The Unvaccinated in CANADA -

[Valcazar]

Obesity, Race/Ethnicity, and COVID-19

Having obesity increases risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov

I'll just leave this with you and await your response..........

Yes, exactly as I said.
The generalized "being fit is better than not being fit" is still a message (and with good reason) and there isn't any reason to focus on it more intensely than that.
They even point out (although they don't underline it) that the increasing risk on that page starts with "obesity" (BMI 30+) and not "overweight" (BMI 25+). That's because the big study they are referencing found a mild decrease in risk for overweight. But it's all fairly trivial in the end. The major risk factor is age. Hell, even being male is a higher risk overall than weight except at the highest levels of morbidly obese.

So yes - being fit and eating well helps, but it just isn't remotely important enough a factor to make it the focus of a COVID-specific public health campaign. It should (and is) part of the general health campaign the CDC should do and there is nothing wrong with them pointing out it probably helps your risk factor. It just isn't the focus and rightly so.

 

[jacksparrow]

Keep challenging folks on an anonymous board tough guy. Does it make you feel like an alpha male? At least you're somewhat entertaining, not much, just a little.

You are the one who said it, not me. You are also the one who is very happy to be anonymous here. Regardless of who or what i think i am, i can tell compared to you most on here would be a tough guy and or an "alpha".

 

[jacksparrow]

I guess you’d know.

Curious, which articles did guys like you read that informed your decision making around there being no need for the vaccine?

Well the fact that fda pretty well came out and said that it didn't work and that they were being overly "optimistic" when first describing it's efficacy. Add that to the latest revelations about the adverse reactions make me happy I waited to see what was up. Google the criminal history of pfizer. The cognitive dissonance of people regarding these vaccines is something else. I have literally witnessed water cooler talk among people who after having watched that tv series Dopesick about and speaking about the evils of Purdue Pharma while wearing a Pfizer double jabbed t shirt that they paid for themselves. It's hilarious.

 

[jacksparrow]

Yes, I’m also a Ukraine expert. Oh wait, that’s you people.

You are giving me a good chuckle here. Glad someone else enjoys the clown show. Haha.

 

[jacksparrow]

Yes, exactly as I said.
The generalized "being fit is better than not being fit" is still a message (and with good reason) and there isn't any reason to focus on it more intensely than that.
They even point out (although they don't underline it) that the increasing risk on that page starts with "obesity" (BMI 30+) and not "overweight" (BMI 25+). That's because the big study they are referencing found a mild decrease in risk for overweight. But it's all fairly trivial in the end. The major risk factor is age. Hell, even being male is a higher risk overall than weight except at the highest levels of morbidly obese.

So yes - being fit and eating well helps, but it just isn't remotely important enough a factor to make it the focus of a COVID-specific public health campaign. It should (and is) part of the general health campaign the CDC should do and there is nothing wrong with them pointing out it probably helps your risk factor. It just isn't the focus and rightly so.

Not smoking and not being fat give you a better chance of fighting covid. Pretty common sense. More so than the jab which was a fraud. I get taking it at first if you were scared of the virus and that is all there was at the time. Most I know got it because they were scared to lose their job, wanted to travel or were scared to stand up to the scum bags who wanted to make them second citizens. Maybe if all of you hadn't been so trusting of gov and pharma it would have forced them to go back to the drawing board and produce something that worked.

 

[glamphotographer]

Vaccines work. False information doesn't work. The more people around the world who get vaccinated, the sooner we move into the endemic phase.

 

[ShockNAwww]

Well the fact that fda pretty well came out and said that it didn't work and that they were being overly "optimistic" when first describing it's efficacy. Add that to the latest revelations about the adverse reactions make me happy I waited to see what was up. Google the criminal history of pfizer. The cognitive dissonance of people regarding these vaccines is something else. I have literally witnessed water cooler talk among people who after having watched that tv series Dopesick about and speaking about the evils of Purdue Pharma while wearing a Pfizer double jabbed t shirt that they paid for themselves. It's hilarious.

Any chance you would share a source for the ‘FDA pretty well came out and said that it didn’t work and that they were being optimistic when first describing it,’ statement please? That seems very interesting, but with all the daily news that references the FDA, I can’t find any support for that.

In-terms of the “latest revelations about adverse reactions,” do you mean the adverse events documented as part of the Pfizer trial? If so, I’m curious, what did those documents tell you that you didn’t know before?

