Facebook has decided that anything you say there that discourages the use of a vaccine, including especially Covid-19 vaccines, will be removed (and you might get banned) even if its truthful. For example, you can't talk about the fact that 95%+ of all associated deaths in VAERS for the last two years have been associated with Covid-19 vaccines, and 99% of them this year are associated with the Covid shots. This is the truth which you can look up right here on the CDC's own web page, but if you say it on Facebook - poof.
OSHA said if your employer required the vaccine they owned the results -- including the bad results. That quietly disappeared a day or two ago; you see, workplace injuries do not include things the government wants to happen. One wonders why this isn't applied to coal mining, oil drilling and even asbestos abatement; after all, the government does want asbestos out of buildings, right? So now your employer can injure or even slaughter you so long as the government approves. Germany didn't do something like that 80 years or so back, did they?
Incidentally OSHA will likely get attacked on that and lose on a TRO and injunction because under the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) there is a specific process a government agency must use to modify a previous stance, and their previous position was consistent with both law and practice for decades: As an employer if you mandate something as a condition of employment you own the outcome -- it's deemed a workplace injury -- if it goes badly.
It gets better. The CDC has now declared that if you've been vaccinated you are not a Covid-19 case unless you wind up in the hospital or die. I'm not kidding.
As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.
So now "cases" don't differentiate, or if you're vaccinated they may not report a positive result at all.
This "deems" the vaccines automatically 97-98% effective -- even if they're saline shots. Why? Well, you could look at our county here; as of December 1st, before there were any shots, we had 5,219 "cases" and 136 of them wound up in the hospital; 2.6%. Thus if you refuse to count a "case" in a vaccinated person unless they go to the hospital then you have deemed the shots 96+% effective even if there's nothing in the syringe. Magic, I tell you, magic..... and in a sane world such an open and notorious fraud would get you instantly arrested -- or worse, particularly when someone relies on that line of bullshit and dies as a consequence.
It's even worse: Unlike non-vaccinated Covid-19 people where reporting of positives and negatives was mandatory under CDC demand this is not:
The number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC likely are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. National surveillance relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data might not be complete or representative.
In other words hospitals don't have to look and see if you've been vaccinated if you show up there with Covid-19 nor is a hospitalization if you have been a mandatory reportable Covid-19 event. Of course they can (and I presume if your Ct is low enough they will for sequencing purposes) but the mandate is gone.
That's nice. How much resource do you spend on something that doesn't happen? Nothing. Therefore what is the reasonable presumption if you willfully refuse to look at and catalog data that is otherwise trivially available?
That's what I thought.
So the CDC has intentionally destroyed the integrity of the data set from April forward by introducing a new twist; they declare the shots "effective" to stop you from spreading the virus but then refuse to collect and document the data to prove it. Indeed they deliberately eliminate the means of determining that from the data, despite having recorded and reported every shot given and thus they do in fact know. If someone comes up PCR+ after the shot on a Ct40 test, well, whether symptomatic or not by the very rules the CDC adopted last spring they have Covid-19 and count as a "case"! Remember, the entire premise of their campaign and everything that everyone was ordered to do since last March was that even if you weren't physically sick you were still dangerous. After all it's obvious that someone who is sick could give whatever they have to someone else; you need no mandate other than "stay home if you're ill" if there is no asymptomatic transmission. The actual science has failed to identify asymptomatic transmission; it was never anything more than a computer model statistically, and an attempt to actually isolate cases of it in China across a huge population failed to find even one instance.
But if in fact the CDC still believes asymptomatic transmission is a "thing" then they should be collecting any and all evidence of Ct40 positive tests among those who got one or more shots. After all, positive is positive and any positive is dangerous, right? We kicked kids out of schools, we quarantined people in their homes and took all manner of other "precautions" on that basis including mask orders, closing businesses and the like and now the CDC is deliberately refusing to collect data of anyone with a positive PCR test for other than sequencing purposes who has been jabbed unless they wind up in the hospital, which is wildly more serious than simply being symptomatic!
Thus we can reasonably presume that the CDC has now declared that asymptomatic transmission is in fact not a thing; in other words, they now believe in the science. Or, to put it more-succinctly, they lied and ruined the economy, along with issuing mandates including the current mask "recommendation" in schools for no reason whatsoever.
But this also means that there is no public health argument for vaccination at all; only a personal one, and any attempt to mandate otherwise is unconstitutional since they now admit they cannot meet the first test when it comes to the burden of proof required: An unwitting person will transmit the virus to others only if not vaccinated; ergo, there is a "serious harm to others" argument which is extinguished by vaccination -- and only by vaccination. (There are plenty of other tests to be met too but if you fail this one you lose immediately in terms of a mandate when it comes down to both Constitutional and common law principles.) Given the CDC's actions anyone faced with such a mandate would appear to have a very good crack at nailing the issuing party to the wall on both an injunctive and final basis.
Never mind the now-irrefutable evidence coming out of India -- you know, where there are over a billion people? The CDC, NIH and FDA continue to proclaim that there are "no early treatments" that work. That's a damnable lie and was known in the spring of 2020. How many people do you get to kill with lies like this before either a crap-ton of people get frog-marched to face trial for mass-murder or, if the government refuses, a gallows gets erected right next to your signboard and the people take care of ridding the place of vermin themselves? It appears that the threshold is well beyond even a minor genocide, seeing as the body count is now over 500,000 by their own claims!
