Stupid shit in Medellin

[Nounce]

..Like cmon now, don't be creating unrealistic hypotheticals to try to prove a point...

You seem very certain so I like to know what do you think is the point I am trying to prove?

[JjBee62]

There are so many flaws in your response that I question your analytical ability.

I question your credentials, relevant experience and knowledge to question my analytical ability.

First, you start just as predicted: smear the source. 'They don't name a single expert'. Yet, had they, their credentials would be in dispute. Instead, they use Pfizer's data.

This is such a simple issue. Let's start with your last bit first, "they use Pfizer's data. " That's incorrect. They cherry picked pieces from Pfizer's data and presented it out of context. Let me put it into perspective for you. For this example let's look at a slot machine. If we look at every time the slot machine is played over a 2 month period, we can determine the average payout of the machine, just for fun let's say it's 91%. On average, for every dollar that goes in, 91 cents comes out. That's using the data. However, if we want to make the slot look better, we could just point out the number of times it hit a big jackpot. Or we could make it look worse by focusing on all the times when it paid nothing.

Next up, providing names and credentials. No respectable publication will publish any scientific study without the names and credentials of the principal investigators. No hospital will allow a doctor to work there without checking the doctor's credentials. Even your local car dealership requires the certifications of their mechanics. Schools require teaching credentials. It's a simple matter of credibility. Does this person have the necessary and relevant education to work in this area?

This might seem like a minor point to you, but it isn't. It's a core issue. For another dose of perspective, let's use ISG and Medellin as an example. If someone posts on the Medellin thread, it's their very first post, and they claim to have been a regular visitor, 5 months per year, for 15 years and they make a claim which goes against everything posted by known Medellin vets, do you accept their claim? Again, just for fun, let's say they claim that the best time and place to find the hottest women is just west of the Prado Metro station after midnight. Are you rushing off to find a girl there at midnight?

Probably not. At least I hope not.

The point is, any anonymous source can claim to be an expert, but only a fool would accept their expertise without question.

What your response does prove is your mind is made up. That's not a criticism, per se. But don't act as though you looked at this objectively. Comments like: "Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media!" So, if that isn't concerning, then don't talk about Grandma sitting at home with COPD. Both groups are just collateral damage in your line of thought.

You are correct about one thing. My mind is made up about the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It's simply an anti-vax group pretending to be backed by science. Five minutes on their website proves that without the tiniest bit of doubt.

Do you understand what "click bait" is? It's everywhere. The heading of the blurb which leads to the CCCA website and "proof" is click bait. It makes a claim which the CCCA never proves. In fact, they prove exactly the opposite.

Just for fun (I'm having lots of fun with this), the annual estimated death rate is about 8 per 1,000. For every 1,000 people, 8 are expected to die every year. The Pfizer study used over 40,000 people for 2 months. Out of that 40 k, over 1 year, 320 would normally be expected to die. Over a 2 month period that means about 53 people from the test group would normally be expected to die. Out of the group, there were 29 deaths over 2 months and 34 over 6 months. Which means the overall number of deaths isn't the earth shattering data you think it is.

You misrepresent the safey phase. The standard is 3 years (not 5-10 as you say). But we had 2 months of safety. Say what you will about circumstances and the urgent need to get to market. But don't tell me that the concern is invalid or that the point is BS.

The 5-10 years is directly from the CCCA "proof". You'll have to take your complaint up with them.

I'll say it. The point is BS. In fact, the point is complete and utter, absolute, certified 100% organic bullshit. Why? Because Pfizer clearly identified the time frame when the study was conducted. They used something you have failed to use to determine whether or not the vaccine was safe, relative to not using the vaccine. They used knowledge. They didn't claim the vaccine was perfect. They didn't claim it would last forever. They didn't even claim that in 3 years they data collected would still be relevant.

