Why Americans are dying at a higher rate? What's behind the decline in US life expectancy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter harddriver
  • Start date Start date
Thumbpicker said:
She's a curry muncher so impossible because under my definition she'd get deported. Rightwing enough for you?
Click to expand...
No! The left-right binary is stupid. And I love a good curry! But regardless, I think you’d have a secret crush at least ? She’s a real tough talker! ?
 
Thumbpicker said:
I can guarantee it was funded by far more sources than that.
Click to expand...
Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine? - PubMed (nih.gov)

Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified.

Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020.
 
VonBonfire said:
Oh oh lemme guess....you DID DAH REEEESURCH!!!
Click to expand...
This is it - if you go looking for something on the internet you can validate anything at all. This is why you shouldn't go looking for validation for your wacko views... there will be validation for that too and the complete opposite as well. Because you're not an expert in the field and don't have the enough education you are not getting a proper weighted and balanced viewpoint at all. This is why you need to be careful consulting "Dr. Google". Go and talk to some real doctors and air your concerns with them. Assuming you can afford it in your country where you need to amputate your arm and leg to pay for a consultation.
 
Thumbpicker said:
This is it - if you go looking for something on the internet you can validate anything at all. This is why you shouldn't go looking for validation for your wacko views... there will be validation for that too and the complete opposite as well. Because you're not an expert in the field and don't have the enough education you are not getting a proper weighted and balanced viewpoint at all. This is why you need to be careful consulting "Dr. Google". Go and talk to some real doctors and air your concerns with them. Assuming you can afford it in your country where you need to amputate your arm and leg to pay for a consultation.
Click to expand...
Dr Logic told me that someone who pushes experimental drugs using intimidation and coercion doesn't want to go waltzing matilda with me. I didnt' need to google anything to see through a simple street level scam.
 
VonBonfire said:
Dr Logic told me that someone who pushes experimental drugs using intimidation and coercion doesn't want to go waltzing matilda with me. I didnt' need to google anything to see through a simple street level scam.
Click to expand...
Yeah right it's a worldwide scam. Better get back to the 3rd grade and your cypherin' Jethro.
 
CrazyNutz said:
Dude, you cannot tell me my first hand experience was invalid. It 100% worked, I had the first strain in my house many times not only from my Grandson that was literally sneezing, and coughing in our faces for 2-3 weeks, to several family members that brought it over. THE WIFE AND I NEVER CONTRACTED IT.

Now, it did not work against Omicron, and I knew it would not. I did not care, I knew Omicron was mild so I wanted to just let it take it's course., and it did very easily, and quickly.

BTW, you're silly if you think I'm "emotionally" invested in a COVID vax. LOL
Click to expand...
Here is the reference pulled straight from Ken Paxton's lawsuit which in turn was extracted directly from Pfizer's clinical trial data that was submitted to the FDA which you tax dollars pay to ensure that the medicine you take is safe for use in humans.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Pfizer Vaccine Petition Filed.pdf

Excerpt from State of Texas vs Pfizer Inc
Plaintiff's Original Petition

How did this happen? How did Pfizer’s vaccine achieve such widespread adoption, yet

fall short of the stated goal of ending the pandemic? In a nutshell, Pfizer deceived the public. First,

Pfizer’s widespread representation that its vaccine possessed 95% efficacy against infection was

highly misleading from day one. That number was only ever legitimate in a solitary, highly-

technical, and artificial way—it represented a calculation of the so-called “relative risk reduction”

State of Texas v. Pfizer, Inc.
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 2 of 3

for vaccinated individuals in Pfizer’s then-unfinished pivotal clinical trial. But FDA publications

indicate “relative risk reduction” is a misleading statistic that “unduly influence” consumer

choice. Indeed, per FDA: “when information is presented in a relative risk format, the risk

reduction seems large and treatments are viewed more favorably than when the same information

is presented” using more accurate metrics.

Here, the proof is in the pudding. While Pfizer’s 95% figure made its vaccines seem highly

effective, the truth was quite different. When it began making those claims, Pfizer possessed on

average only two months of clinical trial data from which to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated

persons. Of 17,000 placebo recipients, only 162 acquired COVID-19 during this two-month

period. Based on those numbers, vaccination status had a negligible impact on whether a trial

participant contracted COVID-19. The risk of acquiring COVID-19 was so small in the first

instance during this short window that Pfizer’s vaccine only fractionally improved a person’s risk

of infection. And a vaccine recipient’s absolute risk reduction—the federal Food & Drug

Administration’s (FDA) preferred efficacy metric—showed that the vaccine was merely 0.85%

effective. Moreover, according to Pfizer’s own data, preventing one COVID-19 case required

vaccinating 119. That was the simple truth. But Pfizer’s fusillade of public representations bore no

resemblance to reality.

