Dr. Robert Malone one of the inventors of mRNA vaccine technology now speaks out about vaccine safety.

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
11,898
18,622
113
Idk, how many had preexisting conditions? How many of the 300 were healthy?
I looked it up. 75 percent who died had known preexisting conditions and a vast majority of those who died were Hispanic and African American for some reason.
 

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
11,898
18,622
113
Ok, I'll take your figures as truth. So 75 deaths of healthy kids from Covid and 0 from the vaccine. Seems like an easy choice to make.
Yea it seems like an easy choice. I won’t give it to my kids, but they have also had it. It would be dumb to give it to them even if they didn’t. A kid is more likely to die in many other ways than from covid.
 

scopeandtime

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2016
18,356
32,374
113
Yea it seems like an easy choice. I won’t give it to my kids, but they have also had it. It would be dumb to give it to them even if they didn’t. A kid is more likely to die in many other ways than from covid.
Glad we can agree that your comment "there is essentially no risk to a young healthy kid I don’t see the point of taking the vaccine" was misguided.
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
Would the smoking gun for you be if it’s true three scientists who worked at the wuhan lab had to go to the hospital in November with covid type symptoms? To me that is pretty damning. I’m sure our government has a pretty good idea if that is true.

Not really, because the timing doesn’t line up. Based on the curves we have seen in other places, it is very likely the virus started to spread in October (maybe even earlier) to get to the point it reached in December in Wuhan. Also someone in Italy had it in mid November. There is a study that also suggests it was there in September although I believe that study had some debate. Regardless, if it got to Italy in November, then it was in China well before then.

So people at the lab where is supposedly leaked from had people get sick a month after it started spreading, then it would actually argue against the lab theory.

 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
Oh, then there is video bats, which is more cover up!

 

scopeandtime

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2016
18,356
32,374
113
  • Like
Reactions: philosophusker

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
Lol. Moderna filed their application patent on March 3rd...which is just over a week later. Are they in on it too? Pfizer/BioNTech was over a week after that...maybe they are in on it too!
Lol. Yeahhhh.... They just happened to have bats in the Wuhan lab, which they denied, but another country showed the video. They just happened to have these bats that were hundreds of miles away that were hibernating at the time of the exposure. Thanks for pointing out that it was a planned leak because Moderna had a patent or they lied about the timeline exposure. Which one is it? All this just happened by coincidence. 🤣
 

scopeandtime

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2016
18,356
32,374
113
Lol. Yeahhhh.... They just happened to have bats in the Wuhan lab, which they denied, but another country showed the video. They just happened to have these bats that were hundreds of miles away that were hibernating at the time of the exposure. Thanks for pointing out that is was a planned leak because Moderna had a patent or they lied about the timeline exposure. Which one is it? All this just happened by coincidence. 🤣
Idk anything about no bats, sir...I was just savagely dunking on your other post!
 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
Idk anything about no bats, sir...I was just savagely dunking on your other post!
Savage, naw bruh.. you can act like you were born yesterday and not read the post below it. They have already caught these two lying. They have the emails. They have them with bats filmed in the lab. They have the gain of function research tied to both of them. Sure it's a coincidence. Plants crave electrolytes....
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
Lol. Yeahhhh.... They just happened to have bats in the Wuhan lab, which they denied, but another country showed the video. They just happened to have these bats that were hundreds of miles away that were hibernating at the time of the exposure. Thanks for pointing out that it was a planned leak because Moderna had a patent or they lied about the timeline exposure. Which one is it? All this just happened by coincidence. 🤣

