Covid Scandal and Coverup

[dpic73]

View embedded media

"Posts on X and various websites have recirculated the 2020 clip, especially after Zuckerberg’s 2024 comments criticizing Biden administration pressure as inappropriate to censor COVID-19 content, framing it as evidence of hypocrisy. These posts often misdate the video to August 2021 and exaggerate Zuckerberg’s remarks as a direct warning. However, the full context shows he was discussing uncertainties during vaccine development, not advising against vaccination once vaccines were approved."

The narrative that Zuckerberg warned against vaccines while censoring similar warnings on Facebook is misleading. His early caution reflected the uncertainty of mid-2020, but his public actions and statements from late 2020 onward consistently supported vaccination efforts. Always cross-check viral claims with primary sources, as social media posts can distort context for sensationalism."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/WFSTlx5ckIUL4T3e12NSq6ca0

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[dpic73]

View embedded media

Liz Churchill’s credibility on COVID-19 is highly questionable. She is frequently cited in sources like Vaxopedia for spreading misinformation, particularly claims about COVID vaccines causing infertility or being part of conspiracies involving population control. These claims, such as misinterpreting studies on sperm motility, have been debunked by researchers who point to lifestyle changes and COVID infections as more likely factors. Her posts on X further show a pattern of rejecting mainstream science, calling lockdowns devastating and vaccines harmful without evidence, while promoting unverified narratives like Ukrainian bioweapons labs.

On the other hand, some might argue she’s credible to those skeptical of institutional narratives, as she amplifies concerns about vaccine safety and government overreach that resonate with a distrustful audience. However, her lack of scientific credentials, reliance on unverified claims, and dismissal of peer-reviewed data undermine this. Credible voices on COVID-19, like infectious disease experts or peer-reviewed studies, consistently contradict her assertions. For trustworthy information, sources like the CDC or WHO are better grounded in evidence.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/N4EIRfWUpFsXjvmHvPgtecBfN

 

[dpic73]

View embedded media

"No concrete evidence supports the claim that COVID-19 vaccines killed 500,000 people. This claim, often linked to sources like the McCullough Foundation and amplified by figures like Liz Churchill on X, primarily stems from misinterpretations of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data. VAERS is a passive reporting system where anyone can submit unverified reports of adverse events, and it explicitly states that reports do not confirm causality. As of December 2022, VAERS recorded around 18,007 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S., but extensive reviews by the CDC and FDA, including death certificates and autopsies, found no causal link in most cases, except for rare instances like three confirmed deaths from blood clots linked to the Janssen vaccine.


The claim of 500,000 deaths appears to rely on flawed extrapolations, such as assuming underreporting in VAERS by a factor of 5 or more, without robust evidence. For example, a 2021 claim by attorney Thomas Renz about 45,000 deaths used similar logic, which was debunked due to unverified data and lack of causal proof. Studies, like one in The Lancet, estimate COVID-19 vaccines prevented 14.4 million deaths globally in their first year, with models showing 19.8 million lives saved by reducing severe outcomes. Excess deaths in 2021-2022, often cited as evidence, correlate more strongly with COVID-19 surges than vaccination rollouts, driven by factors like unvaccinated deaths, drug overdoses, and healthcare disruptions.



Rare vaccine side effects, such as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) or myocarditis, have caused deaths (e.g., 32 VITT cases in a 2021 review), but these are orders of magnitude below 500,000. Claims of mass vaccine-related deaths lack peer-reviewed support and are contradicted by global data showing lower mortality in vaccinated populations. Posts on X citing 500,000 deaths reflect sentiment but lack substantiation and are not credible evidence. For accurate information, peer-reviewed studies and health authorities like the CDC or WHO are more reliable than unverified claims."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/1UqWF5t1nqE8WwwcLpvT7GINj

 

[TigerGrowls]

FLASHBACK: RFK Jr. explains how peculiar it was that Bill Gates knew to buy over a million shares of BioNTech stock before COVID happened:

"The same week Bill Gates, who was overseeing the [Event 201] simulation, bought 1.1 Million shares of BioNTech vaccine which later became the Pfizer vaccine. He then sold almost all that stock two years later at a $242,000,000 profit. And a week after that he announced the vaccine didn't work. That's what you call a 'pump-and-dump' scheme."

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[CUTiger1977]

 

[dpic73]

View embedded media

Hi Grok, is this true?

The claim about skyrocketing heart issues in active-duty Naval officers linked to COVID-19 vaccines, citing specific percentage increases (myocarditis 151%, pulmonary heart disease 62%, ischemic heart disease 69%, heart failure 973%), stems from a U.S. Navy medical officer, Lieutenant Ted Macie, who referenced data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED). This was reported in posts on X and various web sources, including a video statement by Macie in November 2023. However, the claim requires careful scrutiny, as the data and its interpretation are contentious and not fully supported by conclusive evidence.


Analysis of the Claim

1. Source of the Data:
   • The percentages come from Macie’s analysis of DMED data, comparing 2021–2022 cardiac event diagnoses to a five-year average (2016–2020). He alleges these increases correlate with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the military, which began in August 2021.
     
     
     
   • DMED is a military health database, but its data has been subject to controversy. In 2022, the Department of Defense (DoD) identified errors in DMED data for 2016–2020 due to underreporting, which artificially inflated percentage increases when comparing to 2021. The DoD stated that corrected data showed no significant spikes in conditions like myocarditis or heart failure.
2. Myocarditis (151% Increase):
   • Myocarditis has been linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in young males after the second dose, with studies showing a rare but increased risk (e.g., 12.6 cases per 1 million vaccinated in the U.S. military).
     
