Unreported: 4 British Airways pilots die after getting covid jab

Because the accident was obviously caused by the covid vaccine. Try to keep up.

 

Overlooked this little bit of information in our haste to spread disinformation did we?

'The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on unverified reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines.'

Note the use of the highlighted word in the middle of the sentence. The website goes on to state 'reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.'

So using your metric I'm going to add one positive side effect of a covid vaccine to the numbers you reported. Shortly after I had my first shot I won a small amount of money in a lottery. Obviously it was all down to the vaccine. So give it a try, you might win big.

 

I published no "disinformation". I accurate described this as reported adverse events from the COVID vaccine. I also included the link. I never claimed the information was verified which is openly advertised on the link I provided.

Your false charge reflects only on you.

 

So, lets pretended everything listed was actually caused by the vaccine.

384,270 total events........................comes out to an event rate of 0.012%
21,440 required hospitalization........comes out to a hospitalization rate of 0.0067%
6,299 life threatening.......................comes out to a life threatening rate of 0.0019%
4,812 deaths....................................comes out to a death rate of 0.0015%

COVID itself has a death rate of 1.80%, which is 1200 times higher than the death rate of the vaccine, if all those deaths were due to the vaccine, which we know they are not

 

I see, so it was someone else using your login who posted (and I quote) ' Oh hell, they are WAY past that! ... Adverse Events Reported to CDC for COVID Vaccinations: etc etc' in response to another post claiming 50 deaths in relation to COVID.

Without bothering to include the disclaimers I referred to. You know - the ones clearly stating the figures you were quoting may include data that was 'incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified'.

You see, you really only two choices. Either:

(1) You did this by mistake because you didn't bother to read the disclaimer. Or
(2) You were aware of the disclaimer but deliberately chose to ignore it.

If it was (1) fine, no problem all you would have to do admit you didn't see it (in which case no harm, no foul). However if it was (2) then there IS a problem. And its with your integrity. Because obviously if you did know it was there but still decided quote those figures as fact then you were trying to mislead people. This makes your claim that figures being an 'accurate' measure of the covid vaccine side effects a lie because you deliberately neglected to mention the disclaimer.

But the clincher and what makes it obvious you deliberately wanted the figures you quoted to be seen as fact is your statement that 'I never claimed the information was verified which is openly advertised on the link I provided.' Why not simply tell everyone instead of expecting them to search for it themselves as I did? (Given, as you know most people wouldn't bother.)

So why quote figures that you knew weren't verified? Answer: you didn't care. There goes your integrity in one post. Well done, it's on the record, for you the end justifies the means.

 

Isn't it more likely that they were killed by a disgruntled ex-employee?

 

Well that didn't take long. Post no.1 and we're already arrived at: 'It's a conspiracy!'

OK then, as per normal. Your evidence?

 

Oh heck, you know most likely some Russian or Chinese person did it. They, you know, are responsible for all death in the world.

 

Isn't it more likely that they were killed by a disgruntled ex-employee?

 

You might not have heard, but there have been a fair number of deaths associated with the shot. I know of one man who died 4 hours after taking it.

British Airways claims their staff is 85% vaccinated. Pilots are considered to be quite healthy. BA is absolutely positively certain that the shots had nothing to do with it.

The shots are toxic, but most folks don't want to talk about that. Because they are toxic and have never been used on humans before, they were issued under EUA.

Got common sense?

 

Well, yes but I think you exaggerate just a little bit. There was a guy in San Diego who got hit by a car last year and he died of his injuries. As far as I know, his death has not (yet) been attributed to either the Chinese or the Russians.

 

They probably attributed it to Covid.

 

Yes, COVID that was developed in China and administered by the Russian SVR bent on destroying the leader of the free world.

 

That article looks like classic sophistry to me. I'd like to hear Peter McCullough respond to the article.

 

Love that link you added....

 

What are you talking about? I didn't post that link. I posted this link.
https://thenewamerican.com/covid-shot-killing-large-numbers-warns-top-covid-doc-peter-mccullough/

 

You know no such thing.

It's an individual comparative risk assessment that varies from person to person.

Out of 586,659 US dead
85+ = 175,479 = 0.2991
<18 = 314 = 0.0005 or zero until you get to the 4 decimal point.

The older you are, the more comorbidities, the more sensible it is to assume the vaccine risk. If one is under 18 and in robust health, given conditional emergency approval, it doesn't make as much sense to assume much vaccine risk.

Each person needs to evaluate the data and or seek counsel they trust and make their own decision.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/

 

They were all in the link I provided. That's where you got them. You simply clicked on the link, I provided, and now you are on your second post making wild, absurd and unsubstantiated claims, shortly after bragging about how committed you are to the scientific method.

False reductionism.

There you go, I fixed it for you,

They are DATA. Everyone with a brain knows this. With all your braggadocio about your vast knowledge of Scientific Data, it's a little surprising that you confuse data with fact.

I know no such thing. I left my crystal ball at home today. I also think that your mind reading skills suck the big red pepper.

Are you still trying to claim the vaccine is risk free?

Vaccine Adverse Events reported to the CDC in just six and half months:

384,270 total events
21,440 required hospitalization
6,299 life threatening
4,812 deaths

That's a LOT of events. Here's some other things to consider:

1) These vaccines only have emergency conditional approval. Were the emergency declared over, these vaccines would no longer be available. That is because of currently unknown risks. Given that, it makes perfectly good sense for those that want to wait for full approval, to do so.