That's a big word, "knowledge. " There is a lot of it, readily available, but very few people use it. In this case the knowledge used is that historically vaccine side effects show up very quickly, or not at all. Do you understand why that's the case? It's really quite simple. Vaccines are supposed to trigger an immune system response. They might not trigger the response, or the response may not last as long as expected, or the recipient might have an allergic reaction, or the vaccine might trigger some other type of response. However, the vaccine is only in your system for a very short time. Within a few days, a few weeks at most, there is no longer any trace of the vaccine in your body. At that point, your immune system either recognizes and reacts to the virus the vaccine was for, or it doesn't. The vaccine isn't some security guard that constantly looks for bad guys. It just sticks a wanted poster up on the wall of your immune system and then goes away.

It's like getting seasick. While you're out on a boat, at some point while on the boat, you might get seasick. It might be minor nausea, it might be uncontrolled vomiting, or dizziness, whatever. However, 2 years after you get off the boat, you're not going to get seasick.

You conpletely ignore the relative vs absolute argument. You accept the relative risk reduction as fact, despite it being the lower standard. And I won't even mention how Pfizer bastardizes their "efficacy" numbers to the public. In Pfizer's own study, the absolute reduction is 1%, and that's rounding up! They are taking their relative number and selling it as absolute. And the public is too lazy to know the difference.

You lost me there. If I completely ignored the relative versus absolute risk reduction, how did I then accept relative risk reduction as fact? What the hell. I'm ready to have more fun.

If you run a business, which is the higher standard, gross profit or net profit? That's absolute versus relative. If gross profits are $5 million annually, but net profits are $10,000 how well is your business doing?

Absolute risk reduction isn't the higher standard. In fact, in most cases it's more bullshit. It kinda boggles my mind that you don't realize how ridiculous that statement is. Time to put it in perspective again.

I have an incredible device. If you install it in your home it protects your home against earthquakes. In fact, the absolute risk reduction for earthquakes is 98%. Are you ready to buy it? I guess I should mention that relative risk reduction is less than 1%. You see, very few homes in my data are in zones where earthquakes are likely to occur. Still prefer absolute over relative?

Here is another example of your closed mind: "Sounds serious, except saline solution is easily absorbed without problems. Whereas the vaccine is supposed to cause an immune system response. " I would not argue with your statement. But, um, how else would you measure impact? LOL instead, you excuse this as expected, necessary problem. That illustrates your willingness to excuse or accept more collateral damage.

The reason saline solution was used is because it doesn't do anything. It's routinely used to replenish lost fluids. It's neutral. As a placebo for an injected vaccine trial it's perfect, because it won't cause any sort of reaction. I don't understand how that's an example of my closed mind. It's simply recognizing the requirement for a placebo in any trial.

The question is, what collateral damage are you talking about? Are you talking about the vaccine causing more deaths than it prevents? It doesn't. Data from everywhere around the world confirms that. It's not even close. Are you talking about adverse reactions to the vaccine? I'm going to assume that is what you're talking about.

I'll go over it again. I used pretty simple explanations the first time, but apparently they weren't simple enough.

The Pfizer study classifies 4 types of responses to the vaccine. The first is efficacy. From the placebo group 850 people contracted Covid during the study. From the vaccine group 77 people contracted Covid during the study. Please show me the math you used to determine efficacy is under 1%.

Next up injection related adverse effects. This classification includes any complaint which a researcher determined was connected to the actual injection of either the vaccine or saline solution. If a person later says their arm hurts it gets added to this group. If they say they feel dizzy, nauseous or anything else it gets added here. If they faint or piss their pants when getting injected, it gets added here. These are the absolute numbers. In a moment I'll show why they aren't important. Almost every vaccinated person I know has complained it made their arm hurt. Most people also have mentioned feeling nauseous. A couple of people have said that they were feeling really poorly for about a day. It's not surprising that 1 in 4 of the vaccine group had a related adverse effect. The question is, how many of those adverse effects were anything worse than a brief, minor amount of discomfort? Which brings us to the next 2 classifications.

