What did you do today?

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
SpartanEpoxies
House Repair Talk

Help Support House Repair Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ron Van said:
According to what I read, it was a series of things like; the railroad bypassed them, 2) frequent severe flooding, 3) Racial tensions (including several lynchings) and 4) General high crime.

However, it is in a prime location between the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. There are people who still live there but the only industry we saw was Government functions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the history lesson. It's always interesting to know what killed a small town and how long ago it happened.
 
The abandoned town looks interesting. Nice brick buildings. It's a shame they are falling apart.

Spicoli, I hope the kidney pain goes away.

Been tired and sore. My body wasn't cooperating with cleaning or doing much of anything yesterday but today I forced myself to get some cleaning done. Temjin could not wait for the litterbox to be refilled. As soon as I had the litter in it, she jumped in to use it and is now sleeping in her favorite litterbox (the enclosed one with a top entry). Ran out of litter so I need to get more.

Cleaned up in the hallway and kitchen, got some dishes washed, and then my left arm decided not to cooperate anymore. Got some dishes washed and cooked dinner.

I'm about to fall asleep.
 
I drove through Picher, OK once. It's a really weird area. There were all the debris piles everywhere. I had no idea what the heck the place was until I looked it up that night. It's a really sad story and quite a mess.
Picher, Oklahoma
 
And white concrete roads instead of black asphalt?
 
I can't even read that article. I have no ability to tolerate Idiocy, and of course, it's straight from a University! Where people go to become stupid these days.

I expected it to be satire from the Babylon Bee.

In making my Dog's food, which is Apples, Sweet Potato, Carrots, Green Beans, Beef and Beets, I realized that I'm low on Sweet Potato and Costco has been out for a while... I'm going to have to substitute some Kidney Beans next batch, so I gave him a couple handfuls to see if he would tolerate them, and because I can't do a whole batch if it violates my airspace.

Waiting on the Smelloriffic results...
 
I didn't read the article either, just the headline was enough, because those are things that no matter what efforts you employ to avoid, land on your doorstep.
 
My friend's stove came in so we went to pick it up from Lowes. Had to go to HD to get the hinges for my vanity because Lowes was completely out. Website showed stuff in stock but employees said they don't have them yet. Got the non-self closing ones because I hate how they snap shut and got some magnets to make them stay shut.
 
Here's an interesting video my BIL sent me about how Pfizer came up with their 95% efficacy figure. The report is based on Pfizer's own tests. The 95% efficacy sounds like it protects you 95% of the time but that's not what it really means. It was a word game...or you might say, it was an outright lie. The 95% is the "Relative Risk Reduction," but what you really should know is the absolute risk reduction. Here's how the word game works;

In the Pfizer trial they took 18,198 people and gave them the jab. Out of that group, 8 people got covid. The other group of 18,325 people got a placebo and 162 of them got covid.

In the jabbed group, .04% got covid (8/18,198 = .00043961 ... or .04%)
In the Placebo group, .88% got covid (162/18,325 = .00884038 ... or .88%)
Note: Less than 1% of either group got covid!

The Absolute risk reduction is the difference between .04% and .88% which is .84% risk reduction for getting the jab. Less than 1% difference between jabbed and not jabbed. Doesn't sound that good but how can you fool a population of people into taking an inefficient drug like that?

Pfizer's 95% Relative Risk Reduction figure is the reduction from .88% to .04%. You calculate this by subtracting .04 from .88; so .88 - .04 = .84 then .84 divided by .88 = .9545 or 95% relative risk reduction.

1689336723272.png

1689336786931.png
The FDA says this;

1689336990006.png

Pfizer didn't follow this advice and our government let them do it!

If Pfizer told the truth and said there is a .84% (less than 1%) difference between being jabbed and not being jabbed but the potential side affects are;
1689337176186.png

Who would have chosen to get the vaccine? And why would our government allow it?

Video
 

Attachments

  • 1689336700559.png
    1689336700559.png
    16.2 KB · Views: 0
Yeah, Ron... Drug companies run their own testing, pay for their own trials with buddies of theirs (wink wink), and report "results" to the FDA... The FDA literally does nothing besides find a bunch of bad Lettuce every 5 years or so.

