What happened to the Party of Worker’s rights?

I have no idea what you consider holding China accountable and apparently neither do you.

It wasn't about what I considered holding them accountable, the question was directed to you, yet you won't answer. I already know the answer, you do not hold them accountable at all, only conservatives who refuse to fall in line to what you Bolsheviks demand are accountable. You could care less about any other part of it, that's been your one and only focus on this board.
 
It wasn't about what I considered holding them accountable, the question was directed to you, yet you won't answer. I already know the answer, you do not hold them accountable at all, only conservatives who refuse to fall in line to what you Bolsheviks demand are accountable. You could care less about any other part of it, that's been your one and only focus on this board.
So you don't want to hold China accountable. Got it.

If you did you'd then my question would be a lay up for you. It's not.
 
It wasn't about what I considered holding them accountable, the question was directed to you, yet you won't answer. I already know the answer, you do not hold them accountable at all, only conservatives who refuse to fall in line to what you Bolsheviks demand are accountable. You could care less about any other part of it, that's been your one and only focus on this board.
Because They did it in ignorance, not after full knowledge of the fact.
 
So you don't want to hold China accountable. Got it.

If you did you'd then my question would be a lay up for you. It's not.

It was my question first, so guess by your definition, you don't want to hold them accountable, which I've already established.

Should have been a lay up for you as well, but it wasn't, was it?
 
It is true and the numbers are most likely under represented.

The number of people affected by the virus isn't something I think is really that important to the topic at hand. Did I disagree with you about the numbers? No, I was pointing out that there are other things causing death that are still worse than the virus. Whether or not the true mortality numbers are over-represented or under-represented isn't the issue.

What did the CDC predict? Can you post a link to it?
They predicted millions dead within the first few months. That's what started the whole scare almost two years ago. It would have been a real disaster if it had played out the way they predicted, but it did not. Don't get me wrong, it sucks having a virus that can cause this much harm, but it's no where NEAR as bad that we should continue to give up all other freedoms. Here is a link that talks about those original predictions from the CDC:


What did my hospital do? What?

All hospitals across the country were supposed to be preparing extra capacity to take care of the projected sick. If they were over-run by patients and could not provide adequate care, it means they (or Mississippi government leaders) failed to take advantage of the shut down period back in 2020. I'm pretty sure you remember the time line of those shut-downs, so I don't think I need to provide a link. Also, it may be likely that they failed to heed advice about using life saving hydroxy-chloroquine and ivermectin, which has been used to great success as early as mid to late 2020. This was a political decision to ignore those treatment options in favor of ONLY waiting for a vaccine.

Oh, that's the problem? Leadership didn't pop treatments out of their asses that were affordable? Sure would have been nice to get an injection of something that didn't cost anything to the patient. Well, maybe next time.

As stated above, Ivermectin seems to be an effective preventative treatment as well as good early intervention treatment before symptoms are in advanced stages. Not perfect, but far less expensive. There isn't any excuse NOT to use this instead of or even along with the mRNA gene therapy "vaccine" or the monoclonal anti-bodies (after infection).



Why do you want to compare us to Peru? Genuinely not sure of what your point is and I'm not so sure you are either.

Since you want everything handed to you without doing your own research, I'll explain: I'm comparing USA to Peru because their doctors had the good sense to use the treatments available (above), or at least until their new president band it in favor of the more profitable new mRNA gene therapy treatments:

2021-10-20 Peru Daily Deaths with Notes.png

Vaccinations have been very effective where almost all deaths happening now are the unvaccinated. Not all, but nobody claimed the vaccines were 100% effective.

Vaccinations aren't even close to being effective at stopping the spread of the virus. It sounds like you are just regurgitating something they said on CBS news last night. Here in plain sight based on real facts taken from the best sources I have access to, is a picture of where my state is at 89% vaccinated: NO IMPROVEMENT IN STOPPING THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS AND EVEN WITH MONO-CLONAL ANTIBODY TREATMENT DEATHS ARE LITTLE CHANGED

2021-10-20 Vermont.png




It's also very safe but considering you probably listen to sources like openvaers who present data they either don't understand or purposefully lie about it.

