How much did Doctors get bribed

I have a feeling the bird flu threat is going to be strictly after lives and not money, who knows, maybe both. :-)

a reply to: chr0naut

not when they're making several times more money per person from the clot shot and the government is mandating that people receive the shot. Great attempt at logic though.

a reply to: nugget1
The Way back machine on archive.org has a backup or the ability to back up every website since the dawn of the internet and allows you to go back in time to view the website as it was in the past

originally posted by: CharlesErwin1987
a reply to: nugget1
The Way back machine on archive.org has a backup or the ability to back up every website since the dawn of the internet and allows you to go back in time to view the website as it was in the past

I have not been able to find the articles that first came out on covid; they woul disappear within hours of being posted and in a couple of instances they were removed before I even finished reading them.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

not when they're making several times more money per person from the clot shot and the government is mandating that people receive the shot. Great attempt at logic though.

Pfizer slashes revenue forecast on lower COVID sales, will cut costs - This was in October, last year.

White House Will End Most Covid Vaccine Mandates - This was in May, last year.

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: CharlesErwin1987
a reply to: nugget1
The Way back machine on archive.org has a backup or the ability to back up every website since the dawn of the internet and allows you to go back in time to view the website as it was in the past

I have not been able to find the articles that first came out on covid; they woul disappear within hours of being posted and in a couple of instances they were removed before I even finished reading them.

So, they deleted the articles even before most people could read them? What's the point, then?

To my recollection, there were no approved mRNA immunizations or therapies at all prior to those covered by the EUC.

Also, it is standard procedure with laboratory animals that they are all euthanized after each experiment. This has a reason, which is to prevent cross-contamination between experiments, which would cast doubt on which experiment was the one that caused any results.

So, how could there be 'issues' with the deaths of test animals, if they none of them survive any experiment?

a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

But doctors often promote stuff that they haven't got a backlog of experience of. Take oxycontin as an example.

Hmm?...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

But doctors often promote stuff that they haven't got a backlog of experience of. Take oxycontin as an example.

Hmm?...

But it doesn't get scrubbed from the internet within minutes of being posted. Faceboog was really good for making any post questioning the vaccine disappear, as were a lot of other sites. It happened more than once using my browser to search for information, too. Almost like there was some kind of concerted effort to keep any information questioning the safety of the vaccine off the internet,

Even though it's been proven there was a conservative effort, directed by our government to scrub negative information I've got the feeling you don't believe it.

Whatever.

a reply to: nugget1

To carry out such an exercise , and do it so well their would have been plenty of cash payouts, and probably some heavy threats , I wonder what happened to the critical players in all of this that did not go along with it.

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

But doctors often promote stuff that they haven't got a backlog of experience of. Take oxycontin as an example.

Hmm?...

But it doesn't get scrubbed from the internet within minutes of being posted. Faceboog was really good for making any post questioning the vaccine disappear, as were a lot of other sites. It happened more than once using my browser to search for information, too. Almost like there was some kind of concerted effort to keep any information questioning the safety of the vaccine off the internet,

Even though it's been proven there was a conservative effort, directed by our government to scrub negative information I've got the feeling you don't believe it.

Whatever.

Clearly scrubbing stuff off the internet didn't work, if everyone remembers it all, and if every man and his dog was making massive amounts of media noise about how 'silenced' they were.

And, remind me, who was in Government in 2020 when most of this 'scrubbing off the internet' hit its heyday?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

But doctors often promote stuff that they haven't got a backlog of experience of. Take oxycontin as an example.

Hmm?...

But it doesn't get scrubbed from the internet within minutes of being posted. Faceboog was really good for making any post questioning the vaccine disappear, as were a lot of other sites. It happened more than once using my browser to search for information, too. Almost like there was some kind of concerted effort to keep any information questioning the safety of the vaccine off the internet,

Even though it's been proven there was a conservative effort, directed by our government to scrub negative information I've got the feeling you don't believe it.

Whatever.

Clearly scrubbing stuff off the internet didn't work, if everyone remembers it all, and if every man and his dog was making massive amounts of media noise about how 'silenced' they were.

And, remind me, who was in Government in 2020 when most of this 'scrubbing off the internet' hit its heyday?

I have to wonder, are you even daft enough to believe you?

originally posted by: annonentity
a reply to: nugget1

To carry out such an exercise , and do it so well their would have been plenty of cash payouts, and probably some heavy threats , I wonder what happened to the critical players in all of this that did not go along with it.