Because by that time they all had the sequence for the virus. They already had the lipid technology and the mRNA technology down. Or for the viral vector you have the adenoviral vector technology ready, and we make sequences of DNA all the time pretty quick (IDT sends DNA primers within two days). So all you need is a sequence for the protein you are making and you can start rolling.
 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
Because by that time they all had the sequence for the virus. They already had the lipid technology and the mRNA technology down. Or for the viral vector you have the adenoviral vector technology ready, and we make sequences of DNA all the time pretty quick (IDT sends DNA primers within two days). So all you need is a sequence for the protein you are making and you can start rolling.
Sure Plato's cave! That sums you up!🤣
 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
Oh the irony.....
Dude, you aren't shit to me. You had the nerve to talk research and scientific method, but you were okay with the suppressing information. So how can you do research without cluster of information? How can you do scientific method, while you're suppressing information? Don't respond back Plato because I'm not impressed. You can tell you have a government job with no integrity or results. I like this by Fauci "if you are around a family member with AIDS enough times, you can get the virus." Better yet, "The AIDS virus is a airborne pathogen." This from a bureaucratic narcissist, "A attack on me, is an attack on science." Just stop Plato!
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
Dude, you aren't shit to me. You had the nerve to talk research and scientific method, but you were okay with the suppressing information. So how can you do research without cluster of information? How can you do scientific method, while you're suppressing information? Don't respond back Plato because I'm not impressed. You can tell you have a government job with no integrity or results. I like this by Fauci "if you are around a family member with AIDS enough times, you can get the virus." Better yet, "The AIDS virus is a airborne pathogen." This from a bureaucratic narcissist, "A attack on me, is an attack on science." Just stop Plato!

When did I ever say that I was okay with suppressing information? Of course I have a problem with suppressing information. However, I have a problem with people taking information and trying to twist it into whatever way supports their point, even when they have zero clue about what they are talking about. Which is exactly what you continue to do.
 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
When did I ever say that I was okay with suppressing information? Of course I have a problem with suppressing information. However, I have a problem with people taking information and trying to twist it into whatever way supports their point, even when they have zero clue about what they are talking about. Which is exactly what you continue to do.
Let's make this real simple. Answer this with yes or no. Did Fauci lie about the Wuhan lab?
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
Let's make this real simple. Answer this with yes or no. Did Fauci lie about the Wuhan lab?

How could he have lied when he said the NIH had sent money to Wuhan lab many months ago? However, what Fauci did say he did not do is that they did not send money to the Wuhan lab for gain of function research. And there is zero evidence, outside of conspiracy theories that try to link A to 10 dispute that. The best part is that we are talking about a 600K grant, which for an institute like Wuhan Institute of Virology is small amount of money. It is the equivalent of an RO1, which is enough to fund a lab with a couple of grad students, maybe a post doc or two.
 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
How could he have lied when he said the NIH had sent money to Wuhan lab many months ago? However, what Fauci did say he did not do is that they did not send money to the Wuhan lab for gain of function research. And there is zero evidence, outside of conspiracy theories that try to link A to 10 dispute that. The best part is that we are talking about a 600K grant, which for an institute like Wuhan Institute of Virology is small amount of money. It is the equivalent of an RO1, which is enough to fund a lab with a couple of grad students, maybe a post doc or two.
WRONG! Are you that much in denial? So, yes he lied and was caught lying to Congress. You can take the damn time and look it up. He denied Game of function and few other things. Start off with him lying to Rand Paul in Congress, then you can look up where he flipped flopped a week later. Basically, looks like Rand knew he would lie and the emails dropped. Then he crawfished and said, that we can't rule out that it didn't come from a lab. It's a video, so you can't dispute it. Then all the lefty big tech that suppressed the Wuhan lab leak, now permits it and you're no longer suspended for reporting on this leak.
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
WRONG! Are you that much in denial? So, yes he lied and was caught lying to Congress. You can take the damn time and look it up. He denied Game of function and few other things. Start off with him lying to Rand Paul in Congress, then you can look up where he flipped flopped a week later. Basically, looks like Rand knew he would lie and the emails dropped. Then he crawfished and said, that we can't rule out that it didn't come from a lab. It's a video, so you can't dispute it. Then all the lefty big tech that suppressed the Wuhan lab leak, now permits it and you're no longer suspended for reporting on this leak.

Yeah there is video evidence, where Fauci says direct quote “Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” He even then explains why they sent the money over, which was to survey viruses in bats to see if any of them would have the ability to become another SARS-CoV-1. Any person with a brain could understand why we would want to do that.

