Covid 19 Vaccines kill

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
S

StarmanMBA

Active member
My dear friend's wife died of massive blood clot shortly after getting her Covid 19 shot.

My neighbor's son, only 55, suffered a massive stroke after getting vaccinated.

Morticians have reported huge increases in blood clots in cadavers in the past three years.

Deadly they are.

UNVAXXED never a threat.jpg
 
irvinehomeowner said:
My cousin died from Covid and left her daughter without any parents.

My friend died from complications due to Covid and left her 2 kids without a mom.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that vulnerable people could be killed by COVID-19 just as they could be harmed by any other virus, the disease was dangerous for some. That's not the issue.

The fundamental issues are:

A) Was masking, social distancing, and other punitive actions taken scientifically based? No, A prime example: The State kept Walmart's open but closed the churches. You may be kept 6 feet away from other people, but it was OK to sit in a pressurized tube for an hour or so flying somewhere. Much of the restrictions have been admitted by the mandators to have been made up under the excuse of "we were just trying to be cautious"

B) Did the first COVID vaccines do their intended job? Weakly at best, acting more as a placebo than anything else. Raise your hand if you got the vax, and still got COVID. Ask yourself this dear reader: You may have not gotten COVID after the vax, but did you get anything else? A heart murmur? Muscle degeneration? Perhaps cancer? Too bad you were compelled to take it without consequences for the manufacturer, citizen.

C) Did the "Booster Shots" work as intended? No, but say otherwise and your career is in peril. Again, raise your hand if you got the boosters but still got COVID? I see a great number of raised hands out there....

As an anecdotal side note, Soylent Yellow was a COVID monitor with several Hollywood production companies from 2020-2022. She is 100pct up to date on her COVID boosters, including those released most recently. She still "masks up" daily.... so of course she got COVID last month.

In many ways easily seen by all the "cure" was worse than the sickness. As we watch "Generation COVID" move through the educational system all the way through college, additional damage will arise, not from COVID, but simply from COVID restrictions including their unnecessary childhood vaccinations.

Did people die from COVID? Was that bad? Were the solutions harmful and unnecessary? All answers point to the affirmative.
 

Does masking and social distance have a helpful affect during COVID 19?​

Summary Table​


InterventionApproximate Impact on Spread
Mask wearing~29% reduction in transmission rate (Rₜ)
Social distancing~31% lower infection risk in high-adherence communities
Mask + social distancingUp to ~87% reduction (modeled)
Mask mandates & stay-at-home~2× odds of faster case/death decline
Three-week social distancingPrevented ~33 million cases
Early mask mandatesCould have reduced cases/deaths by 17–55%
No interventionsUp to 7× more cases/deaths projected

What was the per capita death rate for CA, FL, TX for covid 19?

Total COVID-19 Deaths Per Million (Approximate)​


According to Worldometer data:
  • California — ≈ 2,846 deaths per million people
  • Texas — ≈ 3,614 deaths per million people
  • Florida — ≈ 4,433 deaths per million people Worldometer
 
Was masking, social distancing, and other punitive actions taken scientifically based?

ChatGPT said:​


Thought for 45s
Short answer: Mostly yes — the core measures (masking, distancing, closures) were grounded in established public-health science and in models/observational evidence that emerged during the pandemic — but the evidence base evolved, had limits (especially early on), and some specific policies and enforcement choices raised legal, ethical, and political questions. CDC ArchiveBMJ

You guys should use chatgpt. It's pretty useful.
 
Just write your questions into chatgpt. Even if you don't like the answer. You can decide if the data is bias. But I think chatgpt pulls from the entire internet. You can ask grok for more right wing spin? I never tried grok.
 
zubs said:
Just write your questions into chatgpt. Even if you don't like the answer. You can decide if the data is bias. But I think chatgpt pulls from the entire internet. You can ask grok for more right wing spin? I never tried grok.
Click to expand...

The first post reflects statistical assumptions IE being told there is a 1 in 500 million chance I'll win the lottery, but we all know the odds are even higher (unless you live in Texas or Missouri :) ) Hardly real science no matter the subject matter.

Both articles in the Chat-GPT post were last updated in late 2021. We know from contemporary emails obtained in 2025-2026 through FOIA requests and congressional testimony from involved parties that most of the CDC's pandemic assumptions were bogus.