The ones who funnelled the most public money into the pandemic and the vaccines and who were constantly in the press 'informing' everyone of their opinion, while they pretended that someone else was at fault for it all, got voted out.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

But doctors often promote stuff that they haven't got a backlog of experience of. Take oxycontin as an example.

Hmm?...

But it doesn't get scrubbed from the internet within minutes of being posted. Faceboog was really good for making any post questioning the vaccine disappear, as were a lot of other sites. It happened more than once using my browser to search for information, too. Almost like there was some kind of concerted effort to keep any information questioning the safety of the vaccine off the internet,

Even though it's been proven there was a conservative effort, directed by our government to scrub negative information I've got the feeling you don't believe it.

Whatever.

Clearly scrubbing stuff off the internet didn't work, if everyone remembers it all, and if every man and his dog was making massive amounts of media noise about how 'silenced' they were.

And, remind me, who was in Government in 2020 when most of this 'scrubbing off the internet' hit its heyday?

I have to wonder, are you even daft enough to believe you?

I'm fairly sure you will try and put the same people back in government and if you do, that they'll do the same schtick all over again, and they'll still be all, "I'm in the most powerful position in the land but somehow all those who aren't actually in power are picking on me, so I can't get stuff done". And you'll swallow it all down as they push out their mandates while saying "look over there, it's not my fault (boo hoo), it's 'them' who are doing it (waving hands 'air accordion' style)"!

a reply to: chr0naut

Like I said before:

Whatever.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

But doctors often promote stuff that they haven't got a backlog of experience of. Take oxycontin as an example.

Hmm?...

What doctors promoted oxy? I never could find even one.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's awesome! I mean, sure, it's ~3 years after the fact, but what's that matter when something like 350 million doses of vaccine were given in the US. They got their money. They had to demonize anything else that worked, had to have an EUA, had to redefine what a vaccine was, had to threaten people with losing their jobs to get them to take it, and had to have the media running interference for them. But it was all for the greater good, right?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: chr0naut

I was reading articles where doctors were sharing their thoughts on why the mRNA vaccine being rushed was not a good ide, saying the research so far was a bust and the tech was years away from being approved for clinical trials in their opinion.

If you choose not to believe it, that's okay with me; I'm not going to argue with you.

But doctors often promote stuff that they haven't got a backlog of experience of. Take oxycontin as an example.

Hmm?...

What doctors promoted oxy? I never could find even one.

What led to the opioid crisis—and how to fix it

a reply to: chr0naut

Ahem, my reply was meant as a joke.
Seriously though I remember this era. Pill mills in Florida were getting a lot of attention back then. (Bribing doctors was easy then too.) People travelled from long distances to get them. I wasn't one of them. It was bad enough, but mow fentanyl is much worse. The Biden admin and the left are it's biggest promoter now with the open border.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut
That's awesome! I mean, sure, it's ~3 years after the fact, but what's that matter when something like 350 million doses of vaccine were given in the US. They got their money.

How much do meals for one person, for a day, cost? Everyone needs to buy them every day, over and over again.

The immunizations cost less than a days food, and no one takes them every single day, like you do with food. In fact, you don't need to take them at all if you have had a bout of COVID-19 in the last 6 months, because you would already have the immune response.

I don't see you railing against the food and grocery companies for how much money they make - consistently, mandatorily, daily.

They had to demonize anything else that worked,

Yeah about that. Weren't there other solutions like therapeutics (monoclonal antibodies and anti-virals) and immunizations from other companies, that competed in the same space? You seem to have forgotten that there were a raft of drugs and treatments that were part of official protocols.

And what about the Z-packs, Ivermectin and HQC that were even supplied by the governments of Brazil and India? These governments stopped providing them and withdrew the recommendations for them because the findings were that after months of real-world experience, they had no effect on reducing the spread of the infection, they had no effect on reducing severity or symptoms of the disease, and they had no effect on reducing mortality. Nada, not even a slight effect.

Even though the immunizations didn't work as well as hoped, they did, at least, actually work.

had to have an EUA

Yeah, they could have waited the usual 10 years for the old procedures to complete. Tough for those who were dying and would keep dying until everyone had caught and gotten over the disease (if they did), eh?

had to redefine what a vaccine was

Because an old dictionary definition that allows no room for new technologies is waaay more valuable than human lives, right?

had to threaten people with losing their jobs to get them to take it

Because it is only fair for multiple 'Typhoid Marys' to stay in their jobs preparing food for everyone. It would be unfair to remove such a risk from society, even if they are inadvertently doing so.

and had to have the media running interference for them. But it was all for the greater good, right?

Because it is so much better for the rights of an individual to infringe the rights of many thousands?