First up, adverse effects which interfered with a person's normal function. If the person fainted, or left work early, or missed a day of work, or couldn't sleep, or didn't feel like eating, it shows up here. It's important to understand that none of these instances caused hospitalization, permanent effects, serious illness or death. They were all just cases where people didn't feel well enough to complete their normal routine. From the placebo group, about 0. 7% of the subjects had an event in this category. The rate for the vaccine group was 1. 2%.

Already the numbers are coming together. Using rough numbers starting with minor, effectively insignificant adverse effects to the vaccine it was 25% versus 5%. Now it's 1. 2% versus 0. 7% and none of these events required immediate medical attention, or resulted in permanent injury.

The last classification are adverse effects which required immediate medical assistance, or required hospitalization. This class includes permanent health issues. For this one it's dropped to 0. 6% versus 0. 59%. In simpler terms, within the statistical margin of error, the vaccine caused no more significant health issues than the placebo.

Now do you understand why absolute numbers are less useful than relative numbers? I'm betting the answer is no. I can't really help you any more on that one. You either understand that 2 numbers which are almost exactly the same, are almost exactly the same, or you believe that 2 numbers which are almost exactly the same are completely different.

I could go on, but why. Arguing this is boring. Sadly, most of us have retreated into our camps and prefer name calling, accusations and warfare instead of thinking for and educating ourselves. Full disclosure: I'm not anti-vax. I've been vaxxed and boosted. I am anti-mandate. And I am heavily in favor of holding our "experts" responsible for their actions, decisions, and conflicts of interest.

If arguing this is boring, why did you argue it? I didn't quote one of your posts, I didn't call you names or insult you or question your abilities. I merely responded to another person's post which was laughable bullshit.

For your final statement, I'm calling bullshit. You're jumping on a bandwagon for an anti-vax group. You are defending bogus claims by an unknown group, which they are unable to prove. You defended "experts" who remain anonymous and provide no credentials or anything to validate their claims. Explain to me how an anonymous "expert" can be held responsible for their actions, decisions and conflicts of interest?

Here's a bit of wisdom for you:

If you don't want to argue a subject, don't argue that subject.

See how simple that is? What the fuck, let me shovel out some more perspective.

If you don't want to have a tranny fuck you in the ass, don't go out, find a tranny, let them fuck you in the ass and then say "I didn't want to do that. ".

[Jake2738]

Would you agree that if the everyone one earth was vaccinated in the same month, for example July 2021, the pandemic would be over by now.

Would you agree that the statement you just made is insane and completely out of touch with what could realistically happen. You think it is even remotely realistic that everyone in the world could have been vaccinated by July 2021? Like cmon now, don't be creating unrealistic hypotheticals to try to prove a point. The reality is that if you are not getting vaccinated and live in a country where it's widely available you are not making a smart choice. But to mandate a vaccine to protect them from their own bad actions is authoritarianism. It would be one thing if they were still posing a threat to others, but it is very clear that it is getting passed between people regardless of vaccination status. So if people want to be dumb and not get the vaccine that is their own dumb choice. I am fully vaccinated and the pandemic IS over for me. I follow all the rules if they are in place, but if not then I just live normally. COVID is Endemic and so if you are not getting back to normal life after being vaccinated YOU are the one not following common sense.

[Nounce]

... In your opinion, considering all the factors, including sex, what destination is significantly better than Medellin?

Thanks for the kind words. Medellin is on top of my list based on quantity, quality and cost. SEA is great but to me the cost is significantly higher for the same quality. Sao Paulo or Rio can't match Medellin's quantity but there are more variety in look.

[Captain Solo]

Nounce.

Those bods look good.

Wonder how he got all those hot girls together in one spot.

[Fun Luvr]

It's easy to make a video and claim it shows something. If you recall, several years ago a group made a video supposedly showing Planned Parenthood selling aborted fetuses. The people who made the video ended up in prison.