You can choose to NOT believe openvaers if you want, however I personally know there is a lot of truth as I've buried 1 relative due to the vaccine, and only know of 1 relative that died due to them getting covid while they were in the hospital being treated for advanced kidney failure. I've also read countless first hand accounts of bad side effects from other sources, including this recent one which was also posted elsewhere:


and i don't think these are "fake" either:



Well, yes. Because you guys are morons. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

Sorry, but I hope you can open your eyes soon before they kill us all with the non-effective, un-safe, experimental gene therapy bull crap.

But again, I know I'm wasting my time because you're too closed minded to open your eyes and look at how and why your MSM buddies and politicians are lying to you.
 
It was my question first, so guess by your definition, you don't want to hold them accountable, which I've already established.

Should have been a lay up for you as well, but it wasn't, was it?

Regardless of what I want to do you should at least have some sort of opinion on it since you were the one trying to make a point. So, what is it?
 
All the unvaxxed are getting it worse now. It really could be, just the flu once you are vaxxed.
False. Here in the state with the lowest overall death rate compared to other US states (but still just average compared to the world as a whole), 56% of recent deaths were fully vaccinated, and some of the remaining covid deaths were partially vaccinated (although they didn't disclose the number of partially vaccinated...could be all of them). This is directly from the state department of health officials (And I give them much credit in seeming to give truthful information most of the time, even though the politicians don't pay much attention).

We also have a record number of people in the hospital and in the ICU, at the same time we lead the nation in percentage of vaccinated residents.

You better have a look at the facts before you keep repeating the mis-information you hear from the MSM.

Here is a link to a study that has been peer reviewed and published on many sites. It indicates there is small correlation between an INCREASED infection rate with INCREASED vaccination rate (See the line in Fig. 1):

 
The number of people affected by the virus isn't something I think is really that important to the topic at hand. Did I disagree with you about the numbers? No, I was pointing out that there are other things causing death that are still worse than the virus. Whether or not the true mortality numbers are over-represented or under-represented isn't the issue.

Your argument makes no sense. Basically there are other diseases more deadly than Cancer and here are the numbers. i show you how COVID is worse or at least comparable and now numbers don't matter to you. OK.

They predicted millions dead within the first few months. That's what started the whole scare almost two years ago. It would have been a real disaster if it had played out the way they predicted, but it did not. Don't get me wrong, it sucks having a virus that can cause this much harm, but it's no where NEAR as bad that we should continue to give up all other freedoms. Here is a link that talks about those original predictions from the CDC:


That's only a single model and I'm sure it's based on if we did nothing. OK.

All hospitals across the country were supposed to be preparing extra capacity to take care of the projected sick. If they were over-run by patients and could not provide adequate care, it means they (or Mississippi government leaders) failed to take advantage of the shut down period back in 2020. I'm pretty sure you remember the time line of those shut-downs, so I don't think I need to provide a link. Also, it may be likely that they failed to heed advice about using life saving hydroxy-chloroquine and ivermectin, which has been used to great success as early as mid to late 2020. This was a political decision to ignore those treatment options in favor of ONLY waiting for a vaccine.

Doctors, nurses, equipment and hospitals don't just grow on trees. The hospitals were overrun because of a pandemic because that's what happens in pandemics.

hydroxy and ivermectin don't show a lot of benefit. Vaccines on the other hand do to reducing both infections and death.


As stated above, Ivermectin seems to be an effective preventative treatment as well as good early intervention treatment before symptoms are in advanced stages. Not perfect, but far less expensive. There isn't any excuse NOT to use this instead of or even along with the mRNA gene therapy "vaccine" or the monoclonal anti-bodies (after infection).


Is this even a peer reviewed study or just a guy with an opinion? Why do you choose to believe this over anythin else? Do you have any standards at all?

