Bitcoin Forum

"CONCLUSIONS:
Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.

Word on the street here in the USA

Too bad there is no vaccine or cure for conspiratardism.


Get off the street and stay home.

Why do we need new flu shots over and over and over?

Do you not believe in evolution?  Viruses reproduce fast... there are lots of chances to mutate.

Word on the street here in the USA has been that people who get the flu shot every year end up getting the flu more often than people who never get the shot. So it does do something to weaken the immune system.

Ah hey, a new person coming to see some of the crazies in the section. Heh. (I know you're not new Vod, just a new face in awhile around here)

But no, people don't understand that basic things like that. We evolve as people, viruses evolve quickly, there are many strands of the flu and your vaccine may not help you, vaccines don't cause autisim, etc. (Just spitting off basic things)

VACCINES WORK FOLKS WE JUST DONT HAVE ONE YET FOR CORONA. Corona has been said to evolve slowly, which will help vaccines that are being developed now be effective for a long amount of time.

I started getting flu shots just two years ago.  Haven't had the flu since. 

You have had all sorts of health problems though.  I don't think you are a good poster boy for flu shots being harmless.

I feel flu shots are harmless, due to my experience.

By prophylactic vaccination of adults and especially children against measles, the pharmaceutical industry has earned Billions over a 40-year period. The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though. Furthermore: There is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove the existence of such virus so far. This raises the question of what was actually injected into millions of German citizens over the past decades. According to the judgment by the Supreme Court, it may not have been a vaccine against measles.

by Dr. Stefan Lanka

The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has ruled in the measles virus trial. The First Civil Senate of the BGH has confirmed the judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) of the 16 February 2016. The sum of €100,000 which I had offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus does not have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.

Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.

Genetics falsifies thesis of existence

In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.

Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.
Promoted Content
Mgid

The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.

The OLG Stuttgart on 16 February 2016 overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from 16 February 2016.

Conclusions

The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.

Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.

Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.

In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.

More and more people are noticing that 'the crazies' tend to rely on science and logic and often put enough effort to read scientific papers and provide links while...


^^^...The normies on the other side tend to be more than a little bit dogmatic.

You see in their work 'appeal to authority' and 'appeal to popularity' arguments dominate their thought process and it is quite rare to see actual scientific papers presented.  [Thanks, TechShare, for the brief and legible labels which nail it.]

One time on one of the vaccine threads someone posted a list of 50 studies.  I picked one at random.  What it actually said was just the opposite of what the pro-vaxer (who obviously just copy pasted some list he found somewhere and didn't read the material) claims.

Ugh, what? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to go on here.

I'm literally just saying that there are a lot of people in this section that are big into the -- vaccines going to kill you, the government is putting some weird shit in the water to kill you, and that there is a new world order, all that kind of stuff - just a lot of the conspiracy theory bullshit.

What are you trying to get at here?

You are falling into a commonly used trap of relying on propagandists for information about what anti-vaxxers believe.  I am out on the margins and do entertain hypotheses about the things you enumerate.  That doesn't mean that I 'believe' them or 'dis-believe' them; just that I pattern-match these possibilities against observations.  Anyway, I am chronically aggravated at 'anti-vaxxers' for dogmatically accepting a lot of other questionable corp/gov pushed things without the same kind of analysis that they apply to their vaccine research.

Like most so-called 'anti-vaxxers', I am in favor of some vaccines and requested them for my child.  In my case the only vaccine which the rewards probably outweigh the risks would be HBG for tuberculosis.  Most so-called 'anti-vaxxers' choose more vaccines for their kids than I do.

A certain minority of 'anti-vaxxers' come at things from a religous angle and reject all vaccines (and other medical interventions) as principle.  I personally think that is kind of nuts, but it's not my place to butt into their business.  It would be nice if the pro-vaxxers would take the same tact and leave other people alone, but these people tend to be nasty control-freak types who are not wired that way.  And their thought leaders, in the shadows pulling the puppet strings, are probably anti-human Lucifarian types as best I can determine.

The next thing to study is why the death rates in Germany are so much lower than other western European countries with high reported infections. Is Germany reporting a lot more mild cases than other countries?

Fifteen years ago researchers investigated whether flu vaccines are effective, that is, save lives.  These researchers noted that vaccination rates for the flu among high-risk senior adults rose from a low 15-20% prior to 1980 to over 65% beginning in 2001.  However, counterintuitively flu-related mortality rose dramatically.

The researchers performed their calculations and concluded the flu-related mortality rate was very close to what would have occurred had no vaccine been available!

