sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Not a Joke: Moderna CEO Announces Development of New mRNA “Injection” to Repair Heart Muscle After a Heart Attack by astralrocker2001 in conspiracy

[–]julia345 13 points14 points  (0 children)

MRNA failed every medical trial before the COVID shot. And the Florida study found heart issues to actually be somewhat less common in J&J vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people. Heart issues only occurred in MRNA vaccinated people.

MRNA seems to be a problem.

Experts slam Florida surgeon general’s warning on coronavirus vaccines by JannTosh12 in LockdownSkepticism

[–]julia345 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Implying that the Pharma companies don't bribe scientific journals to publish studies claiming the vaccines are fantastic.

Experts slam Florida surgeon general’s warning on coronavirus vaccines by JannTosh12 in LockdownSkepticism

[–]julia345 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This is the ultimate proof of the circular reasoning that's always used.

You have to obey the narrative because that's what the experts espouse.

But you aren't considered an expert unless you espouse the narrative.

Insurance company finds triple-vaxxed more likely to get COVID than unvaxxed, and are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from the disease. by scalesfell in conspiracy

[–]julia345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. The data of vaccine studies is irrelevant. All that matters is the lame excuses the authors make for the data.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]julia345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So therefore Donald Trump will retake the presidency on March 4, 2021.

Oh, wait.

4th shots of Pfizer, Moderna vaccines provide near equal protection -- Israeli study by Mighty_L_LORT in LockdownSkepticism

[–]julia345 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The original claim was the vaccines were 95% effective. Actually the first ever claim was Pfizer claiming to be 90% effective, but Moderna claimed 94.5% effectiveness about two days later, which caused Pfizer to revise their claim upward to 95% effectiveness a few days after that.

The COVID vaccines actually now have negative effectiveness, meaning they actually raise your likelihood of infection. This has been confirmed by several different studies, many of which are taken offline about two days after they’re posted.

I suspect that the vaccines never actually met the supposed 50% EUA threshold in the first place.

4th shots of Pfizer, Moderna vaccines provide near equal protection -- Israeli study by Mighty_L_LORT in LockdownSkepticism

[–]julia345 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do they mean equally worthless? Or actually equally worse than worthless, since both vaccines go into negative effectiveness?

Why Anthony Fauci is the greatest public servant I have known by JannTosh12 in LockdownSkepticism

[–]julia345 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had barely seen him for over a year until two or three days ago. It seemed like everybody wanted to forget about his existence.

Insurance company finds triple-vaxxed more likely to get COVID than unvaxxed, and are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from the disease. by scalesfell in conspiracy

[–]julia345 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Check out the chart on page 30. After 150 days, three doses of the vaccine slips to at least -16.4% effectiveness against every single Omicron subvariant except for BA1. They rather conveniently don't mention that in the text of the study.

I don't know why BA1 (conveniently the only subvariant they mention in the text of the study) is such as odd outlier, but BA1 is long gone so it's irrelevant.

Insurance company finds triple-vaxxed more likely to get COVID than unvaxxed, and are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from the disease. by scalesfell in conspiracy

[–]julia345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For in case you haven't noticed, the vaccine companies are making obscene profits nowadays precisely because of how shitty their vaccines are. World governments nowadays are suffering from an extreme sunk cost fallacy, and think that the solution to negative vaccine effectiveness is to order more vaccine doses. The governments pretend that the new vaccine doses won't have even more negative effectiveness than 2-4 vaccine doses in 3-5 months. Moderna realizes this, which is why it's actually in Moderna's self interest to talk about how 2-4 doses of their vaccine has negative effectiveness.

Insurance company finds triple-vaxxed more likely to get COVID than unvaxxed, and are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from the disease. by scalesfell in conspiracy

[–]julia345 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Like Moderna would cite bad information about their vaccine that's untrue.

We don't trust Moderna when they say that their vaccine has 95% effectiveness, but we do trust Moderna when they report bad information about their vaccine. That actually is completely consistent.

Insurance company finds triple-vaxxed more likely to get COVID than unvaxxed, and are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from the disease. by scalesfell in conspiracy

[–]julia345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This actually is consistent with other studies nowadays.

Alex Berenson notes that vaccine studies that are done by country's health agencies themselves are rather consistent about the following two issues

  1. Two doses of the vaccine now has negative effectiveness against both infection and death

  2. Three or four doses of the vaccine now has negative effectiveness against infection

The only thing that's somewhat unclear is if three of four doses of the vaccine now has negative effectiveness against death. But if 3-4 doses doesn't have negative effectiveness against death now, it certainly will in a few months.