'Data is power': Experts weigh-in on court-ordered release of Pfizer vaccine documents

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lost a court battle, to protect the documents they used to approve the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

beta.ctvnews.ca

What is an 'adverse event?' Inside the recently released report on Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine

A pair of infectious disease specialists spoke to CTVNews.ca about a document circulating online, which some claim is proof that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine causes more 'adverse events' than previously stated. The experts say the document requires a more nuanced look.

beta.ctvnews.ca

What about those Pfizer vaccine '9 pages'?

Not so much the smoking gun against the COVID-19 vaccine they are made out to be in some corners of the internet.

www.squamishchief.com

 

[squeezer]

You are the one who said it, not me. You are also the one who is very happy to be anonymous here. Regardless of who or what i think i am, i can tell compared to you most on here would be a tough guy and or an "alpha".

Jack, nobody is stopping you from being the man and introducing yourself on an Escort Review board and I will truthfully admit I will remain anonymous because I'm just not as "tough" as you. I'm sure it will help you with future bookings as well. When booking and if a lady asks for ID, just point them to this thread where you came out because anonymity is just for nerds and geeks.

 

[Valcazar]

Not smoking and not being fat give you a better chance of fighting covid. Pretty common sense. More so than the jab which was a fraud.

Less, according to all the data we have.
Vaccines are much more protective than lifestyle choices from the evidence we have.

 

[jacksparrow]

Any chance you would share a source for the ‘FDA pretty well came out and said that it didn’t work and that they were being optimistic when first describing it,’ statement please? That seems very interesting, but with all the daily news that references the FDA, I can’t find any support for that.

In-terms of the “latest revelations about adverse reactions,” do you mean the adverse events documented as part of the Pfizer trial? If so, I’m curious, what did those documents tell you that you didn’t know before?

'Data is power': Experts weigh-in on court-ordered release of Pfizer vaccine documents

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has lost a court battle, to protect the documents they used to approve the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

beta.ctvnews.ca

What is an 'adverse event?' Inside the recently released report on Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine

A pair of infectious disease specialists spoke to CTVNews.ca about a document circulating online, which some claim is proof that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine causes more 'adverse events' than previously stated. The experts say the document requires a more nuanced look.

beta.ctvnews.ca

What about those Pfizer vaccine '9 pages'?

Not so much the smoking gun against the COVID-19 vaccine they are made out to be in some corners of the internet.

www.squamishchief.com

You are right, it is hard to find anything on that. And yes if anyone is on either side of this debate they should be wary of what sources they cite. Whether it be random fake news merchants, or podcasters, "independent" journalists, or sadly professional liars like CNN and CBC.
Also the overabundance of news, and the nature of the news cycle burying things. That's why video is good. Hard to dispute when you hear it from the horses mouth, although that not be a reliable thing for much longer either.
Here is a video of Rochelle Walensky speaking.
http://instagr.am/p/Cauw6xjtEBZ/
Speaking of random sources... here is an interesting enough video that explains, or does a good enough job making it sound like they are knowledgeable enough to explain, where the 95 percent efficacy came from. Nobody wants to watch an hour long conspiracy video from some rando on a forum, but if you are in fact curious, the first 3 or 4 minutes would suffice. It probably also shows that old Rochele wasn't being honest when blaming CNN for the 95 percent effective statement. Shocking someone from Pfizer being dishonest. Definitely don't google criminal history of Pfizer.

 

[jacksparrow]

Less, according to all the data we have.
Vaccines are much more protective than lifestyle choices from the evidence we have.

Depends how you define effective perhaps. We could be arguing two different points. If you mean getting it vs not getting it, than perhaps the vaccine works better, or did. But in terms of fighting it once you get it, being fat and smoking certainly increase your odds of having a rougher go of it.
The most effective is natural immunity, which it took a long time for the doctors and media to admit either through ignorance or malice.

 

[jacksparrow]

Vaccines work. False information doesn't work. The more people around the world who get vaccinated, the sooner we move into the endemic phase.

False information got you to be so confident on the efficacy of the vaccine. And the statement vaccines work plural is a dishonest one. We aren't talking about Polio or measles, we are talking about these covid ones, which aren't even vaccines. Your statement is 12 months late. And when or if this gets to the endemic it won't be because of the vaccine or at least this one, it will be because we learn that it isn't that bad for most people and society gets on with it, we learn to protect the vulnerable, and perhaps a weak but highly contagious variant sweeps through and delivers natural immunity.