In fact, there were so few flu-related deaths some years (the American Lung Association reports flu deaths as low as 257 in 2001, 727 in 2002, and 411 in 2007.  This is in stark contrast to the Centers for Disease Control that says there are ~36,000 estimated flu deaths annually.

The US news media in concert with the Centers for Disease Control continue to issue scary reports of ~14,000 to 36,000 annual deaths from the flu.

For the record, here is a direct quotation from The Centers for Disease Control:

"Epidemics of influenza typically occur during the winter months in temperate regions and have been responsible for an average of approximately 36,000 deaths/year in the United States during 1990—1999."  Morbidity & Mortality Reports Volume 54, No. RR08, pages 1-40, July 29, 2005.

Scratching their heads, these researchers concluded that natural immunity emerged after 1968, leaving few deaths in this age group left to prevent, ~5000 per year.

This helps to explain why only a third of American are vaccinated against the flu but flu outbreaks are very limited.  It is not herd immunity, transferred from one person to another, almost like viruses are shed and transferred to others.

This may be why a recent analysis could not find any association between vaccination rates and severity of the flu season in 2010-11 and 2017-18.

The chart below reveals the Centers for Disease Control over-estimates the number of flu infections and deaths by a wide margin, a practice that has become a common way to scare the public into flu vaccination. In some years there were only a few hundred cases of laboratory-confirmed flu, but many millions of Americans were vaccinated.

If there were 100 million Americans vaccinated and just 1000 flu deaths, that means 100,000 would have to be vaccinated to prevent one flu death, an example of massive over-vaccination.

Let's refer to another source.  The Kaiser Family Foundation reports 11,164 flu deaths in 2018.  That is also a high figure (a 2.8 per 100,000 incidence). About a third of Americans roll up their sleeves for flu vaccination annually.  Let's say 120 million Americans (out of a population of ~325 million) were vaccinated for the flu – – – 10,748 would need to be vaccinated to prevent a single death.  In other words, a person electing to vaccinate has a remote chance of every benefiting (avoiding death) from the flu.

In the coronavirus panic of 2019-20, more Americans are lining up for flu shots than ever before.  As of the end of February 2020, a record 174.5 million doses of flu vaccine had been distributed.

The American Lung Association 2015 report on deaths associated with influenza infections is much lower than data provided by the Centers for Disease Control (see chart below).

The CDC and the news media choose to commonly publish that there are ~36,000 flu-related deaths per flu-year.  The American Lung Association reports flu deaths as low as 257 (2001), 727 (2002), and 411 (2007).

A pediatrician wrote the CDC an official demand for correction, that the CDC correct the misperception that flu-related death rates are high.  But the CDC smugly says there is no egg on their face.  The CDC sticks to its misleading figure of 36,000 annual flu-related deaths.

Just what measures human immunity?  Answer: T cells.  There are cells generated in the thymus gland to produce life-long antibodies against various incoming pathogens (bacteria, viruses, etc.)

The thymus gland shrinks and does not produce sufficient antibodies without the trace mineral zinc.

Zinc is required to produce T-cells that facilitate memory immunity which is the objective of vaccination.  Zinc-dependent antibodies are required to fight off pathogeNatural immunity is thought to produce life-long immunity whereas synthetic vaccines require booster shots.  nic bacteria and viruses.  Essentially vaccines don' work without zinc.  An authoritative report is available at www.beyondvaccines.com for those who want to learn more.

It is natural immunity that is making vaccines look good.

To say the truth, this SARS-cov-2 coronavirus doesn't look to me a lot different to any other seasonal cold just looking at the numbers and allowing for some 'margin of error' or 'slop' associated with the unreliability of corp/gov related media presented information.

Seasonal colds sweep through the world once then vanish with herd immunity in the 60-70% range.  I see no scientific reason yet to think that this one would be any different.  It doesn't _need_ to 'come in waves' unless that would be handy for some other thing that leaderships wish to do.  Esp, forced vaccinations of everyone on earth because some time is necessary to make the development of a vaccine believable.

The high level of quarantine world-wide is accomplishing one main thing for this coronavirus:  It is making it so that this particular coronavirus is not dying out as normal once it reaches the typical level of herd immunity that would ordinarily happen.

I used to think anti vaxers were morons.

But if the flu has two strains a or b. why doesn't two shots a year stop the flu?

Why do we need new flu shots over and over and over?

Now i get some shots. But I won’t get flu shots as year after year flu shots don’t do a good job.

I also know of a set of twins that were given a five vax shot that fried the boy’s brain 🧠 and made the girl really sick she needed a year to recover. The boy will have life long brain damage.