Most of the huge Pharma companies have former FDA staff on board, and the FDA has former Pharma staff on board. They are all in bed together... For instance, in the case of Pfizer, the former FDA Commissioner is on their Board of Directors... Anything Pfizer produces is granted approval almost immediately... Besides the Not really a Vaccine, they had a Drug approved before Covid was even done... What normally takes years is simply a phone call between old chums...

That's the #1 reason I don't take any of their drugs and never will again... The best they can come up with for Blood thinners is Rat Poison (Warfarin-Coumadin)... I'll stick with Cayenne and Ginger, thank you very much.


Scott Gottlieb (born June 11, 1972) is an American physician and investor who served as the 23rd commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from May 2017 until April 2019. He is presently a senior fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a partner at the venture capital firm New Enterprise Associates (NEA),[1][2] a member of the board of directors of drug maker Pfizer,
 
Ron Van said:
Here's an interesting video my BIL sent me about how Pfizer came up with their 95% efficacy figure. The report is based on Pfizer's own tests. The 95% efficacy sounds like it protects you 95% of the time but that's not what it really means. It was a word game...or you might say, it was an outright lie. The 95% is the "Relative Risk Reduction," but what you really should know is the absolute risk reduction. Here's how the word game works;

In the Pfizer trial they took 18,198 people and gave them the jab. Out of that group, 8 people got covid. The other group of 18,325 people got a placebo and 162 of them got covid.

In the jabbed group, .04% got covid (8/18,198 = .00043961 ... or .04%)
In the Placebo group, .88% got covid (162/18,325 = .00884038 ... or .88%)
Note: Less than 1% of either group got covid!

The Absolute risk reduction is the difference between .04% and .88% which is .84% risk reduction for getting the jab. Less than 1% difference between jabbed and not jabbed. Doesn't sound that good but how can you fool a population of people into taking an inefficient drug like that?

Pfizer's 95% Relative Risk Reduction figure is the reduction from .88% to .04%. You calculate this by subtracting .04 from .88; so .88 - .04 = .84 then .84 divided by .88 = .9545 or 95% relative risk reduction.

View attachment 31277

View attachment 31278
The FDA says this;

View attachment 31279

Pfizer didn't follow this advice and our government let them do it!

If Pfizer told the truth and said there is a .84% (less than 1%) difference between being jabbed and not being jabbed but the potential side affects are;
View attachment 31280

Who would have chosen to get the vaccine? And why would our government allow it?

Video
Click to expand...
Just curious, did you corroborate the info in the video with any other credible sources? Not that anything unreliable or untrue would ever be posted on rumble, never been on there so I can't say and I have never researched the topic.
 
68bucks said:
Just curious, did you corroborate the info in the video with any other credible sources? Not that anything unreliable or untrue would ever be posted on rumble, never been on there so I can't say and I have never researched the topic.
Click to expand...
It seems to fit in pretty well with common sense. I wouldn't waste any time trying to corroborate as credible sources are few and whistle blowers are denigrated.

After the government admitted that immunity wasn't achieved by the jab it settled on 'symptoms will be milder' propaganda. So since my symptoms were mild that would suggest that I had the jab. Since I didn't have the jab I don't tax my belief system with any government propaganda. I just keep taking vitamin-C and skipping government sponsored jabs. As a side benefit the common cold would be very very uncommon for me.
 
Just thinking · · · some say cats sleep up to 20 hrs/day so why not develop a breed that sleeps 24 hrs/day. That could solve a lort of problems.
 
68bucks said:
Just curious, did you corroborate the info in the video with any other credible sources? Not that anything unreliable or untrue would ever be posted on rumble, never been on there so I can't say and I have never researched the topic.
Click to expand...
The data in the video came from Pfizer’s own research papers. You can see how they manipulated the data. Pfizer didn’t really hide that their vaccine was ineffective… it’s the way they presented the data that makes my blood boil. Also FDA. The video itself was the Canadian Covid institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top