No one can rule out anything at this point. No one will likely be able to rule out anything for several years. How is stating a fact lying? You can have a hypothesis, and say that there is evidence supporting that hypothesis and that is why you have it. Which at this point the vast majority of scientists believe that it came from an animal vs. being generated in a lab. Because there is actual evidence that supports the latter. Now where you would get some more argument is whether or not it was an accidental leak. But nothing definitive, including guys gettin sick from the Wuhan a month or two after the virus was likely introduced to the Wuhan population, shows that. If something actually definitive comes out, then people will change their hypothesis. Because that is exactly how science works when you have limited data on something.

 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
Yeah there is video evidence, where Fauci says direct quote “Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” He even then explains why they sent the money over, which was to survey viruses in bats to see if any of them would have the ability to become another SARS-CoV-1. Any person with a brain could understand why we would want to do that.

No one can rule out anything at this point. No one will likely be able to rule out anything for several years. How is stating a fact lying? You can have a hypothesis, and say that there is evidence supporting that hypothesis and that is why you have it. Which at this point the vast majority of scientists believe that it came from an animal vs. being generated in a lab. Because there is actual evidence that supports the latter. Now where you would get some more argument is whether or not it was an accidental leak. But nothing definitive, including guys gettin sick from the Wuhan a month or two after the virus was likely introduced to the Wuhan population, shows that. If something actually definitive comes out, then people will change their hypothesis. Because that is exactly how science works when you have limited data on something.

I would agree with you, but C'mon man. Fauci and Daszak have no integrity. They just keep lying and you're trying to look at this from a scientific point of view, but it's moral and ethical principles. The bats being filmed at Wuhan, after Daszak came out and lied about that. The FOIA emails that adds so many dimensions. Fauci talking to Zuckerberg and Gates about the virus. Zuckerberg suppressing information about treatment and opinions on a lab leak. Zuckerberg suspended people on FB, but now it's open market. DasZak becoming a fact checker and censoring info to help cover up. India has plenty of research on other meds that pulled them our of a bad stretch from COVID, but big tech censored. This isn't all just a coincidence and there is more, but I'm too tired to keep texting.
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
I would agree with you, but C'mon man. Fauci and Daszak have no integrity. They just keep lying and you're trying to look at this from a scientific point of view, but it's moral and ethical principles. The bats being filmed at Wuhan, after Daszak came out and lied about that. The FOIA emails that adds so many dimensions. Fauci talking to Zuckerberg and Gates about the virus. Zuckerberg suppressing information about treatment and opinions on a lab leak. Zuckerberg suspended people on FB, but now it's open market. DasZak becoming a fact checker and censoring info to help cover up. India has plenty of research on other meds that pulled them our of a bad stretch from COVID, but big tech censored. This isn't all just a coincidence and there is more, but I'm too tired to keep texting.

Except that the problem with 90 percent of what you are saying is either BS, or doesn't have any evidence to support it.

Where in the emails between Fauci and Zuckerberg/Gates suggest anything outside of discussion of helping with a FAQ or offering help? It is like pointing to emails from February/March where Fauci was talking people that masks weren't necessary for out in the public to say that he was lying to the public, when he was saying the same thing to the public as well.

That said, Zuckerberg is a POS, nothing new there. FaceBook suppresses/propagates the shvt out of everything. It wasn't that long ago that FaceBook was known for being a hotbed for right wing conservative conspiracy theories. But yet we just ignore that.

As for DasZak being a "fact-checker", his quotes were used for fact checking. One of the most common papers used for fact checking was a paper that he was an author on. However, so was 26 other virologists across the world, so saying that he was actively acting as a fact checker is disingenuous at best.

Here lies my problem, you keep using these examples. But yet the examples either don't have any truth to them, or are backed up by a ton of circumstantial evidence to make them correct. Circumstantial evidence that requires a whole lot of connecting A to 10 that when you think about it from a lab standpoint, it would be virtually impossible.

Show me some actual evidence, and I will be happy to change my tune. I am many things, but being unwilling to change my thoughts on things is definitely not one of them. However, I do expect some actual facts to do that. Which at this point nothing of actual substance has been shown.