I do have a problem about the five vax shot.  which vax fucked the kids up.
1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5.

if they had five shots two weeks apart.  even if one of the five fucked them up just as bad we would have a stat that says shot 3 fucks way too many up.
 

And for OP, your post is SO scientifically innacurate because there are no studies that shows that getting vaccinated increases your chance of catching the flu (or any other virus in this manner) so you may want to support your claim with some studies (if you could find any) otherwise it wont be taken seriously.
...

And those that do (e.g., like in the 2nd post of this thread) are invalid because they show some issues and since we know that vaccines are don't have any issues we also know that such studies are invalid.  Thus, they don't exist.

And for OP, your post is SO scientifically innacurate because there are no studies that shows that getting vaccinated increases your chance of catching the flu (or any other virus in this manner) so you may want to support your claim with some studies (if you could find any) otherwise it wont be taken seriously.

the sutdy u showed is not related to what OP is saying, he claimed that vaccines somehow make people more vulnerable  to the novel coronavirus (which is just a wild claim without proofs) and you are talking about some vaccines trials that went wrong (it does happen sometimes), so i cant see how this prove that vaccines are dangerous and must be stopped.

There won't be any studies released soon enough to help people who are facing a pandemic right now.

Anyway, do you know of any viruses that have an incubation period that varies from 3 days to 14 days? I'd like to exclude previous SARS coronaviruses since that's really the same thing as this.

i think the main reason why the incubation period has a long range is because the virus is pretty new and not much is known about it. i believe that as time goes on and scientists know more about the virus they can shorten that range

The reason why vaccines and flu shots are ineffective is because the pandemic is different than the flu shot that is given. Plus, if you think about it most of the old people who died have underlying symptoms that caused their deaths.

Lol.  You believe that this is a designer virus, eh?

I happen to agree and suspect that there are a selection of variants of coronavirus each with different 'gain of function' parameters all set up to go into production.

Since labs post job descriptions for people who have experience modifying bat coronaviruses, I think Occam's razor suggests that laboratories engage in modifying bat viruses.

If there are no evidence showing otherwise well then yes i do.
scientists in china back in january cracked the virus genom code and based on their review it's not a man made virus. (natural evolution)

In other words, there is no pandemic at all, but news is edited so well worldwide by the NSA AI, that people think there is a dreadful pandemic. And this post will wind up looking like something entirely different to you and various viewers than what it looks like I posted to me.

What if? Is this even possible?

8)

So like what if they do things like hide posts on discussion forums so that people only see one side of the discussion? You have to connect to the Internet anonymously after posting to make sure that your post is being seen by other people, or at least those who connect anonymously.

I call extra attention to this because THIS is a 'shadow ban'.
[...]
I don't remember exactly when I noticed myself being genuinely 'shadow-banned' (and realized that it was more than a 'bug') but it had to have been at least a few years before 2016 and well before the word 'shadow-ban' had come into widespread use. 

June 13, 2000 (San Antonio) -- Faced with an ever-growing list of required and recommended vaccinations for children -- as well as occasional reports of safety problems linked to vaccines -- many parents understandably feel confused. No doubt adding to that confusion are reports that the vaccine against hepatitis B, a blood-borne illness that can cause liver cancer, may actually lead to the development of type 1 diabetes in children.

Type 1 diabetes is the form where the body doesn?t make the insulin it needs. An Italian study presented here at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association suggests that children who get the hepatitis B vaccine are at greater risk for developing type 1 disease than those who have never been vaccinated. On the basis of their research, Paolo Pozzilli, MD, and colleagues say doctors should exercise caution in giving the vaccine to children who have close relatives with type 1 diabetes.

But because type 1 diabetes is relatively rare in the overall population, thorough studies involving several hundred thousand participants are needed to prove a solid link, says Marion Rewers, MD, who was not involved in the study. So the jury is still out, he says.
Continue Reading Below

"The possibility of a link between hepatitis B vaccine [and type 1 diabetes] is an interesting research area and has been recognized as such by a number of investigators across the world," he tells WebMD. He says that at two recent meetings, researchers "were in unanimous agreement that there was no association. We need a monitoring system, so that if an association is found in the future, it can be promptly identified." Rewers, a pediatric endocrinologist, is a professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver and chair of the ADA council on epidemiology and statistics.

The CDC recommends that the hepatitis B vaccine be a part of routine vaccination schedules for U.S. infants.

The hepatitis B vaccine is now required in Italy, says Pozzilli, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Rome. Further, there is a low, relatively stable rate of type 1 diabetes there. These conditions allowed the researchers to compare the rate of diabetes in vaccinated children with that in unvaccinated groups.

