte are the leading consultants at www.pdmpwebsite.org

We ge these men in the media, the BS will stop. Choose your own flavor of BS but pay for your own local policies with those who like the same BS and don't impose it on others choosing different BS to pay for. None of it is proven. All faith based, so let people pay for their own party policies and benefits thereunder. Their beliefs, their choice. Period.
 
Last edited:
OP
Ziggy

Ziggy

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2021
Messages
592
Reaction score
600
Points
483
So this is what bothers me. I will highlight the parts that catch my attention for my theory:

Vaccine Development
Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of Unprecedented Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following. 1.First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent 3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market 4.First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction 5.First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text) 6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths 7.First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 40vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)Figure 1.Launching innovative vaccines is costly and time-consuming, with a low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines (adapted from Young et al, 2018).With that in mind, two years later we have an unprecedented vaccine with reports of 90-95% efficacy (Baden et al. 2020). In fact, these reports of efficacy are the primary motivation behind public support of vaccination adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). This defies not only predictions, but also expectations. The British Medical Journal(BMJ) may be the only prominent conventional medical publication that has given a platform to voices calling attention to concerns around the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. There are indeed reasons to believe that estimations of efficacy are in need of re-evaluation. Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the BMJ, has published two important analyses (Doshi 2021a, 2021b) of the raw data releasedto the FDA by the vaccine makers, data that are the basis for the claim of high efficacy. Unfortunately, these were published to the BMJ’s blog and not in its peer-reviewed content. Doshi, though, has published a study regarding vaccine efficacy and the questionable utility of vaccine trial endpoints in BMJ’s peer reviewed content (Doshi 2020).A central aspect of Doshi’s critique of the preliminary efficacy data is the exclusion of over 3400 “suspected COVID-19 cases” that were not included in the interim analysis of the Pfizer vaccine data submitted to the FDA. Further, a low-but-non-trivial percent of individuals in both Moderna


So if it takes at least 12.5 years to devekop an unprecedented vaccine, How is it they were able to market this in 2 years?
And my theory would be, that at the same time they were experimenting vith this new unprecedented virus, they also were creating an unprecedented vaccine.

Which means if that is the case, they knew the risks and covered their own azzes by creating a cure for themselves if it ever got loose.
But like I said..
This is just my theory.

Thank You for sharing LordBrownTrout

Hugs

Welcome, ziggy. I've asked those same questions for 8 months, especially the fact that it usually takes 8-12 years of clinical trials before it is brought to market, but very few care and are willing to participate in this experiment despite the glaring red flags. Ultimately, its each person's decision. The studies and facts about these new technologies, mRNA, are out there for all to see despite the massive censorship by the networks, government, tech, and media.
They have overriden reason with fear.

Who benefits the most?
The ones bringing it to market.
And I'm assuming here.. ass u me I know..anywho
That all the media and cdc, who, nih, hollywood, any who are driving this fear, are making a pretty good cut.

It always comes back to money and power.

My dad (86) recieved the pfizer shots back in march. He had no adverse reactions. We also believe he had this virus back in late December early January which knocked him off his feet for 3 weeks. And has fully recovered, the best an 86 year old can that is.
His girl (74) also had the virus. Recovered. And had both Maderna shots. She had symptoms of soreness in the shoulder, fatigue,
and was bedridden for a couple days. But is doing fine. She has more energy than me and I am (56) ,

That's only 3 months ago. I'm more concerned with the long-term effects.
Fertility, modified genes, birth defects, etc..
These will take years perhaps generations to find out if there are any long lasting injuries.

But hey, I smoke cigarettes. Been smoking since I was 10.
I still remember the Marlboro man and doctors recommending Camels or Pall Malls or Lucky Strikes.
Then one day.. There is this disclaimer on the package. Cancerous, interfere with pregnancy. heart disease.. etc.

But it was safe, and now it's not.
How many years did it take to prove smoking was detrimental to your health?
How many lobbyists has to fight for or against labeling?
How much money was poured into both sides advertisements?

