• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Suppression of Free Speech on Covid


Well-Known Member
Investigation raises concerns about 'cozy relationship' between the FDA and Moderna during Covid pandemic - after two officials got six-figure jobs weeks after approving firm's shot



Outstanding Member
Like "safe and effective" you mean? It wasn't safe for the 30 unfortunates who died from the jab in New Zealand according to whistleblower data.

I would love to reply to this but only after you answer what I have been asking you: Do you agree or disagree that flu shots are vaccines?

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I stand totally by my statement which was that I refuse to call something that has to be repeated every year AT LEAST a "vaccine." I call flu shots flu shots by the way.
OK. Nevertheless, in medicine, it's called an influenza vaccine.
Because evidence begins with observations. An observer doesn't have to be an expert to know whether or not someone died and/or was injected with pharmaceutical product.
They do need to be experts to say whether the vaccine caused the death. They need to be qualified to determine the cause of those deaths. The study was extrapolated as if those lay people were correct that people they knew about or heard about that died and were vaccinated died because of the vaccines. This is from the study's abstract:

"An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted to collect information regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, including experiences with COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles ... Thirty-four percent (959 of 2,840) reported that they knew at least one person who experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness. Similarly, 22% (612 of 2,840) indicated that they knew at least one person who experienced a health problem following COVID-19 vaccination. With these survey data, the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 289,789 (95% CI: 229,319 – 344,319)."

Are you skilled at interpreting data (evidence)? If so, you should realize that this is nonsense. Somehow, they have calculated a death rate with no data at all on who died from the vaccine presented. All you can extract from this is that if 2840 is a sufficient sample to extrapolate with, that 22% of people receiving vaccines experienced a "significant" health problem in the estimation of the person reporting sometime after being vaccinated.
Investigation raises concerns about 'cozy relationship' between the FDA and Moderna during Covid pandemic - after two officials got six-figure jobs weeks after approving firm's shot
You seem to imply it, but I doubt that you have any knowledge of anything inappropriate occurring there. The vaccines were appropriate for approval without paying anybody off (they prevented significant morbidity and mortality as was expected).
They had to change the definition of what vaccination is so that their gene therapy could be labelled as such.
And you seem to think that this was inappropriate as well. Is that correct? Do you find significance there apart from the fact that with increasing knowledge, things become redefined? The word planet was redefined based in new knowledge about what lay beyond Neptune.

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your opinion about need is of no value.
You're projecting, and ironically, did so with a valueless comment, as was noted by Koldo almost instantly. Unlike my post, your words are literally valueless (useless). They say nothing at all explicitly except that you claim to have found no value in my rebuttal, which is to be expected, and also (implicitly) that you didn't feel you could falsify my comment, or you would have tried. If that were incorrect, you could demonstrate that it is, but since it's correct, you cannot.


Veteran Member
The highest official estimate for COVID deaths, world wide, is about 3 million.
It's actually, 6,977,023 deaths.

This is an estimate since deaths due to COVID were not reported the same all over the world. For example, 90% reported in Europe to 25% in Africa. In the USA, if you went to the hospital with a fatal gunshot wound and tested positive for COVID, that would be called COVID related, since the COVID characterization allowed double dipping for hospitals, base on Big Government Standards. Still, say we use 3 million deaths world wide even if USA Big Government was paying for bigger numbers, for a better bogeyman.

The earth has currently 7.88 billion people. If you do the math roughly about 0.05% of the totally world population died because of COVID. However everyone was required to be afraid of the bogeyman and pretend that all 7.88 billion people of the earth were vulnerable to death. Science, Medicine and Big Government were not being fully rational in proportion to the final outcome. We are often Lectured in the rationality of science.. In this science case, this was because there was too much dependency on casino science and math, and its one size fits all approach. How can you get upset with someone who cares 2000% too much? There is no accountable for being overly cautious, including rip off scams with a big heart.

Consider a hypothetical future when medicine can pre-test young people for a wide range of current and potential vulnerability, and thereby be able to target the riskiest and most vulnerable to any new virus, like COVID, while also allowing the other 7.8 billion to go about their business. No more unaccountable herd stampeding for power, profit and political advantages. Would that type of medical Science be more advanced? Or is it better to treat every brush fire as a forest fire, due to the same math oracles of science also being used by politicians and marketeers?

It was known fairly early that children were the least vulnerable. In the early and final analysis, children accounted for 0.04% of the total death toll. This was interpreted by one political party as meaning all children were at risk, disrupting their education. The oracles of casino math can be spun with the word risk, to make the risk appear like a fog that everyone has to walk through, at the mercy of the whims of the gods. The other political party was more rational, to the early data and attempted to keep schools open and allow parental choice. It is like they used a more advanced medical protocol. What made the latter act more rational, as though they did not care as much with squishy feelings that could have made them unaccountable?

The dynamics of censorship is not too much different from fighting a virus. Things are censored to prevent exposure to sounds and sights that can enter the brain and make people think. Instead of a mask to cover the mouth and nose, to filter COVID, Government put a collective mask to cover the ears and eyes for censorship therapy.

In the case of COVID, censoring what would turn out to be true, was not there to fight a virus, but censor a truth vaccine. In 20/20 hindsight, the final result would be like not allowing a truth vaccine, that could return people to mental health. It appeared a mental viral sickness needed to perpetuate since it was optimized for those in power; needed their zombie army. This outcome was still based on casino math and weighing the risks, that these powerful truth vaccines may work and undermine the entire viral exposure experiments of their lab rats. They would be needed in 2020. When the riots of summer of 2020 started, the concern for children being exposed was lifted so they could bust up cities in a zombie frenzy. It was never about the children, just their zombie army.

In both cases; children and censorship, one side overreacted, with a one size fits all approach; fear and censorship, to prevent exposure to what turned out to be truth vaccines for return to health. That is also how racism and sexism work, with censorship there to prevent truth vaccines. Science needs to get away from casino math since political math, will oracle spin that oracle and add mental virus to biological virus for power and profit. A rational interface can block this baton pass.


Veteran Member
Because evidence begins with observations. An observer doesn't have to be an expert to know whether or not someone died and/or was injected with pharmaceutical product.
Yes, they actually do need to be an expert or at the very least, they need to be able to demonstrate their claims. You know, like scientifically, not just anecdotally.
Average people aren't trained medical professionals. Human beings are prone to all kinds of psychological and logical errors in thinking and we tend to see patterns where they don't exist and we tend to make associations between things that maybe correlated but don't actually demonstrate a causal relationship.

That's why we have the scientific method in the first place. To remove human error and bias that we know we are prone to.

Look at all the people right now, any time anyone dies of anything now, we've got people jumping all over it as though it was caused by the vaccine - with no evidence of that whatsoever. But people believe it anyway.

A football player has a heart attack - must be the COVID vaccine.
Matthew Perry drowned in his Jacuzzi - must be because he got vaccinated and boosted.
Justin Bieber has some sort of paralysis - must be from the COVID vaccine.