Comments by "Julian Petkov" (@julianpetkov8320) on "Australia 'just shy' of 15 million vaccines administered across the country" video.

No need to fight, ladies. The charts are from a Disney movie set. Divide by 10 and you might get the real numbers.
3
@noncehuntingassociation8744 No, not special, just used to bullshit with numbers.
2
@noncehuntingassociation8744 CDC spoof fun, and all the sister agencies.
2
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Here we go again - "my commercial behemoth is reputable science". Um, no it isn't. Big Pharma has a long history of poisoning people and pushing pseudo-science. The stupidest part of your argument - only the salesmen and their attached administrative boondoggle in the government, with the revolving doors and the insider trading are "qualified" to inspect and judge their own product and marketing claims. If your so called "science" was up to scratch, you wouldn't be demanding liability exemption for your products. If as many people were injured and killed by a food or a car, it would have been recalled by now. No pasaran amigo! You don't get a pass.
2
@noncehuntingassociation8744 "Which citizens monitored the science you support?" You are not science buddy, you are commerce, ...and I speak both lingos.
2
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Oh puh-lease with the "reputable science" sales pitch. Which independent citizens' committee motored the collection of data and audited the figures. I know the authorities where I live very well. They take everything that comes from the US as a gospel.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 You just can't be this blissfully unaware (or dishonest). Yes drugs do get banned and pulled off the shelf, but only after too many lives have been destroyed. When Big Pharma accepts liability for these current products, then you might have a leg to stand on. Well, I didn't see any convincing proof of the figures, either. But I can see what's going on at the trenches, and from a cursory observation, things are not looking that rosy. Unless they start mixing them with placebos at a ratio of 10 to 1, the dissatisfaction is going to assume an exponential growth curve by the time we reach 20%. Worm killers do not grant them special protections under emergency powers and instituted contracts with incredible profit margins. Nobody is going to mandate an off the shelf pill and mandate contracts.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 You have a good sense of humour. I am not going to risk drinking snake oil just because my phone or computer runs smoothly on most days. The risk factor is different, and the adverse reactions are unacceptable to me.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Ivermectin is used to treat worm infestations. It does not provide a pathway to power, control and mandated contracts. India is not exempt from the global pandemic exercise. It will ruin the jab marketing campaign. The objective function is not necessarily set to maximise immediate profits, in long term strategies. The jab contracts could be set for decades.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Well that is complete bullshit you wrote, right there. Panadol does not report for elevated levels of the d-dimer test within a week of use, in 62% of the cases. What did "science" do with the studies? They discarded them because the scanners don't pick up the capillary-level micro-clotting. So much for "science" at Big Pharma. They will just wait for the chronic conditions to pile up, and the torches and the pitchforks to start knocking at their door before they do something about it.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 You are a joking, right?! You brought up worm killers into the convo, not I! Also the toxic experiments you refer to as "vaccines" do not meet the criteria to be called vaccines, by a very long shot. They do not provide immunity. End of story.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Scanners like MRI, CT, etc. The "comprehensive" 6 month trials are only concerned with major thrombosis (which is what the scanners resolution can detect), not with destroyed capillaries. The relevance is in the harm rate. When 62% are getting their capillaries destroyed, at random places like the lungs, the heart, the brain, then comparing this to panadol deaths is ludicrous.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 No, not my rationale. The official definition of a vaccine. ...and the "flu jabs" and "efficacy" in the same paragraph together?! You are trolling, right?! Don't try to convince people who took a few of them of any "efficacy". I didn't stop taking them because I was convinced they worked. Quite the opposite.