Since you want everything handed to you without doing your own research, I'll explain: I'm comparing USA to Peru because their doctors had the good sense to use the treatments available (above), or at least until their new president band it in favor of the more profitable new mRNA gene therapy treatments:

View attachment 554234


Vaccinations aren't even close to being effective at stopping the spread of the virus. It sounds like you are just regurgitating something they said on CBS news last night. Here in plain sight based on real facts taken from the best sources I have access to, is a picture of where my state is at 89% vaccinated: NO IMPROVEMENT IN STOPPING THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS AND EVEN WITH MONO-CLONAL ANTIBODY TREATMENT DEATHS ARE LITTLE CHANGED


Peru has the highest or one of the highest death rates on the globe.

One of the problems with doing any sort of studies for ivermectin in South America is that so many people are already taking the drug that's it's next to impossible to measure it's efficacy. Considering countries like Peru and their failure to fight off Covid is not a great sign.

Vermont? A state that has weathered COVID very well to begin with isn't going to see a lot of change with vaccines. It's literally in the top 2 of states handling the virus well. Liberal bastion uses masks regularly from the beginning. You couldn't pick a better state to demonstrate that masks and social distancing work.

Why did you pick Vermont? Or did someone pick it for you and you don't even know why? it's cases are flat and have been flat with little fluctuation other than between 0 and 200 cases per day which for many other states would be a miracle. They get out 5 deaths per day as a high.


You can choose to NOT believe openvaers if you want, however I personally know there is a lot of truth as I've buried 1 relative due to the vaccine, and only know of 1 relative that died due to them getting covid while they were in the hospital being treated for advanced kidney failure. I've also read countless first hand accounts of bad side effects from other sources, including this recent one which was also posted elsewhere:

Why not just go to VAERS? Where they will tell you not to use their data analytically. The site exists for reporting cases and all of the data is raw and unverified. Anybody who uses that info to show either whether vaccines are safe or dangerous is an idiot or attempting to use raw data to deceive. You're being poisoned and purposefully lied to by goin to sites like Openvaers.

and i don't think these are "fake" either:

Are COVID vaccines giving people AIDS? That's a headline from that site. That doesn't tip you off at all of the quality of your news consumption? Yikes you dumb asshole.

Sorry, but I hope you can open your eyes soon before they kill us all with the non-effective, un-safe, experimental gene therapy bull crap.

But again, I know I'm wasting my time because you're too closed minded to open your eyes and look at how and why your MSM buddies and politicians are lying to you.

I forget who said it but Americans (and probably more) are often times intellectually illiterate. People look to confirm their own biases and gravitate to sources that tell them what they want to hear and then sell you a bunch of shit (think Alex Jones Super Male Vitality shit that incels love to buy). You're being lied to because you want to be lied to.
 
And soon to be a million dead whether your math is accurate or not. Also, long haul COVID and the damage the virus leaves behind doesn't seem to be mentioned in your math problem.

Now do the death rate of vaccines.



Actually they are and your dramatic bitching about it is lame.
Where did it come from?
 
Doctors, nurses, equipment and hospitals don't just grow on trees. The hospitals were overrun because of a pandemic because that's what happens in pandemics.
They don't grow on trees, which is why we all went along with shutting down our entire economy for several months (was supposed to have been only several weeks, but whatever). During that time, the hospital should have been making preparations. A year later, they still apparently weren't ready and got overrun. They had plenty of time to prepare. Who is accountable?

hydroxy and ivermectin don't show a lot of benefit. Vaccines on the other hand do to reducing both infections and death.

Is this even a peer reviewed study or just a guy with an opinion? Why do you choose to believe this over anythin else? Do you have any standards at all?

The experts in a great number of countries have long ago agreed that Ivermectin (and to a lesser degree chloroquine compounds) are a prudent thing to use to help their people. I showed you one study, and you are questioning it's legitimacy. This is where I have to ask you again: why are you refusing to consider the posibility that you are being mis-lead by your sources of information? I consider all sources, and when some of them start to agree, and also agree with my own experiences and my common sense, I will start to consider them.

Here's a couple other Ivermectin sources (I've seen at least half a dozen others, but didn't save them):




Peru has the highest or one of the highest death rates on the globe.