June 13, 2000 (San Antonio) -- Faced with an ever-growing list of required and recommended vaccinations for children -- as well as occasional reports of safety problems linked to vaccines -- many parents understandably feel confused. No doubt adding to that confusion are reports that the vaccine against hepatitis B, a blood-borne illness that can cause liver cancer, may actually lead to the development of type 1 diabetes in children.

Type 1 diabetes is the form where the body doesn?t make the insulin it needs. An Italian study presented here at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association suggests that children who get the hepatitis B vaccine are at greater risk for developing type 1 disease than those who have never been vaccinated. On the basis of their research, Paolo Pozzilli, MD, and colleagues say doctors should exercise caution in giving the vaccine to children who have close relatives with type 1 diabetes.

But because type 1 diabetes is relatively rare in the overall population, thorough studies involving several hundred thousand participants are needed to prove a solid link, says Marion Rewers, MD, who was not involved in the study. So the jury is still out, he says.
Continue Reading Below

"The possibility of a link between hepatitis B vaccine [and type 1 diabetes] is an interesting research area and has been recognized as such by a number of investigators across the world," he tells WebMD. He says that at two recent meetings, researchers "were in unanimous agreement that there was no association. We need a monitoring system, so that if an association is found in the future, it can be promptly identified." Rewers, a pediatric endocrinologist, is a professor of pediatrics and preventive medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver and chair of the ADA council on epidemiology and statistics.

The CDC recommends that the hepatitis B vaccine be a part of routine vaccination schedules for U.S. infants.

The hepatitis B vaccine is now required in Italy, says Pozzilli, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Rome. Further, there is a low, relatively stable rate of type 1 diabetes there. These conditions allowed the researchers to compare the rate of diabetes in vaccinated children with that in unvaccinated groups.

Investigators compared 150,000 children who had been vaccinated at age 3 months to an equal number of unvaccinated children. To assess the risk of developing type 1 diabetes in children who got the vaccine later, after vaccination became mandatory in Italy, 400,000 children who were vaccinated at age 12 were compared with children who had not been vaccinated.

In the group as a whole, the rates of type 1 diabetes were 46 per 100,000 for children who had been vaccinated and 34 per 100,000 for children who had not. For those vaccinated at age 12, the rates were 17.8 per 100,000 for vaccinated children and 6.9 per 100,000 for unvaccinated children.

Although these may seem like large groups to study, they are not big enough for scientists to see clear patterns for type 1 diabetes, Rewers says. For a study like this to have value, the database should involve as many as 250,000 people in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, he says.
Continue Reading Below

"Caution is necessary when the potential of vaccine-related risks is studied," Rewers tells WebMD. "Without sound supportive data, [parents] can become unduly alarmed and stop immunizing their children." When immunization rates drop, diseases that can cause serious illness -- and death -- return, he tells WebMD.

The National Institutes of Health and the CDC are jointly establishing a system known as "sentinel monitoring areas," Rewers tells WebMD. The agencies will track the rate of type 1 diabetes in these areas -- consisting of selected counties in the U.S. -- and will determine whether the rate is related to things like immunizations, recommended infant feeding schedules, and outbreaks of infection.

Rewers has not been involved with the development of any vaccine and has no ties to any company that manufactures vaccines.

WebMD Health News

During the discussion, Anderson encouraged the audience to get a flu shot, suggesting that it may help with the coronavirus. Is this true?

Greg. G Wolff, an Epidemiologist with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch recently published a study in the Journal Vaccine titled,  Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season. The study examined virus interference in a Department of Defense population, this refers to the increased risk of other respiratory viruses as a result of, in this case, the influenza vaccine. The study found that virus interference varied among vaccinated individuals for individual respiratory viruses, and found that for coronavirus in particular, in this study, those who had been vaccinated with the flu vaccine had a 36 percent higher risk  of contracting it

The study compared the vaccination status of more than two thousand people with non-influenza respiratory viruses to more than three thousand people with pan-negative results. The vaccination status of more than three thousand cases of influenza were compared to three different control groups, and appropriate adjustments were made.

...

So, it’s important to mention that other studies have found no association between the flu vaccine and an increased risk for other respiratory viruses, but when looking specifically at coronavirus, Wolff’s study found that “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.”

The video is basically funny but this type of problem is occurring thanks to not getting enough vaccines most of the research doctors fail That's why everything seems to be messing up. However there's no vaccine for the virus worldwide but many countries have returned to normal Although the virus isn't completely controlled the amount of infections is far less than before that's why we've to take care until we are completely right.