Project Veritas is the group. None of their members have been sentenced to prison for their videos. Some of their members have been found guilty of illegal taping, and sentenced to probation and fines. In the Planned Parenthood case, no court has found the information in the videos to be false.

[Nounce]

...I did not generalize that all Colombian women were fat and ugly, but I was watching hundreds young women leaving work at SantaFe mall everyday, did not find even one I would get romantically involved with. ...

What do you think about the girls in this post, body wise?

...Here's some pics from the past month (missing a couple of my favorites but I'll keep them a secret).

[Nounce]

... Full disclosure: I'm not anti-vax. I've been vaxxed and boosted. I am anti-mandate. ...

Would you agree that if the everyone one earth was vaccinated in the same month, for example July 2021, the pandemic would be over by now.

[Villainy]

Villainy,

I said I was disappointed by the large, lumpy, tattooed, pear-shaped women with huge fake boobs and fake butts at P Lleras, New Life Casa and La Isla. The quality of talents at these mongers' venues are way below Tijuana, various places in Europe and Asia.

I did not generalize that all Colombian women were fat and ugly, but I was watching hundreds young women leaving work at SantaFe mall everyday, did not find even one I would get romantically involved with. The same as with shoppers in Santa Fe mall. Majority is pudgy with big asses and pear-shaped bodies like the women in this random pic taken at the Technologie park.

Every country has its beautiful women. Not all can be ugly. However the main focus should not be on just a few beauty queens but how many percent of the women population look nice, trim, fit, healthy, attractive vs. The heavy, obese, lumpy, sick, unattractive ones. For this criterion, Buenos Aires has far higher percentage of beautiful women walking on the streets than Colombia.

If you go to any beaches in Southern California on weekends, you will see the highest percentage of nice, trim, healthy, beautiful girls in swim suits.

Tell a few things. When were you in Colombia? December can be a lousy time for the "mongers' venues" you listed. Did you acquire any FaceBook girls for citas? What about some of the other sites? Like PhotoPrepagos, Mileroticos or others? You might be generalizing about the women because you picked a poor time to monger in Medellin and hit some of the places that ordinarily would be pretty good but weren't so hot in mid-December.

[JjBee62]

I like humor and comedy of all types. Perhaps my favorite is the unintended humor of irony.

One quick example is "Let's hear all the baseless smears now. " This is a gem, since you've repeatedly mentioned that anyone who consistently disagrees with you gets put on ignore. You can't hear what you refuse to listen to.

With this one, the irony goes deeper. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, according to their Instagram account provides "Independent, science based evidence to empower Canadians. " However, the only thing on the Instagram feed are anti-vax memes, with no supporting evidence. There's nothing to identify, or provide credentials for any "member" of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It is not registered in any way. It's simply an anonymous Twitter and Instagram account and a website.

Which brings us to the irony trifecta. The CCCA doesn't identify a single "expert" who provides "independent, science based evidence" for them. Which, and this bit is hilarious" makes everything they publish (drumroll please) Baseless.

It gets better. Clicking on the link provided takes you to a click bait news blurb, with a link to the CCCA website and a pdf presentation which is supposed to prove the CCCA claim that the Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media! Oops. I forgot that the media is all part of the conspiracy. Instead we'll just have to look at the "facts" presented by the CCCA.

One of their first complaints is there was no long term safety data in the 2 month report. No kidding? Huh? That's shocking. It's just completely irresponsible that they didn't provide 5-10 years of safety data for a vaccine that had only been available for testing on human subjects for a few months.

If you're keeping score, that's one BB (baseless bullshit) point against the CCCA.

Next up, a significant increase in illness from the vaccine compared to the placebo (a simple saline solution), of the illness the vaccine was supposed to prevent. The Pfizer study identified 4 types of adverse events: Efficacy, Related Adverse Events, Any Serious Adverse Event and Any Serious Adverse Event requiring ER visit or hospitalization.