 

DusterHusker

Walk On
Gold Member
Nov 20, 2017
204
507
93


I'm sure our vaccine experts know better.
Who discovered mRNA? It is complicated. No wonder the Nobel Prize committee did not try and reward the discovery. Naming just three (or even six) people would be invidious — mRNA was the product of years of work by a community of researchers, gathering different kinds of evidence to solve a problem that now looks obvious, but at the time was extremely difficult. But that is the nature of history — it straightens out what at the time was tangled and unclear. We have the advantage of looking backwards, knowing the answer; the participants were peering into a foggy future, trying to reconcile contradictory evidence and imagine new experiments that could resolve the problem. Their collective insights and imaginations laid the basis for today’s understanding and tomorrow’s discoveries.
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,691
11,758
113
the fact you dopes believe ANYTHING politifact posts is amusing..........same clowns that got you to believe Russian Collusion was real........you must be the biggest dopes on the planet
These clowns?

"(U) It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era. " -R-Rubio, Marco (FL), R-Chairman; Burr, Richard (NC); R-Risch, James E. (ID); R-Collins, Susan M. (ME); R-Blunt, Roy (MO); R-Cotton, Tom (AR); R-Cornyn, John (TX); R-Sasse, Ben (NE); R-McConnell, Mitch (KY), Ex Officio; R-Inhofe, James M. (OK), Ex Officio
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113

Thousands of people die everyday, due to various things. So you can give a placebo, and you will have people die in that group. We saw that in the vaccine trial. However, what you look at is if that 15K is more than what the expected base rate. At this point there is absolutely zero indications that the deaths in the vaccinated group is higher than the expected baseline death rate.
 
Last edited:

infinity13

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2007
850
793
93
46
Thousands of people die everyday, do various things. So you can give a placebo, and you will have people die in that group. We saw that in the vaccine trial. However, what you look at is if that 15K is more than what the expected base rate. At this point there is absolutely zero indications that the deaths in the vaccinated group is higher than the expected baseline death rate.
Does that same logic apply to deaths occurring after a positive covid test?
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
Does that same logic apply to deaths occurring after a positive covid test?

Considering it is exactly how excess deaths are calculated, sure. And with that we saw ~450K excess deaths in the US in 2020 vs. 2017, 2018 or 2019.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zar45

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
Considering it is exactly how excess deaths are calculated, sure. And with that we saw ~450K excess deaths in 2020 vs. 2017, 2018 or 2019.
They also changed their opinions on kids.

"Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers."
"More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19."

They changed to this, after it was more direct on not using it with the emergency meeting on myocarditis in kids.
 

dee_s3

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Apr 11, 2008
3,784
5,028
113
We need more excess deaths...
You're wasting your time. Plato is a government hack that believes all Fauci emails, Fauci mask flops, Fauci dipshvt takes on AIDS, Fauci gain of function, bats in Wuhan lab is all far right theories and no evidence behind it. He will also tell you just because he hasn't read a study, India didn't use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to stop their COVID-19 surge. This poster is science and attack on him, is an attack on science.
 

infinity13

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2007
850
793
93
46
You're wasting your time. Plato is a government hack that believes all Fauci emails, Fauci mask flops, Fauci dipshvt takes on AIDS, Fauci gain of function, bats in Wuhan lab is all far right theories and no evidence behind it. He will also tell you just because he hasn't read a study, India didn't use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to stop their COVID-19 surge. This poster is science and attack on him, is an attack on science.
It's fun watching him and Kermit the frog jump to the defense of Big Pharma and the Covid Machine.
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
It's fun watching him and Kermit the frog jump to the defense of Big Pharma and the Covid Machine.

You're wasting your time. Plato is a government hack that believes all Fauci emails, Fauci mask flops, Fauci dipshvt takes on AIDS, Fauci gain of function, bats in Wuhan lab is all far right theories and no evidence behind it. He will also tell you just because he hasn't read a study, India didn't use ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to stop their COVID-19 surge. This poster is science and attack on him, is an attack on science.

RollingLaugh
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,545
8,615
113
The world is over populated and more people need to die.

How does that have anything to do with my original post? I love how when presented with an actual rebuttal, the subject gets quickly changed. Seems legit.
 

Hardlyboy

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 26, 2011
8,382
13,038
113
How does that have anything to do with my original post? I love how when presented with an actual rebuttal, the subject gets quickly changed. Seems legit.
Arguing with Trumpists is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could play perfect strategically, they’re still going to strut around, shit all over the board. declare victory then flee.