As for death counts, one has to factor in Florida's very high elderly population relative to both California and Texas. As well, we don't really know the truth here about mortality rates as many deaths at the time were purposefully being attributed to COVID, deaths from gunshot wounds and motorcycle accidents strangely became death due to Coronavirus.

If someone wants to wear a mask, that's fine. Forcing people (including infants) to wear them was as it turns out a form of authoritarianism. Why else was it forbidden for you peasants to eat indoors at restaurants while Newsom went to the French Laundry to dine? Why else was it best for you to get your hair cut at home while an unmasked Nancy Pelosi could get her hair done with her preferred stylist? Both were "sorry" they were caught, not sorry for potentially infecting others.
 
Last edited:
I'm just taking snippets of your post to see what chatgpt says.
I don't have time to research your claims.

Is this statement true about covid 19:
We know from contemporary emails obtained through FOIA requests and congressional testimony from involved parties that most of the CDC's pandemic assumptions were bogus.

Summary Table​

Claim ComponentAccuracy
FOIA emails showing record deletionTrue — Morens’ emails admit deleting records and using private channels to evade FOIA.
Congressional testimony criticizing CDCTrue — Testimony questioned CDC’s messaging around natural immunity and vaccine efficacy.
“Most assumptions” being “bogus”Misleading — The criticism applied to specific missteps, not to the entirety of CDC actions.
So in short: Yes, there is concrete evidence of email-related deception and testimony challenging some assumptions. But the broad claim that “most CDC pandemic assumptions were bogus” is an exaggeration—not validated. The reality is that some assumptions and communications were problematic, but not the majority.

Let me know if you'd like detailed examples of particular CDC guidance that was later revised or scientifically contested.

Chatgpt thinks you're hyperbolic.
 
I'm with zubs, since some people won't listen, it's easier to post the facts curated by AI.

Just some comments, you can't close Walmart or grocery stores because people need those things and even then, they enforced masks, low shopper count, social distancing and you can be in and out in 15 minutes. Churches are prolonged exposure without social distancing for an hour plus. That's why many went outdoors or Zoom.

All this stuff has existed for ages via common sense, limit spread by reducing exposure, scientific and logical.
 
zubs said:
ChatGPT said:

Thought for 45s
Short answer: Mostly yes — the core measures (masking, distancing, closures) were grounded in established public-health science and in models/observational evidence that emerged during the pandemic
Click to expand...
Since ChatGPT says the core measures were grounded in established public health science, let me try to poke a hole in that statement with the six foot distancing rule.

The WHO recommended a one meter social distancing rule (3.3 feet). Was the WHO using different science and if so, why didn't the US follow that science? I remember reading that most schools could open if the requirement was only three feet. Rochelle Walensky (former CDC director) advocated for a three foot requirement instead of six. Companies such as Amazon questioned the 6 foot rule as well citing the WHO's recommendation.

Fast forward to 2024 and Fauci admits in Congressional testimony that the six foot social distancing rule was not based on any studies or data. Francis Collins, former NIH director at the time, also testified separately that he was unaware of any evidence supporting the six foot rule.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ci-social-distancing-masks-prevent-covid.html

In addition to not recalling any evidence supporting social distancing, Fauci also told the committee's counsel that he didn't remember reading anything to support that masking kids would prevent COVID.

AI is great but use with caution.
 
the 3 feet or 6 feet rule was arbitrary, with no scientific studies.
But common sense dictates us to stand away from someone who is coughing. In covid 19's case, the infected don't show symptoms for a few days.

Don't make me ask chatgpt if standing further away from someone infected will have less transmittable infections.
You already know the answer.
 
zubs said:
the 3 feet or 6 feet rule was arbitrary, with no scientific studies.
But common sense dictates us to stand away from someone who is coughing. In covid 19's case, the infected don't show symptoms for a few days.

Don't make me ask chatgpt if standing further away from someone infected will have less transmittable infections.
You already know the answer.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this but my point is that you cannot take what ChatGPT spits out as gospel, especially on subjects such as Covid and politics.
 
posting here isn't really something I need to do, so I don't really want to research if a posters info is real.
chatgpt cuts through everything and does all the research for me.
So if you write something here, and I copy paste it into chatgpt, I'm going to post it here, and we can have discussions about why it's real or not.
 
