Was there over 3300 deaths from covid vaccines between Dec 2020 and April 2021?

shnarkle

Well-known member
Yes, I think it is important to refute mischaracterizations of the CDC, WHO, etc. and I did that by posting an extended clip from the CDC document that you linked. That document was an explanation of why the CDC was convinced that the Moderna vaccine was safe and effective against covid.
No one is denying their convictions. However, context is key here because you are NOT specifying exactly what they are so confident about. Hence, the reason why I provided you with a link. Perhaps you'd like to reread it to see for yourself just exactly what they are so confident about. Hmm? Go ahead. We're all waiting. Show us where they're so confident that these gene therapies are going to prevent the spread of infection, and provide anyone with immunity. They're confidence is in "lessening symptoms" which doesn't inspire confidence in the science given that they skipped animal trials and went straight to injecting the general population.
The sentence you pulled out gave a completely false impression
Again, are you ever going to supply us with any evidence for this baseless claim?
of uncertainty and incomplete data
At least you can admit that the data is woefully incomplete.
calling into question whether this vaccine and others like it should be used.
The FDA has yet to approve any of these gene therapies. Contrary to popular delusion, granting the emergency use of experimental gene therapies is not in any way, shape or form an admission of approval. However, this will not necessarily protect the FDA from prosecution if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
And yes, it is important to counter virus infections in asymptomatic people, as those people can easily spread virus to other, more susceptible people.
No, it has not been proven that they can counter infection with any of these gene therapies. They have all admitted that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of them provide protection from infection or immunity. In fact, the document presented to the FDA by Pfizer admits that viral shedding, aka transmission is possible simply by skin contact or breathing. That's not transmission of the virus, but the effects of the gene therapy itself which is also a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention, e.g. "informed consent, a controlled experiment, etc..
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Of course it is a computer simulation, but it is based upon the actual virus:

Not a purified or isolated virus, and nowhere near a completely sequenced virus, hence the need for computer generated programs to try and piece them all together. The best they can do is to note that when they see added information in a sequence, they then know that this is a different virus rather than a mutation of the one they think they already have, but when we're dealing with 30k place holders, it gets a bit ridiculous.

Again, without actually purifying to completely isolate the virus, no one can positively identify what they're dealing with. They know that they have some genetic material in a soup, but beyond that, it's nothing but pure speculation.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Not a purified or isolated virus, and nowhere near a completely sequenced virus, hence the need for computer generated programs to try and piece them all together. The best they can do is to note that when they see added information in a sequence, they then know that this is a different virus rather than a mutation of the one they think they already have, but when we're dealing with 30k place holders, it gets a bit ridiculous.

Again, without actually purifying to completely isolate the virus, no one can positively identify what they're dealing with. They know that they have some genetic material in a soup, but beyond that, it's nothing but pure speculation.
Not sure you are correct:


On January 24, 2020, the French Ministry of Health confirmed the first three cases of patients affected by the Wuhan coronavirus. On January 29, 2020, the Institut Pasteur, which is responsible for monitoring respiratory viruses in France, sequenced the WHOLE genome of the coronavirus known as "2019-nCoV," becoming the first institution in Europe to sequence the virus since the start of the outbreak. The virus was sequenced at the Institut Pasteur's Mutualized Platform for Microbiology (P2M), which performs genome sequencing on bacterial, viral, fungal and parasite strains received by National Reference Centers and World Health Organization Collaborating Centers for the purpose of infectious disease surveillance....

From Friday January 24, 2020. Viral genome sequenced at the Institut Pasteur:

That same Friday evening, scientists launched the process of sequencing the viral genome based on the samples. The CNR prepared the material for sequencing, ready for P2M to begin work immediately the following Monday. The sequencing run was completed by early evening on the Tuesday, and the scientists used data analysis to obtain the sequence of the whole genome in two of the first three confirmed cases in France. "This proves the efficacy of the CNR's process of analysis based on viral sequencing," continues Vincent Enouf.

There is more info in the article. So, it is not "pure speculation."

That was actually pretty quick of the Pasteur Institute.. Maybe because it is similar to the SARS virus that popped up in China in 2011-2002....