1
@UC7he4lWgW5NKFhs0sRnff3w What is the point of copy and paste a paid "fact checker" propaganda piece which has nothing to do with capillary clotting? Are you hoping that people are dumb enough not to know the difference between - Arteries and veins, and capillaries? Dr. Charles Hoffe from Canada has obtained the 62% figure in 900 patients who had adverse reactions to the jab, in his community. He mentioned that elevated d-dimer was mentioned in other studies conducted in Australia and other countries but were dismissed because the scanners did not detect big clots.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Um, lets have look at your "quality sources". "People who contract COVID-19 [definition and citation needed] are also 100 times more likely to experience cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) than the general population [get your definitions in order, then take measurements], a new pre-print Oxford University study has found." Definition and citation needed for "COVID-19" needed. Self-referencing (meaning sources affiliated through industry and government) materials will not be accepted as the definition of "covid" appears to be incredibly broad and flexible. ...next: "The research, conducted in the wake of numerous high-profile clotting cases linked to people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, found around 39 in one million people with COVID are diagnosed with CVT, compared with 0.4 per million people who had not contracted the disease." They performed a full pathogen, genetic sequencing in one million people? Ridiculous! What they did is they tested for some proteins found in the flu virus. The flu virus is endemic, and only the actual probabilistic virus count is taken as a measure of positive vs. negative, after multiple amplification of the sample signal. The test is arbitrary and can be set to diagnose as positive at any desired lower range.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 When you produce some facts, I might decide if I find them "annoying". In the mean time, I would rather trust a person battling at, and reporting from the trenches.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 The problem is your PCR test will not hold up in court, because it is not evidence for anything but the specific proteins it is testing. I can bring a million Goodyear tyres in court, I can not claim that they are proof of one million Ford vehicles detected, or that they even came from Ford vehicles exclusively.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Dr. Byram Bridle Professor of Viral Immunology University of Guelph has confirmed Dr. Charles Hoffe's findings. https://brandnewtube.com/watch/university-of-guelph-confirms-mrna-vaccines-are-highly-pathogenic_cadq4OnqMQwvAWA.html
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Nuh mate, learn the difference between a partial match and a full match. You don't have a chance in court. And DNA testing itself is not always left unchallenged in court.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Well, weren't all the Great Minds in history, initially dismissed and discredited? You seem to be hell-bent on taking every claim from the Establishment Orthodoxy as a Gospel. I prefer to be a skeptic, especially with matters concerning my immediate well-being.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 You have been unconvincing, rude, and lacking of knowledge and experience. I would recommend you become familiar with a term called - Data Spoofing. And - no, inconsistency and fudging the figures is not excusable under any circumstances, including if the organisation is as big and powerful as the CDC.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 You still missed the point, the PCR test for covid is non-specific. It can tell you that you PROBABLY carry X amount viruses from the corona family, per milligrams of sample provided. It is not a full blown laboratory test (...and who's got the time for that).
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Yawn! 🥱Pompous farts!🎩💨💨💨 If you had cared to read the fine print under the CDC's "death figures" last year, you wouldn't be wasting your time trying to defend the indefensible. Here is a thought - get your data integrity in order, before you go quoting "reputable" Establishment, anything. Your jab marketing colossus is standing on clay feet.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 They have removed it. It's 2021 now. We can discuss their current data. Just a cursory look, it is a huge deceptive mess partitioned in a way that will take me at least a day to reassemble in SPSS (to get all the features for clarity). They still haven't fixed their fraud problem For example - how do I know that - 'acute respiratory failure' isn't describing a person murdered with a ventilator, or some other condition the certifier failed to detect. They offer no guarantee on the accuracy of their data (and I am not taking any either).
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 The proof is in the pudding. Go through all their supporting statements, and see for yourself - they offer no guarantee for their data integrity of their sources. The "Australian story" came from America. I am more than qualified to analyse data. I just went through their index - they only offer pointlessly partitioned, 'data reduced', data sets for the public. Where is the raw data with all the individual cases, hm? Nevermind... I will have look what is on offer here, but the CDC is more fun, because they are so extreme in their deception. You do your gym, and go out and have fun. I fully agree with you here - it is all BS virus, there is nothing to be afraid of. No whinge from me this time.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 You are probably out already but I will leave you with a final quote. George Fuechsel, an early IBM programmer and instructor, is generally given credit for coining the term GIGO "garbage in, garbage out" as a concise way of reminding his students that a computer just processes what it is given. Our business decisions, our health decisions, etc., are only as good as the data we rely on. So it is important to examine how the data was collected. Is it sloppy, was there a fraud incentive, does it rely on biased assumptions, were obstacles a factor, was laziness a factor, was ignorance a factor... There are so many questions on which the CDC fails to defend, and it relies on media censorship to stay afloat. This is why we need to empower independent citizens' committees, to monitor and audit the data collection process. We can't really on the revolving door institutions to police themselves, any more.
1
@noncehuntingassociation8744 Whoa, too many sherbets last night? The fact that you have to resort to personal attacks all the time speaks volumes of your big world out there. There is not much science, if any, involved in the CDC's covid death, spoofed data sets. Where are your facts? Where is the raw data? How can I audit a case? Shut up and sit down. Go to your gym and get ready for another night on the piss.
1