Efficacy is protection against Covid. Of the test group, 850 people who received the placebo got Covid, compared to 77 who received the vaccine, a 91% reduction in the disease the vaccine was supposed to prevent. That's another BB point for the CCCA.

Before looking at the other 3 classifications of adverse events, it's worth pointing out that injecting a simple saline solution has almost no risk of an adverse event. It should also be noted that the most common adverse event was pain at the injection site.

Roughly 1 in 4 people who took the vaccine had a related adverse effects, compared to 1 in 20 for the placebo. Sounds serious, except saline solution is easily absorbed without problems. Whereas the vaccine is supposed to cause an immune system response. That means more people are going to experience pain or nausea with the vaccine.

When you get to the serious adverse effects, about 1. 2% of vaccine recipients had an issue which interfered with normal function, compared with 0. 7% of those receiving the placebo. Slightly less than 0. 6% receiving the placebo required medical treatment, compared to 0. 6% in the vaccine group.

So, the placebo group was much less likely to have a minor issue, but almost as likely to have an adverse effect requiring medical treatment. However, they were much more likely to get Covid. That's 3 BB points..

After getting some sleep, I noticed a few typos. However, nothing which alters my points.

The purpose of a Covid vaccine is to reduce death and serious illness from Covid. It is not supposed to prevent death from all causes. This is the same purpose as the "herd immunity" that anti-vax groups are touting. The only major difference is that vaccines try to get to an immune population while minimizing the serious negative outcomes. Just letting the disease run its course, considers the lives lost as acceptable.

When I look at claims that the vaccines are causing more deaths and illnesses than the disease, I have to only look at the facts. The best part, I don't have to depend on some pharmaceutical company (or some conspiracy theorist nut job) to give me the facts. I can just open my eyes and take a look around.

Unvaccinated, I knew, 1st person 2 people who died from Covid. I knew 2nd person (I knew someone who directly knew them) at least 30 people who died from Covid. 1st person I know at least 20 people who were hospitalized for Covid.

Vaccinated, I know 2 people who were hospitalized for Covid (1st person), no deaths 1st, 2nd or 3rd person.

Serious side effects from the vaccine, at a guess, I know 400 people who are vaccinated. One person reported feeling sick for 2 days. None required medical treatment. A few reported feeling sick for 1 day. Most mentioned pain at the injection site.

In addition, my first 2 doses of the vaccine I received at a clinic setup by a major hospital. They had 7 stations setup to check people in and at least 12 vaccination stations. Each station was vaccinating about 1 person every 2 minutes. After vaccination they requested everyone stay for 15 minutes. Roughly, each shot, I observed 150-200 people who had just been vaccinated. If the vaccine is causing serious side effects and death, I should have seen some indication. However, there was nothing whatsoever to indicate serious adverse reactions were occurring, or were expected. Add in the experience of all the vaccinated people I know and the group has easily, directly observed over 50,000 vaccinations without seeing any medical emergency caused by the vaccine. At least 1 of the vaccinated people I know is 95 years old and in poor health.

It's easy to make a video and claim it shows something. If you recall, several years ago a group made a video supposedly showing Planned Parenthood selling aborted fetuses. The people who made the video ended up in prison. If you want, I know a guy, for a price he can put together a video which shows anything you want. Anything.

Sadly, there are a lot of people who won't question something they see in a video, or hear on a podcast. They will completely ignore the reality right in front of their face, in favor of a fantasy presented by an anonymous stranger.

[Dcrist0527]

I like humor and comedy of all types. Perhaps my favorite is the unintended humor of irony.

One quick example is "Let's hear all the baseless smears now. " This is a gem, since you've repeatedly mentioned that anyone who consistently disagrees with you gets put on ignore. You can't hear what you refuse to listen to.

With this one, the irony goes deeper. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, according to their Instagram account provides "Independent, science based evidence to empower Canadians. " However, the only thing on the Instagram feed are anti-vax memes, with no supporting evidence. There's nothing to identify, or provide credentials for any "member" of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It is not registered in any way. It's simply an anonymous Twitter and Instagram account and a website.