So, unless you are talking about something else, it appears that you are incorrect. :)

This is from tne American Society of Microbiology website, but I am on my tablet and the link is too long for me to cut and paste on here. But it says this:

Prior to the identification of SARS-CoV-2, betacoronaviruses found among humans included endemic human coronaviruses causing respiratory tract infections (such as OC43 and HKU1) and epidemic human coronaviruses. The latter are believed to have crossed over from animals to humans, and include MERS-CoV, which causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and SARS-CoV, which causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). In January 2020, when an RNA virus was identified as the etiologic agent of the disease soon to be named COVID-19, scientists immediately sequenced its genome. The virus had 79.0% sequence identity to SARS-CoV, and even higher sequence identity of 86.7%-89% with SARS-like coronaviruses originating in bats, with only 50% sequence identity with MERS-CoV. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) named the new virus SARS-CoV-2. Although evidence suggests that bats are likely a reservoir for the virus, their ecological separation from humans indicates that other mammalian species may have acted as “intermediate” or “amplifying” hosts.

This is the name of the article:

SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing Data: The Devil Is in the Genomic Detail
Oct. 28, 2020

So, you should be able to find it.

:)
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Not sure you are correct:




There is more info in the article. So, it is not "pure speculation."
Note that they use multiple samples (Plural) which isn't necessary to come up with a purified sample. They're admitting that they are piecing it together from differing samples. This alone refutes their claim. They have a soup of genetic material that they are piecing together, and claiming that they have a complete sequence when they don't even have a purified sample to begin with.
That was actually pretty quick of the Pasteur Institute.. Maybe because it is similar to the SARS virus that popped up in China in 2011-2002....
Similar is not the same. See the problem yet? There are numerous sequences that have been studied, and they may know that some are mutations while others are quite separate strains. They can even see how one strain is significantly more infectious while others which aren't nearly as infectious are significantly more lethal, e.g. the Wuhan strain was incredibly lethal, yet it was unable to spread quite readily all over China during the Chinese New Year. There was no better time to have a lethal virus kill off the whole population, yet this didn't happen because it wasn't highly infectious. The strain in Italy was highly infectious, and killed off quite a few people.
So, unless you are talking about something else, it appears that you are incorrect. :)
Yes, they are talking about something else. There are different meanings to "isolate", and they are not using a purified sample. They even admit that they were using multiple samples which isn't necessary to purify and isolate ONE virus. They are taking multiple samples that haven't been purified or isolated to begin with. They are simply just piecing together various sequences and claiming that they are all from the same virus.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Note that they use multiple samples (Plural) which isn't necessary to come up with a purified sample. They're admitting that they are piecing it together from differing samples. This alone refutes their claim. They have a soup of genetic material that they are piecing together, and claiming that they have a complete sequence when they don't even have a purified sample to begin with.

Similar is not the same. See the problem yet? There are numerous sequences that have been studied, and they may know that some are mutations while others are quite separate strains. They can even see how one strain is significantly more infectious while others which aren't nearly as infectious are significantly more lethal, e.g. the Wuhan strain was incredibly lethal, yet it was unable to spread quite readily all over China during the Chinese New Year. There was no better time to have a lethal virus kill off the whole population, yet this didn't happen because it wasn't highly infectious. The strain in Italy was highly infectious, and killed off quite a few people.

Yes, they are talking about something else. There are different meanings to "isolate", and they are not using a purified sample. They even admit that they were using multiple samples which isn't necessary to purify and isolate ONE virus. They are taking multiple samples that haven't been purified or isolated to begin with. They are simply just piecing together various sequences and claiming that they are all from the same virus.
I do not see how the sample somehow "refute" the idea that the genome sequence of the virus has been mapped. And of course they used computers.

I am talking about the complete gene sequence being mapped, not the isolation of one virus. I don't know how difficult that would be to do.

You did state the complete sequencing had not been done, did you not?: "....nowhere near a completely sequenced virus, hence the need for computer generated programs..." in post no. 63.

But it has. And the Institut Pasteur did it. Why should I believe you over them?
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
I'm not.

.
I was talking about that and you did say this:
" "....nowhere near a completely sequenced virus, hence the need for computer generated programs..." in post no. 63.

Yet, the virus has been completely sequenced several times, like in the Pasteur Institute in France. Why should I believe you over them?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Computer simulation.

Computer simulation, and misidentification e.g. exomes look EXACTLY the same.
Computers are used to assemble genomes, but this does not mean the final construct is some sort of computer simulation that is unrelated to the existing DNA.

And no, exomes are not exactly the same. Exome sequencing is used to diagnose for possible genetic disorders, which means that genetic variants would be identified.

The covid viral sequence is done and is reliable and is extremely useful.
 
Last edited:

vibise

Well-known member
Not a purified or isolated virus, and nowhere near a completely sequenced virus, hence the need for computer generated programs to try and piece them all together. The best they can do is to note that when they see added information in a sequence, they then know that this is a different virus rather than a mutation of the one they think they already have, but when we're dealing with 30k place holders, it gets a bit ridiculous.