 

[jacksparrow]

Jack, nobody is stopping you from being the man and introducing yourself on an Escort Review board and I will truthfully admit I will remain anonymous because I'm just not as "tough" as you. I'm sure it will help you with future bookings as well. When booking and if a lady asks for ID, just point them to this thread where you came out because anonymity is just for nerds and geeks.

Dude you were the one who jumped in here reliving bad high school memories of "alpha males" abusing you and making you feel like less of a man. I'm sorry I triggered you honestly, I was just pushing back against the actual passive aggressive clown who was breaking what should be the golden internet rule of not mouthing off to someone online that you wouldn't do it to in person.

 

[squeezer]

Dude you were the one who jumped in here reliving bad high school memories of "alpha males" abusing you and making you feel like less of a man. I'm sorry I triggered you honestly, I was just pushing back against the actual passive aggressive clown who was breaking what should be the golden internet rule of not mouthing off to someone online that you wouldn't do it to in person.

I actually have great memories of high school, sorry if you remember it differently. You didn't trigger me, I kind of find it amusing when someone wants to play internet tough guy on an anonymous forum. I have a picture in my head of this type of character. It's isn't flattering but it is comical. Carry on, enjoy your day, it's a very nice Friday.

 

[ShockNAwww]

You are right, it is hard to find anything on that. And yes if anyone is on either side of this debate they should be wary of what sources they cite. Whether it be random fake news merchants, or podcasters, "independent" journalists, or sadly professional liars like CNN and CBC.
Also the overabundance of news, and the nature of the news cycle burying things. That's why video is good. Hard to dispute when you hear it from the horses mouth, although that not be a reliable thing for much longer either.
Here is a video of Rochelle Walensky speaking.
http://instagr.am/p/Cauw6xjtEBZ/
Speaking of random sources... here is an interesting enough video that explains, or does a good enough job making it sound like they are knowledgeable enough to explain, where the 95 percent efficacy came from. Nobody wants to watch an hour long conspiracy video from some rando on a forum, but if you are in fact curious, the first 3 or 4 minutes would suffice. It probably also shows that old Rochele wasn't being honest when blaming CNN for the 95 percent effective statement. Shocking someone from Pfizer being dishonest. Definitely don't google criminal history of Pfizer.

Thanks for sharing!

It is indeed an interesting clip.

For clarity and truth:

No, CDC chief doesn’t get COVID-19 reports from CNN

It would be troubling if the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relied on the media for updates

www.politifact.com

Summary:

• In November 2020, CNN reported that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing COVID-19.
• At that time in 2020, Dr. Rochelle Walensky was a professor at Harvard Medical School and head of the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital. In a March 3, 2022 interview, Walensky referenced the CNN report she heard in 2020, before she became CDC director.

While I can understand why the ‘professional liars’ at CNN and CBC wouldn’t be for you, I’m curious what went into your decision that convinced you that @cvr_overandover is a reliable source for information? Or reliable enough for you to pass along to others?

The account owner bills himself as a father and activist. He doesn’t appear to have any kind of background in journalism, science or medicine, and his opposition to COVID vaccines is ‘a hill’ he’ll ‘die on.’ He claims to have been “de-platformed” 11-times for violating Instagram’s rules around medical misinformation.

What informs your decisions around selecting credible and reliable source like this for your information?

 

[Valcazar]

Depends how you define effective perhaps. We could be arguing two different points. If you mean getting it vs not getting it, than perhaps the vaccine works better, or did. But in terms of fighting it once you get it, being fat and smoking certainly increase your odds of having a rougher go of it.

If your argument is just "between two people who are otherwise the same (age, sex, comorbidities, vaccine status) who get it, the fitter non-smoker will do better" then I probably agree.
If it is "once you've got it, fit and non-smoker is a bigger factor than vaccinated vs unvaccinated/never infected" then no, the data doesn't seem to support that (maybe with someone who is BMI >40 and a smoker or something).

The most effective is natural immunity, which it took a long time for the doctors and media to admit either through ignorance or malice.

Not really good evidence for infection-derived immunity being better. Some evidence for that being the case during Delta. But overall it really has been a mixed bag of results.
The fact infection derived is so inconsistent in what it produces doesn't help.