Which brings us to the irony trifecta. The CCCA doesn't identify a single "expert" who provides "independent, science based evidence" for them. Which, and this bit is hilarious" makes everything they publish (drumroll please) Baseless.

It gets better. Clicking on the link provided takes you to a click bait news blurb, with a link to the CCCA website and a pdf presentation which is supposed to prove the CCCA claim that the Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media! Oops. I forgot that the media is all part of the conspiracy. Instead we'll just have to look at the "facts" presented by the CCCA.

One of their first complaints is there was no long term safety data in the 2 month report. No kidding? Huh? That's shocking. It's just completely irresponsible that they didn't provide 5-10 years of safety data for a vaccine that had only been available for testing on human subjects for a few months.

If you're keeping score, that's one BB (baseless bullshit) point against the CCCA.

Next up, a significant increase in illness from the vaccine compared to the placebo (a simple saline solution), of the illness the vaccine was supposed to prevent. The Pfizer study identified 4 types of adverse events: Efficacy, Related Adverse Events, Any Serious Adverse Event and Any Serious Adverse Event requiring ER visit or hospitalization..

There are so many flaws in your response that I question your analytical ability.

First, you start just as predicted: smear the source. 'They don't name a single expert'. Yet, had they, their credentials would be in dispute. Instead, they use Pfizer's data.

What your response does prove is your mind is made up. That's not a criticism, per se. But don't act as though you looked at this objectively. Comments like: "Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media!" So, if that isn't concerning, then don't talk about Grandma sitting at home with COPD. Both groups are just collateral damage in your line of thought.

You misrepresent the safey phase. The standard is 3 years (not 5-10 as you say). But we had 2 months of safety. Say what you will about circumstances and the urgent need to get to market. But don't tell me that the concern is invalid or that the point is BS.

You conpletely ignore the relative vs absolute argument. You accept the relative risk reduction as fact, despite it being the lower standard. And I won't even mention how Pfizer bastardizes their "efficacy" numbers to the public. In Pfizer's own study, the absolute reduction is 1%, and that's rounding up! They are taking their relative number and selling it as absolute. And the public is too lazy to know the difference.

Here is another example of your closed mind: "Sounds serious, except saline solution is easily absorbed without problems. Whereas the vaccine is supposed to cause an immune system response. " I would not argue with your statement. But, um, how else would you measure impact? LOL instead, you excuse this as expected, necessary problem. That illustrates your willingness to excuse or accept more collateral damage.

I could go on, but why. Arguing this is boring. Sadly, most of us have retreated into our camps and prefer name calling, accusations and warfare instead of thinking for and educating ourselves. Full disclosure: I'm not anti-vax. I've been vaxxed and boosted. I am anti-mandate. And I am heavily in favor of holding our "experts" responsible for their actions, decisions, and conflicts of interest.

[Taylor707]

Wrong on all counts, except the danger factor. However, anywhere you go there is an element of danger in the cheap places.

1. No, he doesn't need to be heard. His initial report was fine. Everyone has an off day. However, he's repeated himself 4 or 5 times and each time the story changes. For example, his first report said the girl moved 5 feet and was hovering over his luggage. A later report he said he caught her red handed digging through his luggage. When stories keep changing it usually means they contain little or no truth.

2. Not many people claim Medellin is paradise. Dollar for dollar it's one of the best mongering values in the world. It also has options to fit almost any style. Whether you're spending $500 per day or $50 per day, it can be done in Medellin.

3. Way too many sex tourists? I'm lost on that one. You're a regular contributor on a forum which promotes sex tourism and you're complaining there are too many sex tourists in Medellin? The number of sex tourists only affects people who choose to let it affect them. I can easily spend weeks in Medellin and never see another sex tourist.

Very well put and described!