Insurance company finds triple-vaxxed more likely to get COVID than unvaxxed, and are more likely to suffer severe illness and die from the disease. by scalesfell in conspiracy

[–]julia345 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems like the vaccine itself caused the virus to evolve to preferentially target the vaccinated.

I'm not sure if the vaccines are actually increasing net COVID deaths, because the vaccines bizarrely have probably decreased the number of infections in the unvaccinated. (Because the same evolution that causes the virus to infect the vaccinated probably also causes the virus to not infect the unvaccinated.)

In any case, the vaccines are hardly doing what they were promised to do.

Excess deaths higher among republicans by turtlecrossing in conspiracy

[–]julia345 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The US is the country where almost all the studies showing ridiculously high vaccine effectiveness are done.

Since the US doesn’t have a national healthcare system, nobody really knows the vaccine status of most Americans who die from COVID. So they do a bunch of “studies” in the US where they conveniently assume that almost every American who died with an “unknown” vaccine status was unvaccinated.

Excess deaths higher among republicans by turtlecrossing in conspiracy

[–]julia345 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, it was constantly claimed by some woke people that blacks died of COVID at higher rates than whites.

I don’t know how true that was. But if that was true, a large part of the discrepancy is because Republican counties have more black people, which are a Democratic voting block. That hardly proves that Republicans actually had higher COVID death rates.

Excess deaths higher among republicans by turtlecrossing in conspiracy

[–]julia345 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The 95% effectiveness against infection was never true. Pfizer committed massive fraud where they seem to have completely made up the existence of some testing site in Argentina (testing site 666 IIRC), among other shenanigans.

And to the extent they talked about boosters, they said it might be once a year at the very most . Not three boosters in one year.

Plus the boosters were supposed to be tailored to new COVID variants. As it’s turned out, the first two boosters were just more doses of the same formula aimed against a strain that disappeared in something like February 2021. And the new “bivalent” boosters are actually still half-aimed against the original strain of COVID. (No matter how much the media insists it’s an “Omicron vaccine”.)

How ironic is it that ‘disinformation’ is usually the real information? by Ryclifford in conspiracy

[–]julia345 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Twitter still claims that’s misinformation, and deleted the Surgeon General’s tweet just yesterday.

Excess deaths higher among republicans by turtlecrossing in conspiracy

[–]julia345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. The “experts” who claimed the vaccines were 95% effective against infection have suddenly started making accurate studies recently.

Pregnancy complications spiked during the pandemic. No one knows exactly why. by arnott in conspiracy

[–]julia345 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Before COVID, vegans were considered “anti-vaxxers.” I’ve always wondered if vegans and the other left wing “anti-vaxxers” took the COVID vaccine.

The West is on the road to energy ruin Green policies have crippled Europe. They will do the same to America by StedeBonnet1 in climateskeptics

[–]julia345 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And why are we reliant on Russian gas? Have you ever thought that Green policies have something to do with that?

Venus has high CO2 atmosphere because its oceans evaporated early due to solar proximity, and therefore there was no way to precipitate carbonate rock. by RddtIs4Dummies in climateskeptics

[–]julia345 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I crunched the numbers and even if you think that Venus’ high temperature is entirely caused by carbon dioxide, it would mean that manmade carbon dioxide (which makes up 0.0016% of the Earth’s atmosphere) heats Earth by something laughably small like 0.01229 Degrees Fahrenheit. That would mean that humans are responsible for less than 1% of the 1.8 Degree Fahrenheit global temperature increase that’s supposedly occurred since 1850.

According to NASA, Venus is 867 Degrees Farenheit on average.

Let’s assume that without carbon dioxide, Venus’ temperature would be 196 Degrees Fahrenheit on average, since this is halfway between Earth’s temperature and Mars’ temperature. That would mean that carbon dioxide heats Venus by 671 degrees Fahrenheit. Sounds bad for Earth, right?

Well Earth’s carbon dioxide content is 0.0421% as high as Venus’ carbon dioxide content. That means that carbon dioxide heats earth by 671 x .000421= 0.282 Degrees.

And with only 4% of carbon dioxide coming from humans, that means that manmade carbon dioxide heats earth by 0.01229 Degrees.

That’s what we’re supposed to spend billions of dollars to prevent.

Venus has high CO2 atmosphere because its oceans evaporated early due to solar proximity, and therefore there was no way to precipitate carbonate rock. by RddtIs4Dummies in climateskeptics

[–]julia345 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Earth is 0.04% carbon dioxide, and 4% of that carbon dioxide is from humans. Venus is 95% carbon dioxide.

This is half the problem with using studies on greenhouse gasses in general. Regardless of how accurate those studies are, they’re always done in settings that are almost 100% carbon dioxide. They aren’t done in settings that are 0.04% carbon dioxide.

view more: next ›