2) The vaccine manufacturers would not manufacture the vaccines until they were granted blanket immunity for vaccine injury. How is that consistent with zero vaccine risk? It's not. There are so many unknowns, that they would have foregone all the profit opportunity, because without blanket immunity, their best risk assessment was that litigation costs, from vaccine harm would exceed their costs and profit margin. Given that, it makes perfectly good sense for those that want to wait for a more complete data set, to do so.

 

False. I didn't just simply 'click on the link' I had to search the website to find the disclaimer. As would anyone else who didn't just accept the figures you'd posted on face value, as most people would. The fact the disclaimer was there (if searched for) doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of reporting its existence in the first place because ... and I'm surprised I have to point this out. The disclaimer relates directly to the numbers you were quoting in your post as being factual. Remember, you were the one who said it was way worse than the 50 odd deaths someone else had referred to before going on to quote the figures you referenced.

So what? Say 20 minutes plus to post an formalize an elaborate, self justifying defense/excuse vs the 10 seconds it would have taken to include the official disclaimer in your original post. Hell not even that. One, word, just one simple word included in your post would have made your post perfectly truthful instead of a deliberate misdirection. As per below-

'Oh hell, they are WAY past that!

Possible Adverse Events Reported to CDC for COVID Vaccinations

So dress it up however you like, make whatever excuses you please. Nothing changes. You deliberately tried to mislead other PF members by quoting those figures and inferring they were confirmed fact when they weren't. And you did it in order to support your side of a debate. So yes your integrity just took a big hit and anyone who reads this thread should take note and remember you did this the next time you post something on this forum, on any subject.

And yes, if I ever deliberately get caught doing the same by all means rake me over the coals - because I will deserve it.

 

Like you have the moral authority to grant absolution to anyone.

Have you retracted the following fake information you posted on Hydroxychloroquine?

You're wrong:

Low dose of hydroxychloroquine reduces fatality of ...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32418114/

XXX

It's is.

Vaccine Adverse Events reported to the CDC in just six and half months:

384,270 total events
21,440 required hospitalization
6,299 life threatening
4,812 deaths

That's a LOT more than 50 deaths!

Learn the language:
I imply,
YOU, infer.

You made an inaccurate inference and have been caterwallering over it like a clubbed baby seal for several posts now.

 

Dear oh dear, how desperate are you? You got caught out spreading misinformation (deliberately it seems) and what do you do? You search through every single post I've ever made looking for one to correct as being factually inaccurate. And that's what you come up with - HCQ. And your evidence? One single study apparently contradicting me.

Fact the medical research on HCQ and its efficacy in treating or preventing COVID is well and truly in. The evidence is overwhelmingly confirms HCQ is not effective in the treatment of COVID due in part, to serious potential side effects. Medical across the world including the US have issued warnings against its use for the treatment of COVID. Including the FDA.

The whole reason I got into the HCQ debate in the first place was the fact that the overwhelming majority of medical studies and patient reviews came out against its use while some posters on this forum (including you apparently) insisted on believing against the best available advice that it was effective, thereby potentially risking the health of both themselves and anyone foolish enough to believe them.

And for the record the article you posted is dated May 2020. As of July 2020 it was issuing an official caution against its use. As of October 2020 the FDAs official advice re HCQ is as follows;

Recommendations

• The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients (AI).
• In nonhospitalized patients, the Panel recommends against the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIIa).
• The Panel recommends against the use of high-dose chloroquine (600 mg twice daily for 10 days) for the treatment of COVID-19 (AI).

This is still the FDAs current advice. The WHO has issued similar warnings.

Now you were saying about 'fake' information'? That above took me about 5 minutes to find BTW. For the rest? My integrity, at least as far as it extends to postings on this forum, unlike yours is still intact. And in future if I happen to post incorrect information, well then I'll do my best to;

A) retract it;
B) apologize for it.

You on the other hand just seem to double down.

 

That's mainstream info*. You're just taking the word of known liars. There's a ton of info that says it works very well.

https://www.jpands.org/vol25no3/merritt.pdf

Calif. doctor successfully cures 1,700 COVID-19 patients




*
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...at-the-lies-furiously.583345/#post-1072353798

 

The FDA is main stream 'info'?

That aside, you expect me to take the word of one random GP over the advice given by thousands of other qualified medical practitioners and researchers around the world as well as the findings of scores of independent studies published in reputable medical journals which refute his claims? Really?

 

Fake News. I accurately cited the CDC website on vaccine injuries and deaths, demolishing the pretense that these vaccines are risk free, they are not.

Fake news multiple studies have shown the effectiveness of HCQ. And you haven't retracted, yet, you think you have the moral authority to grant absolution? Absurd.

Vaccine Adverse Events reported to the CDC in just six and half months:

384,270 total events
21,440 required hospitalization
6,299 life threatening
4,812 deaths

That's a LOT more than 50 deaths!

Citation: United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) / Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) 1990 - 06/18/2021, CDC WONDER On-line Database. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html on Jun 25, 2021 11:04:28 PM

 

https://www.naturalnews.com/search.asp?query=hydroxychloroquine