[Dcrist0527]

Yeah, the Pfizer study shows that more people died in the vaccinated group than the placebo group, but they had less Covid in the vaccinated group.

Even worse, once they unblinded the survey, they allowed the placebo group to be vaccinated. And guess what, five from that group died after being vaccinated. That was captured by Pfizer but they excluded it in their table.

The incidence and rate of respiratory issues are alarming.

The forever shutdown crowd cannot dispute this because this only uses Pfizer's own data.

As for Malone, he is not anti-vax by definition. He made some great points, as have others, about our approach to vaccines. As Americans, and other highly developed countries, we're now on our 3rd and 4th doses. We're now at the point of hurting our immune system, as many experts now say. And given omicron's mild symptoms, we're also suppressing the benefit of natural immunity.

But for those lining up for your 10th jab and hug your face diapers, tell me how that's working for New York. Then think big picture. Omicron came from South Africa. There's another new variant now from Cameroon. This obsession with vaccination, or the concept of a pandemic of the unvaxxed, is actually prolonging the problem.

I've said it from day 1. You know, when Fauci told us to wear masks for 2 weeks to slow the spread. We're now more than 660 days into those 2 weeks! But why do we cling to it? We have an inherent need to feel in control. News flash: you aren't. Nature will do what nature does. Our vax approach is now going to cause unintended consequences.

[JjBee62]

This is a superb analysis of huge faults in the self sponsored Pfizer vaccine research.

https://rumble.com/vqx3kb-the-pfizer...than-good.html

I wonder if this will ever be heard in the public sphere?

Let's hear all the baseless smears now.

I like humor and comedy of all types. Perhaps my favorite is the unintended humor of irony.

One quick example is "Let's hear all the baseless smears now. " This is a gem, since you've repeatedly mentioned that anyone who consistently disagrees with you gets put on ignore. You can't hear what you refuse to listen to.

With this one, the irony goes deeper. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, according to their Instagram account provides "Independent, science based evidence to empower Canadians. " However, the only thing on the Instagram feed are anti-vax memes, with no supporting evidence. There's nothing to identify, or provide credentials for any "member" of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It is not registered in any way. It's simply an anonymous Twitter and Instagram account and a website.

Which brings us to the irony trifecta. The CCCA doesn't identify a single "expert" who provides "independent, science based evidence" for them. Which, and this bit is hilarious" makes everything they publish (drumroll please) Baseless.

It gets better. Clicking on the link provided takes you to a click bait news blurb, with a link to the CCCA website and a pdf presentation which is supposed to prove the CCCA claim that the Pfizer study shows the vaccine causes more illness and death than it prevents. OMG! Alert the media! Oops. I forgot that the media is all part of the conspiracy. Instead we'll just have to look at the "facts" presented by the CCCA.

One of their first complaints is there was no long term safety data in the 2 month report. No kidding? Huh? That's shocking. It's just completely irresponsible that they didn't provide 5-10 years of safety data for a vaccine that had only been available for testing on human subjects for a few months.

If you're keeping score, that's one BB (baseless bullshit) point against the CCCA.

Next up, a significant increase in illness from the vaccine compared to the placebo (a simple saline solution), of the illness the vaccine was supposed to prevent. The Pfizer study identified 4 types of adverse events: Efficacy, Related Adverse Events, Any Serious Adverse Event and Any Serious Adverse Event requiring ER visit or hospitalization.

Efficacy is protection against Covid. Of the test group, 850 people who received the placebo got Covid, compared to 77 who received the vaccine, a 91% reduction in the disease the vaccine was supposed to prevent. That's another BB point for the CCCA.

Before looking at the other 3 classifications of adverse events, it's worth pointing out that injecting a simple saline solution has almost no risk of an adverse event. It should also be noted that the most common adverse event was pain at the injection site.

Roughly 1 in 4 people who took the vaccine had a related adverse effects, compared to 1 in 20 for the placebo. Sounds serious, except saline solution is easily absorbed without problems. Whereas the vaccine is supposed to cause an immune system response. That means more people are going to experience pain or nausea with the vaccine.