They have one of the highest death rates, even slightly higher than the USA, and it's a shame: it very well could have been prevented if they had stuck to the use of Ivermectin instead of banning it in favor of the monoclonal antibodies and waiting for the vaccine. Neither appear to have helped them.

One of the problems with doing any sort of studies for ivermectin in South America is that so many people are already taking the drug that's it's next to impossible to measure it's efficacy. Considering countries like Peru and their failure to fight off Covid is not a great sign.
I don't think your statement is true: only jungle regions of Colombia and Brazil have been known to use Ivermectin widely in the past, and the political leader in Peru BANNED the medication. It is clearly possible to study what happened since we have the time frame for the actions and also a relatively good approximation of deaths on a time line.

Vermont? A state that has weathered COVID very well to begin with isn't going to see a lot of change with vaccines. It's literally in the top 2 of states handling the virus well. Liberal bastion uses masks regularly from the beginning. You couldn't pick a better state to demonstrate that masks and social distancing work.

Why did you pick Vermont? Or did someone pick it for you and you don't even know why? it's cases are flat and have been flat with little fluctuation other than between 0 and 200 cases per day which for many other states would be a miracle. They get out 5 deaths per day as a high.
I'm sorry, but what you are saying here is laughable. Did you or did you not look at the chart I provided? Those charts were taken directly from the state website (and one from worldometer) As far as why I picked Vermont, take a look at my user name. Again, it's not the number of cases that you need to look at, it is the percent of the population affected. Vermont has one of the lowest populations in the country, so of course the total number of cases will be lower. Comparatively, Vermont was no better off than, and even worse than, New York and Massachusetts at some points during 2020 as far as cases per population.

I'll say it again: almost 90% of all residents of the state are at least partially vaccinated. Right now, today, it has the highest number of hospitalized and critically hospitalized (ICU) COVID patients than it has had since the start, and the deaths are almost as high. And no, the deaths are not all "unvaxinated": according to the department of health, 56% of all COVID deaths during a recent period were fully vaccinated, and an undisclosed number of the other deaths were partially vaccinated.

If you can't understand these facts (FACTS - not made up) and at least say "Wait, What?", then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you.

Why not just go to VAERS? Where they will tell you not to use their data analytically. The site exists for reporting cases and all of the data is raw and unverified. Anybody who uses that info to show either whether vaccines are safe or dangerous is an idiot or attempting to use raw data to deceive. You're being poisoned and purposefully lied to by goin to sites like Openvaers.

Are COVID vaccines giving people AIDS? That's a headline from that site. That doesn't tip you off at all of the quality of your news consumption? Yikes you dumb asshole.
Why do you keep bringing up openvaers?

I don't know about the article you are referring to, but it probably addresses the concern about the connection between AIDS and the mRNA gene therapy. The coronavirus was developed as part of the gain of function research according to some theories, and some sources have claimed that genetic material from the AIDS virus was used to create coronavirus. Why wouldn't that article be an appropriate topic for discussion? Or do you still believe the virus came from an animal and suddenly jumped to humans at the Wuhan wet market? Does it really matter where it came from?

I forget who said it but Americans (and probably more) are often times intellectually illiterate. People look to confirm their own biases and gravitate to sources that tell them what they want to hear and then sell you a bunch of shit (think Alex Jones Super Male Vitality shit that incels love to buy). You're being lied to because you want to be lied to.

And if you are so callous as to neglect someone's personal experience (such as my loss of a loved one, as I explained), and can't open your eyes and look at hard facts right in front of you, I'm afraid you might fall into that category of "intellectually illiterate" you talk of. Intellectualism is partly about being able to look at facts, think independently, and draw reasonable conclusions from things. I don't detect any independent thought on your part, only regurgitation of memorized (brainwashed) propaganda.
 
What's the word count limit per post? Do you think I could post all 700k+ names of everyone who died of COVID?