This would be truly unbelievable but of course it isn't because a huge percentage of the population have become psychotic. They were in fact driven to psychosis due to the deliberate lying and fear porn peddled by the government and all of the media but especially CNN, Rachel Maddow and others. These actors have all determined that the psychosis must continue and in fact Zuckerpig along with the other media and "social" outlets all insist: You may not do anything that might break people out of their psychotic states and if you do we will attempt to silence you.
You see, we cannot discuss whether the shots are safe on Facebook and other social media without the risk of being banned. If employers mandate it, which is illegal by the way as the EUAs make clear, the government doesn't give a fuck anymore. What else is new -- when, may I ask, has the government ever prosecuted someone doing something illegal provided they liked the outcome? Of course you get prosecuted for doing something illegal. But that's because you're not doing what Joe Biden (and before him, Trump) along with Fauci wants. Now about that gun Hunter bought and lied on the Form 4473...
So let's look at the data to see if indeed on the data the shots are effective. We already know they're not known safe; as I've pointed out back to December there have been myriad concerns with them, none answered. This doesn't prove they're unsafe but the burden of proof when it comes to safety is on the person making the claim, and the evidence must be clear and convincing; unanswered, reasonable questions all run the wrong way here. There's a nasty compendium that some fine folks put together, scientists and doctors all in an actual vaccine-related academic journal. Most of these were known to be potential issues back as far as December, before the first jab went in the first arm, and some were plausibly known in September yet not addressed by any of the makers before they filed for EUA, nor is any mention of them in the EUA documents. In fact, some of the issues now known were claimed to not occur by the manufacturers; an assertion we now is false That's mostly because it simply takes too long to answer the questions so in order to get the speed you want you can't wait for them -- you just go ahead and hope and, if an inconvenient question does arise, you ignore it.
If you come to me as a CEO and tell me that you want something in six months that normally takes ten years, and you'll give me immunity, I'm going to direct my staff not to look where suspicions might lay. Sure, if something is seen it has to be run down but if you don't look you're unlikely to see. It's not like we did not know that every mRNA attempt prior had resulted in the drug ending up where it wasn't supposed to go with resulting toxicity problems in animal trials, right? Oh wait, we did know that. So just don't look too closely and hope it doesn't wind up in data somewhere so we maintain plausible deniability.
It is what it is and that's what we did. It was stupid and nobody in their right mind should trust the process because it was intentionally made incurious to meet a timeline. Go talk to Trump about it originally and then Biden for not instantly halting it at one minute past noon on January 20th.
But there still is uncorrupted data available that we can look at -- specifically, to see if the core claim for you deciding to take these stabs is true: They will prevent you from wind up in the hospital or dying. If that test cannot be conclusively demonstrated then safety is irrelevant because the claimed benefit is either smaller than claimed or non-existent and thus no risk is acceptable.
Let's look at the hospitalization rate of people of ages from 50-64. KFF has some pretty good data here showing that by April about 70% either had received the shots or immediately intended to when they could, and basically everyone in that group could during April. So if the shots were 100% effective at preventing hospitalization and death and there was no preference for getting them among those who haven't had Covid-19, (there should be; if you've had the virus there's no reason to get it but all the screaming "urges" you to anyway) then hospital admissions among that group should be down about 70% from March levels plus the same sort of seasonal drop that we saw last year in the same group when there was no vaccine. Nobody is claiming 100% effective except in a flippant manner, but all are claiming wild reductions in risk for hospitalization and death, typically in the 90%+ range. 90% of 70% is 63%.
That doesn't look very different from last year, does it? It certainly isn't 63% different; you wouldn't need to count or draw lines to see that as it's nearly two thirds. Look at 65+, where the uptake for shots is even better; indeed there according to KFF the take rate for the shots is about 80%, and pretty-much everywhere anyone 65+ could get shots in March, not April. There should be very close to zero -- a roughly 75% reduction -- in people 65+ going to the hospital with Covid-19. But.... but..... but...... we were all promised!
Remember how a virus works; it can only infect people that are susceptible. Once infected you don't count as "susceptible" anymore. This immediately suppresses the R0 to what can be denoted as "Rt"; that is, the effective transmission rate, and once Rt goes under 1.0 then the case rate falls irrespective of all other measures because each infected person fails to find a new victim. That doesn't mean the infection rate goes to zero because as long as there are reservoirs (e.g. in cats, ferrets, etc.) even if in a given area all the people who have it fail to give it to someone else it will come back, whether from reintroduction by a person or one of the animal reservoirs. So all those people who got it and recovered over the spring, summer, fall and winter are neither reservoirs or transmission sources. Thus, by the data, if the shots worked there should be a dramatic reduction in hospitalizations.
Where is it, beyond the expected seasonal drop-off that mirrors exactly what we saw last year as the weather warmed up?
Any questions?
Further a shocking number of reports on social media are out there -- including Eric Clapton -- who were not sufficiently disabused of their psychosis even after a kick in the nuts; they had a severe reaction to the first jab and still went back for the second and not only got hammered again they got it worse the second time! Sure, it is true that the shots don't nail everyone; not even close. But think about how far into the land of irrational, psychotic fear you have to be to to back for seconds after being kicked in the balls. This is the world we live in today folks -- like it or not.
Don't be psychotic; it's not attractive at all and, frankly, that sort of behavior marks you as dangerous -- far more-so than any virus.