     
     
     
   • A 2021 study in JAMA Cardiology reported 23 cases of myocarditis in military members post-vaccination, higher than expected but still rare given 2.8 million mRNA doses administered. Most cases were mild, with full recovery.
     
     
     
   • However, COVID-19 infection itself carries a higher risk of myocarditis (e.g., 69.8 per 100,000 person-years post-infection vs. 21.7 post-vaccination in 2021). Thus, attributing the 151% increase solely to vaccines is misleading without accounting for infection-related cases or data errors.
3. Pulmonary Heart Disease (62% Increase) and Ischemic Heart Disease (69% Increase):
   • The cited source for these figures, a Veterans Disability Aid article, claims a 62% rise in pulmonary heart disease and a 69% decrease (not increase) in ischemic heart disease, contradicting the claim.
     
     
   • No peer-reviewed studies in the provided references confirm these exact percentages for pulmonary or ischemic heart disease linked to vaccines. A ScienceDirect study on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) found associations with cardiac events like heart failure and pericarditis in military members, but these were tied to COVID-19 infection, not vaccines.
     
     
     
   • The discrepancy suggests possible misinterpretation or misrepresentation of DMED data, especially given the DoD’s correction of underreported diagnoses in prior years.
4. Heart Failure (973% Increase):
   • The 973% increase is the most alarming figure, but it lacks robust corroboration. The Veterans Disability Aid article cites DMED data for a 973% rise in heart failure among Navy pilots, but no primary DoD report or peer-reviewed study confirms this.
     
     
   • A ScienceDirect study notes a significant association between PASC and heart failure (odds ratio 2.15), but this is linked to COVID-19 infection, not vaccination.
     
     
   • The DoD’s 2022 statement on DMED data errors suggests that such dramatic increases may result from flawed comparisons to underreported baseline years. Without raw, corrected DMED data, this figure is questionable.
5. Context of COVID-19 vs. Vaccines:
   • COVID-19 itself is strongly associated with cardiac complications, including myocarditis, heart failure, and arrhythmias, particularly in young, healthy populations like military members. A 2023 ScienceDirect study found 75% increased odds of cardiac events in military members with PASC, independent of vaccination status.
     
     
     
   • Vaccines carry a rare risk of myocarditis (1.62% of post-vaccination cardiac events, per a 2023 review), but the risk is lower than that from COVID-19 infection (e.g., 3.2 relative risk post-vaccine vs. 18.3 post-infection).
     
     
     
   • The military’s high vaccination rate (97% of active-duty troops fully vaccinated by 2023) means most personnel were vaccinated, making it difficult to isolate vaccine effects from infection or other factors.
6. Limitations and Counterpoints:
   • Data Integrity: The DoD’s correction of DMED data undermines the reliability of Macie’s figures. Underreporting in 2016–2020 could exaggerate increases in 2021–2022.
     
     
   • Causation vs. Correlation: Temporal association (e.g., cardiac events post-vaccination) does not prove causation. Other factors, like increased COVID-19 cases in 2021–2022 or changes in diagnostic criteria, could contribute.
     
     
   • Whistleblower Bias: Macie’s claims, amplified by vaccine-skeptical outlets, may reflect selective reporting. His allegations of DoD “slow-rolling” investigations suggest institutional distrust, but no independent verification of his data exists.
     
     
     
   • Peer-Reviewed Evidence: Studies confirm a rare vaccine-related myocarditis risk but do not support widespread increases in other cardiac conditions like heart failure or ischemic heart disease.
     
     Conclusion
     The claim is partially true but misleading and inconclusive:
     • Myocarditis: There is evidence of a rare increase in myocarditis post-mRNA vaccination, particularly in young males, but the 151% figure is likely inflated due to DMED data errors and does not account for COVID-19 infection’s higher risk.
       
       
       
     • Other Conditions: The reported increases in pulmonary heart disease, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure (especially 973%) are not consistently supported by peer-reviewed studies or corrected DMED data. The 69% increase in ischemic heart disease contradicts sources claiming a decrease.
       
       
       
     • COVID-19’s Role: Cardiac issues are more strongly linked to COVID-19 infection than vaccines, and the claim ignores this context.
       
       
       
     • Data Reliability: The DoD’s acknowledgment of DMED errors and lack of raw data access make the percentages unreliable without further verification.
     • 
       
     • The claim, as presented, overstates the vaccine’s role and underplays alternative explanations, including COVID-19’s impact and data inaccuracies. For accurate insights, rely on peer-reviewed studies and official DoD reports rather than whistleblower claims or social media posts.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/tk6RSXpnMtVUhL5Q3h5njt9RV

 

[PontificatingUnifex]

“inflated due to DMED data errors and does not account for COVID-19 infection’s higher risk.“


Fact

 

[PontificatingUnifex]

People who complain about the vaccine seem to neglect that you get a tiny fraction of spike protein in a vaccine as compare to what a real infection cause. It’s all just so stupid, but people are gullible and want a boogey man

 

[Cocks are Number 1]

People who complain about the vaccine seem to neglect that you get a tiny fraction of spike protein in a vaccine as compare to what a real infection cause. It’s all just so stupid, but people are gullible and want a boogey man

Here’s the beauty of it all. You’re welcome to take a Covid vaxx annually if you’d like, and those who prefer not to, can go without.

Great

 

[TigerGrowls]