According to your link she was the first person in her state to die of that condition after her vaccine. In the meantime over 8k people have died of COVID in Washington. 1 vs. over 8,000.
Hey, you're making a little bit of progress here on your thinking: so you admit at least one person died from the gene therapy vaccination? Is it possible there are other people that died from it? If so, does that mean it is still considered totally safe? Or...not safe?
 
Hey, you're making a little bit of progress here on your thinking: so you admit at least one person died from the gene therapy vaccination? Is it possible there are other people that died from it? If so, does that mean it is still considered totally safe? Or...not safe?
Because we know the unvaccinated are dying at a higher rate.
 
What's the word count limit per post? Do you think I could post all 700k+ names of everyone who died of COVID?

According to your link she was the first person in her state to die of that condition after her vaccine. In the meantime over 8k people have died of COVID in Washington. 1 vs. over 8,000.
You’re posting the figures! Why don’t you know? Now you’re admitting you have no clue
 
They don't grow on trees, which is why we all went along with shutting down our entire economy for several months (was supposed to have been only several weeks, but whatever). During that time, the hospital should have been making preparations. A year later, they still apparently weren't ready and got overrun. They had plenty of time to prepare. Who is accountable?



The experts in a great number of countries have long ago agreed that Ivermectin (and to a lesser degree chloroquine compounds) are a prudent thing to use to help their people. I showed you one study, and you are questioning it's legitimacy. This is where I have to ask you again: why are you refusing to consider the posibility that you are being mis-lead by your sources of information? I consider all sources, and when some of them start to agree, and also agree with my own experiences and my common sense, I will start to consider them.

Here's a couple other Ivermectin sources (I've seen at least half a dozen others, but didn't save them):






They have one of the highest death rates, even slightly higher than the USA, and it's a shame: it very well could have been prevented if they had stuck to the use of Ivermectin instead of banning it in favor of the monoclonal antibodies and waiting for the vaccine. Neither appear to have helped them.


I don't think your statement is true: only jungle regions of Colombia and Brazil have been known to use Ivermectin widely in the past, and the political leader in Peru BANNED the medication. It is clearly possible to study what happened since we have the time frame for the actions and also a relatively good approximation of deaths on a time line.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying here is laughable. Did you or did you not look at the chart I provided? Those charts were taken directly from the state website (and one from worldometer) As far as why I picked Vermont, take a look at my user name. Again, it's not the number of cases that you need to look at, it is the percent of the population affected. Vermont has one of the lowest populations in the country, so of course the total number of cases will be lower. Comparatively, Vermont was no better off than, and even worse than, New York and Massachusetts at some points during 2020 as far as cases per population.

I'll say it again: almost 90% of all residents of the state are at least partially vaccinated. Right now, today, it has the highest number of hospitalized and critically hospitalized (ICU) COVID patients than it has had since the start, and the deaths are almost as high. And no, the deaths are not all "unvaxinated": according to the department of health, 56% of all COVID deaths during a recent period were fully vaccinated, and an undisclosed number of the other deaths were partially vaccinated.

If you can't understand these facts (FACTS - not made up) and at least say "Wait, What?", then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you.


Why do you keep bringing up openvaers?

I don't know about the article you are referring to, but it probably addresses the concern about the connection between AIDS and the mRNA gene therapy. The coronavirus was developed as part of the gain of function research according to some theories, and some sources have claimed that genetic material from the AIDS virus was used to create coronavirus. Why wouldn't that article be an appropriate topic for discussion? Or do you still believe the virus came from an animal and suddenly jumped to humans at the Wuhan wet market? Does it really matter where it came from?



And if you are so callous as to neglect someone's personal experience (such as my loss of a loved one, as I explained), and can't open your eyes and look at hard facts right in front of you, I'm afraid you might fall into that category of "intellectually illiterate" you talk of. Intellectualism is partly about being able to look at facts, think independently, and draw reasonable conclusions from things. I don't detect any independent thought on your part, only regurgitation of memorized (brainwashed) propaganda.
I have enjoyed reading all of your posts here, very well said. I give you kudos for having the patience that you have shown as well, far more than I have.
 

Forum List

Back
Top