When you get to the serious adverse effects, about 1. 2% of vaccine recipients had an issue which interfered with normal function, compared with 0. 7% of those receiving the placebo. Slightly less than 0. 6% receiving the placebo required medical treatment, compared to 0. 6% in the vaccine group.

So, the placebo group was much less likely to have a minor issue, but almost as likely to have an adverse effect requiring medical treatment. However, they were much more likely to get Covid. That's 3 BB points.

Next up, increased deaths for vaccine recipients. The vaccine group reported 14 deaths within 6 months of the trial, compared to 14 deaths in the placebo group. This might be confusing. There are 17 reported causes of death for the 15 from the vaccine group and 19 for the 14 in the placebo group.

There were only 2 deaths from Covid, both in the placebo group and 1 death from Covid pneumonia in the vaccine group. None of the other deaths are directly attributed to the vaccine. So this adds another BB point to the CCCA claim.

Next on the agenda, Pfizer didn't follow established protocol. Established protocol says that it should take 5-10 years to develop a vaccine. Anyone who wasn't in a coma for all of 2020 understands that 5 years or more to develop a vaccine was unacceptable. Are we up to 5 BB points already?

Next bit of baseless bullshit, study demographics. According to the CCCA, a study should be focused on the people who could most benefit from a vaccine. This one is worth 2 BB points. If you run a try limited to people with 4 risk factors who are all over 75, most of your data is useless. The likelihood of a member of that group to die is much higher than for the general population. A vaccine doesn't do much good for someone who is already dying. You don't test your new recipe for triple fudge brownies on a bunch of diabetics. People of any age can get Covid. The proper demographics requires a test group representative of the entire population.

There's an additional demographic complaint. Groups, such as breastfeeding women, pregnant women, people with prior exposure to Covid, immunocompromised people, people with psychiatric conditions and others. There's ethical issues for testing on pregnant women or breast feeding women. People who have previously had Covid would skew the result. People with serious medical conditions are also not good subjects.

There's more of the same. I'm too tired to read through a baseless smear campaign, so I can spread some based smears.

However the CCCA Claim is a baseless smear campaign already.

[Elvis 2008]

Again, believe what you want to believe. But if you look at Pfizer's own study, which they expose, and you don't come away alarmed? Well, then you are exactly the person Pfizer is counting on.

Yeah, the Pfizer study shows that more people died in the vaccinated group than the placebo group, but they had less Covid in the vaccinated group.

We vaccinate 70% of the country, and the number of people dying from Covid related illnesses goes up about 50% in 2021.

The study predicted this was going to happen.

So why is that? Then you read this, Maddie de Garay is a 12 year old trial participant who developed a serious reaction after her second dose and was hospitalized within 24 hours. Maddie developed gastroparesis, nausea and vomiting, erratic blood pressure, memory loss, brain fog, headaches, dizziness, fainting, seizures, verbal and motor tics, menstrual cycle issues, lost feeling from the waist down, lost bowel and bladder control and had an nasogastric tube placed because she lost her ability to eat. She has been hospitalized many times, and for the past 10 months she has been wheelchair bound and fed via tube. In their report to the FDA, Pfizer described her injuries as "functional abdominal pain".

And her side effects were excluded from the trial!

So yeah, Covid deaths may go down if you get the vaccine but so what? If the overall death rate goes up if you take the vaccine or you end up like this girl, why in the hell would anyone take the vaccine let alone mandate it?

The vaccine is only approved for emergencies anyway.

So Dr. Malone posts this information and he is banned from Twitter? That certainly is not for public health reasons, and the fact that he is banned from all media centers and has to go on Joe Rogin's show tells you all you need to know about the legacy media.

When you ban opposing points of view, you are no longer talking about science. You are talking about religion, and Dr. Malone is right about this. It is a mass psychosis event.