Now it's menthol they're going after. It never ends.
They don't really care if you smoke or not. It's how much money can they get for "programs" and "advertisements"
the salaries of administrators for these programs..

So maybe 10 years from now, or sooner, we'll have a better advetisement about these vaccines.
They sure are pushing the pro's right now.
It's like waving to the Marlboro man all over again.

Thank You
Hugs

I know several who had no reactions, several who had adverse reactions, and two people who died from taking the injection.
Every individual is a unique as their fingerprint or a snowflake.
No doubt there would be individual reactions.
The question remains..
seeing the virus has a 99.8% recovery rate. Does the risk outweigh the cost?
How many would die if not taking it vs. how many will die if they do?
I suppose that is yet to be seen.

But like they catagorized almost every death in the US as covid related, they are now denying any deaths related to the vaccine.
Follow the money..
HUGS
Here is another major area that isn't properly researched or represented in the media:

The worst problem isn't the survival or death rates.

It's the LONG periods of unpredictable and burdensome symptoms and treatment and recovery, which are exhausting both patients and families emotionally and straining medical staff and health care resources.

It is the RESPONSE to the virus, not just the deaths by it, that are wreaking havoc economically, emotionally and mentally, and politically on people's nerves and on social and state and national stability.

Ziggy even when people survive
1. They can have chronic conditions of such severe neurological, heart, or nerve damage, some of them cannot return to work but face lifelong medical costs which push liberals to demand govt health care while conservatives fight this by arguing it isn't proven.
2. The amount of medical resources and manpower it took to keep them from relapsing beyond the point of no return is not sustainable.

Again, this is what REALLY got doctors pitted up against liberal agenda and narrative: Doctors in New York and in Houston (also France and Singapore) argued early on and effectively used HCQ with blood thinners, steroids and or other supplements to deal with clotting and side symptoms of the virus to CUT risks and rates of longer recovery and keep people from NEEDING ICU and supervised hospitalization.

Because this was not practiced, we cannot know or see the real numbers of extended hospitalizations that could be prevented.

The response to vaccines is equally a mixed bag that can't be fully verified.

Just an ongoing experiment.

The good news is some of the longhaul Covid sufferers also get relief from taking the vaccine that can wipe out the symptoms in SOME people.

In short, the virus is unnatural and so is the vaccine. Both can produce longterm side effects in people, or people can die from either. The US having a population of people who live longer despite heart conditions, overweight or diabetic / high sugar conditions, will also see more men than women die and more people die who don't look like they have underlying conditions, because high sugar isn't counted as a medical condition in our culture.

Both the UNNATURAL virus and vaccine present risks, and people need to make their choice.

As for the politics and economics, the health care cooperative syst
I don't suppose all the hyper fear tactics on both sides is helping either.
Emotionally draining even trying to defend why or why not, what may or may not happen..
Stress is the #1 killer.
And it's being pushed from all sides.

It's diabolical evil if you ask me.
Live and let live is my motto.
Thank You
Hugs
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,789
Reaction score
4,736
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Not suspicious, the vaccine works on the spike protein. The Mengla filovirus (ebola-Marburg family) is Chinese. There is likely already a vaccine for it. Mengla virus occurs in the same county that links the last poached Indochinese tiger, Panthera tigris corbetti. Humans gave COVID-19 to the Bronx Zoo tiger. There are pictures of the dead caused by COVID-19 in Brooklyn.

{...
Atiger at the Bronx Zoo in New York City has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 in people, according to the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Veterinary Services Laboratories. The big cat is thought to be the first animal known to be infected with the virus in the United States.

While other animals, all pets, have tested positive for the presence of the virus, experts say there have been no reported cases of animals spreading the virus to humans.

The tiger was tested for the virus after several of the zoo’s lions and tigers started showing signs of respiratory illness, according to the USDA. The agency expects all of the big cats to recover.
...}
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top