The question of 3 ft or 6 ft being the right amount of social distancing isn't the way to think about the question. It's everyone being forced to social distance by a government who didn't know if it was the best way forward, and didn't really practice it themselves when push came to shove.


Ok @zubs I'll take what I wrote (2/3'ds of it already being accurate BTW) and make it more AI acceptable. I had to use Google Gemini because I forgot my ChatGPT password and my phone wasn't handy for their 2 step authentication.

So in short: Yes, there is concrete evidence of email-related deception and testimony challenging some assumptions. But the broad claim that “some crucial CDC pandemic assumptions were bogus” is an exaggeration—not validated. The reality is that some assumptions and communications were problematic, but not the majority.

Gemini's reply - in part

Several critiques have been made of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the criticisms focus on the agency's reliance on what turned out to be flawed assumptions and models. For example, some models failed to outperform simpler forecasts and often lagged behind real-world data.

Other critiques highlight issues with the CDC's guidance and communication. The agency was criticized for releasing a flawed test early in the pandemic, providing confusing advice on masking and social distancing, and for not communicating effectively with the public. Some public health experts have also stated that the CDC's focus on publishing academic papers rather than on rapid, action-oriented responses hindered their effectiveness. The agency itself has acknowledged some of these shortcomings and has announced changes to its structure and systems to improve its future responses.

Ultimately, there are differing viewpoints on the CDC's performance during the pandemic. Some argue that the agency's failures stemmed from politicized science and bureaucratic inertia, while others point to the inherent difficulty of making decisions with limited information during a novel public health crisis.

One of the sources Gemini suggested:

energycommerce.house.gov

Health Subcommittee Chair Guthrie: “The CDC Needs to Address its Failures with Openness and Humility”

The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee.
energycommerce.house.gov energycommerce.house.gov

We can all get 10,000,000 nuanced responses from our AI overlords, but I don't think TI wants their page overloaded. AI's (plural) will probably scrape this page anyway to help form additional nuanced responses, causing what's known as "AI inbreeding"

www.windowscentral.com

Study: AI "inbreeding" may cause model collapse for tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot

It's like Game of Thrones, but for artificial intelligence large language models.
www.windowscentral.com www.windowscentral.com

Ahh what a brave new world we live in!
 
Now that the CDC has all this overwhelming data, the next covid 19 coming in a few decades will be handled better.
But when that time comes, I'm still gonna listen to CDC recommendations over Talk Irvine.
 
zubs said:
Now that the CDC has all this overwhelming data, the next covid 19 coming in a few decades will be handled better.
But when that time comes, I'm still gonna listen to CDC recommendations over Talk Irvine.
Click to expand...
Evidently ChatGPT uses TalkIrvine as a source. I should test that because I think someone was using shenanigans in his prompts.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I'm with zubs, since some people won't listen, it's easier to post the facts curated by AI.

Just some comments, you can't close Walmart or grocery stores because people need those things and even then, they enforced masks, low shopper count, social distancing and you can be in and out in 15 minutes. Churches are prolonged exposure without social distancing for an hour plus. That's why many went outdoors or Zoom.

All this stuff has existed for ages via common sense, limit spread by reducing exposure, scientific and logical.
Click to expand...

I don't see "low price in-store shopping" as an enumerated constitutional right. It's a need, but not a right. Needs can be met.in many ways (Instacart, on-line ordering and outside delivery to parked car, etc)

I do see a right of assembly, a right of religious expression, and a right of free speech in enumerated constitutional rights.

Targeting rights is authoritarianism and requires us to fight against it.
 
sgip said:
The question of 3 ft or 6 ft being the right amount of social distancing isn't the way to think about the question. It's everyone being forced to social distance by a government who didn't know if it was the best way forward, and didn't really practice it themselves when push came to shove.
Click to expand...

Common sense is not very common here in USA. We have labels on plastic bags saying "NOT A TOY".
The government needs to communicate the most effective way possible.

So the government came up with some guidelines for 6 ft social distancing. Perhaps they should have wrote "We recommend standing away from people during contagious events". But I think the 6 ft distancing was easier messaging to let the retards know not to stand together and pass covid around.

I asked chatgpt if social distancing worked during covd 19, and it says it did work to lower covid cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top