 

[Valcazar]

Here is a video of Rochelle Walensky speaking.
http://instagr.am/p/Cauw6xjtEBZ/
Speaking of random sources... here is an interesting enough video that explains, or does a good enough job making it sound like they are knowledgeable enough to explain, where the 95 percent efficacy came from. Nobody wants to watch an hour long conspiracy video from some rando on a forum, but if you are in fact curious, the first 3 or 4 minutes would suffice. It probably also shows that old Rochele wasn't being honest when blaming CNN for the 95 percent effective statement. Shocking someone from Pfizer being dishonest. Definitely don't google criminal history of Pfizer.

It's unclear, was there supposed to be a second video here? The one with the "first 3 or 4 minutes" that would be helpful?

 

[jacksparrow]

Thanks for sharing!

It is indeed an interesting clip.

For clarity and truth:

No, CDC chief doesn’t get COVID-19 reports from CNN

It would be troubling if the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relied on the media for updates

www.politifact.com

Summary:

• In November 2020, CNN reported that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing COVID-19.
• At that time in 2020, Dr. Rochelle Walensky was a professor at Harvard Medical School and head of the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital. In a March 3, 2022 interview, Walensky referenced the CNN report she heard in 2020, before she became CDC director.

While I can understand why the ‘professional liars’ at CNN and CBC wouldn’t be for you, I’m curious what went into your decision that convinced you that @cvr_overandover is a reliable source for information? Or reliable enough for you to pass along to others?

The account owner bills himself as a father and activist. He doesn’t appear to have any kind of background in journalism, science or medicine, and his opposition to COVID vaccines is ‘a hill’ he’ll ‘die on.’ He claims to have been “de-platformed” 11-times for violating Instagram’s rules around medical misinformation.

What informs your decisions around selecting credible and reliable source like this for your information?

I really can't stand the typical lefty sjw method of discounting facts by attacking who the source or middleman was. I had no idea who you were referring to when you mentioned cvr over and over. I don't follow that person, have never seen that account before. As we both had touched upon, google does a good job of burying anything that harms the narrative. So I had to search for at least a partial clip of that interview to provide to you. You asked and I provided. And no in 2020 the vaccine was not 95 percent effective. You realize that all those fact checking sources have an incestuous relationship with all of those for whom they are fact checking?

Anyhow, I'm giving you a pass here as I wrote this " Speaking of random sources... here is an interesting enough video that explains, or does a good enough job making it sound like they are knowledgeable enough to explain, where the 95 percent efficacy came from. Nobody wants to watch an hour long conspiracy video from some rando on a forum, but if you are in fact curious, the first 3 or 4 minutes would suffice "
and moron that I am did not provide the link.
Here is the link.

The Pfizer Inoculations For COVID-19 – More Harm Than Good – VIDEO – Canadian Covid Care Alliance

www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org

Again don't attack the source, (unless they are linked to David Icke or something), or the overall premise of the vid about vaccines causing more harm, time will tell there.
But I think the explanation about the 95 percent effectiveness sounds pretty convincing.

Let me ask you this... Do you think Pfizer or big pharma would lie or rig studies to make a buck?

 

[jacksparrow]

I actually have great memories of high school, sorry if you remember it differently. You didn't trigger me, I kind of find it amusing when someone wants to play internet tough guy on an anonymous forum. I have a picture in my head of this type of character. It's isn't flattering but it is comical. Carry on, enjoy your day, it's a very nice Friday.

You keep talking about internet tough guys and alpha's and whatnot when that is all from your mouth. Keep projecting your insecurities on the internet. It is fine that you are a weak man. Everyone has their place in society. Just know yours.

 

[jacksparrow]

It's unclear, was there supposed to be a second video here? The one with the "first 3 or 4 minutes" that would be helpful?

It wasn't a second Walensky video, but yeah I left off the link for the vid i mentioned which was pretty poor form. You'll find it above.

As for natural immunity vs the vaccine, there is enough or was enough that was contrary to what you stated. But it doesn't take long for the "fact checkers" to be all over those reports.
But in this day and age if you go into something with a confirmation bias you can pretty well find whatever you want to back up your point.
Especially so if you are on the side of the governments and big tech and big pharma.

I had seen something like this but without the paywall. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968553

There is a quote from someone saying that it is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled. How many on here or in society as a whole would have enough integrity or be humble enough to admit they were wrong having already been triple penetrated if all they believed from big pharma, gov and the media was not so?