Again, without actually purifying to completely isolate the virus, no one can positively identify what they're dealing with. They know that they have some genetic material in a soup, but beyond that, it's nothing but pure speculation.
You are trying to impose a ridiculous standard on routine protocols that have proven effective over and over again. We have had the initial sequence since Jan 2020, and repeated testing in thousands of labs has confirmed that sequence. That you want to dismiss the data as a fabrication is not going anywhere except to RW extremist websites.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Well let's pretend it's true. There have been 252 million doses given now do the math.
What does the math tell you about the death rate of covid, assuming all the reported covid deaths are actually because of covid? The idiot leftists have scared the crap out of people over how "dangerous" covid is, so what do the numbers tell us?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Note that they use multiple samples (Plural) which isn't necessary to come up with a purified sample. They're admitting that they are piecing it together from differing samples. This alone refutes their claim. They have a soup of genetic material that they are piecing together, and claiming that they have a complete sequence when they don't even have a purified sample to begin with.

Similar is not the same. See the problem yet? There are numerous sequences that have been studied, and they may know that some are mutations while others are quite separate strains. They can even see how one strain is significantly more infectious while others which aren't nearly as infectious are significantly more lethal, e.g. the Wuhan strain was incredibly lethal, yet it was unable to spread quite readily all over China during the Chinese New Year. There was no better time to have a lethal virus kill off the whole population, yet this didn't happen because it wasn't highly infectious. The strain in Italy was highly infectious, and killed off quite a few people.

Yes, they are talking about something else. There are different meanings to "isolate", and they are not using a purified sample. They even admit that they were using multiple samples which isn't necessary to purify and isolate ONE virus. They are taking multiple samples that haven't been purified or isolated to begin with. They are simply just piecing together various sequences and claiming that they are all from the same virus.
So how come no scientists are challenging these findings, including the methodology and the validity of the sequencing. Why hasn't the Pasteur Institute sequencing core been shut down because it does not conform to your standards?

Because the methods work and the results are clearly correct and valuable.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
You are trying to impose a ridiculous standard on routine protocols that have proven effective over and over again. We have had the initial sequence since Jan 2020, and repeated testing in thousands of labs has confirmed that sequence. That you want to dismiss the data as a fabrication is not going anywhere except to RW extremist websites.
The vaccine prevents people from getting covid right?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Correction: You have not addressed or refuted my evidence and proof.

They are the claims of the pharmaceutical companies themselves!

Not even close. I am simply pointing out some simple facts that are not being reported by the mainstream news outlets. The fact that the PCR test is useless in diagnostics doesn't negate the fact that it is still quite useful for its intended scientific purpose, i.e. research.

They are!!!! So is the medical community!!!

It's also called "the smoking gun", or the actual relevant quotations which are presented for the edification of those who don't feel like reading a wall of text. I supplied links so that YOU could go and look at them in context for yourself, and against all hope, respond with a coherent argument to address or refute the quoted texts.

How is it a misrepresentation? Please don't hesitate to actually present us with an argument, evidence, proof, etc. if you think you can. Otherwise, claims made without evidence should always be dismissed without evidence. The fact is that I provided you with the relevant quotes AND the links from which they came from for your edification and to allow you to offer whatever arguments you would like to present. Ad Hominem, and baseless accusations don't cut it.

Don't forget the 1,000 lawyers as well. You want their names, credentials, etc., or are you just going to claim that I'm quote mining again? As if that was a rebuttal. smh.
I found the declaration filed at the Hague. It is called the Barrington Declaration and specifically complains about lockdowns and their negative impacts on general public health.

 

Faithoverbelief

Well-known member
I found the declaration filed at the Hague. It is called the Barrington Declaration and specifically complains about lockdowns and their negative impacts on general public health.

Agenda 21 and its minions are working perfectly.😉
 

Bonnie

Super Member
So how come no scientists are challenging these findings, including the methodology and the validity of the sequencing. Why hasn't the Pasteur Institute sequencing core been shut down because it does not conform to your standards?

Because the methods work and the results are clearly correct and valuable.
What is your area of expertise in science, again? I forgot. :(
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I found the declaration filed at the Hague. It is called the Barrington Declaration and specifically complains about lockdowns and their negative impacts on general public health.

Deleted
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I was talking about that and you did say this:
" "....nowhere near a completely sequenced virus, hence the need for computer generated programs..." in post no. 63.

Yet, the virus has been completely sequenced several times, like in the Pasteur Institute in France. Why should I believe you over them?
All sequences are computer generated. No one has purified the virus before using computer algorithms to sequence them. I've already posted the links proving this.
 
Top