Having seeded the marketplace with its misleading “95% effective” representation, Pfizer

expanded its deception campaign across several fronts:

• First, duration of protection: FDA recognized when it first authorized Pfizer’s vaccine
that it was “not possible” to know how effective the vaccine would remain beyond two
months. But in early 2021, Pfizer deliberately created the false impression that its
vaccine had durable and sustained protection, going so far as to withhold highly
relevant data and information from the consuming public showing that efficacy waned

State of Texas v. Pfizer, Inc.
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 3 of 4
rapidly.
• Second, transmission: FDA warned Pfizer that it “needed” additional information to
determine whether the vaccine protected against “transmission” of COVID-19 between
persons. But Pfizer instead engaged in a fear-mongering campaign, exploiting intense
public fears over the year-long pandemic by insinuating that vaccination was necessary
for Americans to protect their loved ones from contracting COVID-19.
• Third, variant protection: Pfizer knowingly made false and unsupported claims about
vaccine performance against variants, including specifically the so-called Delta variant.
The vaccine performed remarkably poorly against the Delta variant, and Pfizer’s own
data confirmed this fact. Nonetheless, Pfizer told the public that its vaccine was “very,
very, very effective against Delta.”
Pfizer’s product, buoyed by the company’s misrepresentations, enriched the company
enormously. But, while Pfizer’s misrepresentations piled up, its vaccine’s performance
plummeted. Beginning in late 2020, multiple countries heavily relied on Pfizer’s recently approved
vaccine in their first inoculation campaigns. Due to widespread public participation, vaccination
rates soared. Beneath the surface of Pfizer’s misrepresentation-fueled success, however, myriad
pieces of information demonstrate how Pfizer’s vaccine failed to live up to its claims of efficacy.
For example, shortly after Delta’s emergence in Israel in 2021 (the informational canary in the
coalmine, according to Pfizer), the vaccine’s relative risk reduction dropped precipitously—from
64% in June 2021 to 39% just one month later. Granular data collected by governments worldwide
revealed that upon Delta’s introduction, the number of deaths among the fully vaccinated spiked
for months. Indeed, certain jurisdictions reported negative vaccine efficacy in late 2021 and early
2022—meaning a greater percentage of vaccinated persons contracted, and even died from,
COVID-19 than unvaccinated. Others found that the percentage of people infected with COVID-

State of Texas v. Pfizer, Inc.
Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 4 of 5
19 increased over time, even in the face of widespread vaccine penetration. In the U.K., for
example, infection rates were 7.0% from April 26, 2020 to December 7, 2020 (before the approval
and distribution of Pfizer’s product), but 24.2% from May 18, 2021 to December 13, 2021, and
33.6% from December 14, 2021 to February 21, 2022.
How did Pfizer respond when it became apparent that its vaccine was failing and the
viability of its cash cow under threat? By intimidating those spreading the truth, and by conspiring
to censor the vaccine’s critics. Pfizer labeled as “criminals” those who spread facts about the
vaccine. It accused them of spreading “misinformation.” And it coerced social media platforms to
silence prominent truth-tellers. Indeed, Pfizer even went so far as to request that social media
platforms silence a former FDA director because his comments could “driv[e] news coverage”
critical of the vaccine.
 
Last edited:
I think if you edit your post and select all the text you can un-strike it in the formatting drop-down.
 
Thumbpicker said:
Yeah right it's a worldwide scam. Better get back to the 3rd grade and your cypherin' Jethro.
Click to expand...
It was a scam that was perpetrated worldwide, yes. You got scammed in Australia, folks got scammed here and so one. Of course there are people in Australia and the US and so on that were not scammed, but apparently that was a minority. Of course, conditioning one's livelihood, travel and ability to shop on having the shot helped with the scam's success, so it's not like the scammers are that brilliant. In addition to propaganda and fear manipulation, they largely relied on coercion, like the Mafia.
 
acceptance said:
It was a scam that was perpetrated worldwide, yes. You got scammed in Australia, folks got scammed here and so one. Of course there are people in Australia and the US and so on that were not scammed, but apparently that was a minority. Of course, conditioning one's livelihood, travel and ability to shop on having the shot helped with the scam's success, so it's not like the scammers are that brilliant. In addition to propaganda and fear manipulation, they largely relied on coercion, like the Mafia.
Click to expand...
Yes perpetrated by the lizard people no doubt. They are everywhere. Watching... watching...
 
Not to go off topic, but what do y'all believe a sustainable worldwide population estimate would be to keep say wealthy US level consumerism in near perpetuity?
 
Thumbpicker said:
Yes perpetrated by the lizard people no doubt. They are everywhere. Watching... watching...
Click to expand...
No, everyday midwits carried it out. Probably some clever folks higher up though. In other words, I don’t believe it was in general a conspiracy, where everyone was in on it. Just basic stupidity, herd behavior and human psychology account for 99%.
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
Not to go off topic, but what do y'all believe a sustainable worldwide population estimate would be to keep say wealthy US level consumerism in near perpetuity?
Click to expand...
ShoddyKeyGemsbuck-size_restricted.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top