Local Covid Anti-Vaxxers vs Studies Spammers

[redmanjp]

Please double check your insurance fellas and confirm that COVID hospital coverage is available . If anyone can get it on paper please send as soon as possible

and also that that coverage applies to unvaccinated. next thing they tell u u need to be vaxxed first, or that the coverage for unvaxxed is much lower and still stick u with a portion of the bill. same way they would treat smokers.

My agent informed me that only applies to new policies, as the existing policy was taken out when everyone was essentially unvaccinated well before that was even coined a term, they are offering a discount if I decide to vaccinate and show proof but that is purely an incentive ...it's ok

discount on what? the premium or the portion of the hospital bill u pay for covid treatment?

so this means if an unvaxxed person now taking out insurance they not covered for covid?

A discount on the premium, my coverage remains the same I guess this is how the company trying to recuperate and retain it's streamline revenue

makes sense they encouraging ppl to get vaxxed. unvaxxed more likely to suffer health issues both during a covid infection and even months after recovery, and of course long covid.

[teems1]

If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go

Medical Associates opened a covid 19 ward

You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.

Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your health

Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.

Chances are Covid wasn't on that list when you signed the contract.

[hover11]

If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go

Medical Associates opened a covid 19 ward

You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.

Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your health

Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.

Chances are Covid wasn't on that list when you signed the contract.

Unless my agent is lying , anything that requires ICU or HDU care or disablement in any form I'm covered for

[redmanjp]

If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go

Medical Associates opened a covid 19 ward

You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.

Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your health

Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.

Chances are Covid wasn't on that list when you signed the contract.

Unless my agent is lying , anything that requires ICU or HDU care or disablement in any form I'm covered for

did u ask specifically if it covers covid?

[Kenjo]

If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go

Medical Associates opened a covid 19 ward

You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.

Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your health

Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.

Chances are Covid wasn't on that list when you signed the contract.

Unless my agent is lying , anything that requires ICU or HDU care or disablement in any form I'm covered for

Yeah and if your insurance renews annually then the concept of vaccination only came up around March so you only have a few more months . It’s actuaries who calculating these so you better double check . What car or land you might have up for sale in case though ?

[drchaos]

Vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic.
Unvaccinated are more likely to be sick and display symptoms.
Both can spread the virus.
So who is more likely the carrier?
But the rhetoric is: blame the Unvaccinated for outbreaks.
The Dutch 85% fully vaccinated but cowering under an outbreak.
When India, Africa, Haiti not showing major outbreaks they saying oh its poor record keeping....well there should be vultures covering dead bodies all over these countries...covid should have been wiping them out....
Many doctors who treating patients privately with success in Trinidad afraid to say what they are using.
The general hospitals focus on oxygen and treating comorbidities.
Where are most of the deaths taking place?
When people state what they and their family used and survived they are censored by social media and mainstream media.
Vaccine is your choice.
There is no evidence that vaccination is ending this pandemic.

Plenty sense ...

Private doctors not scared just cautious.

[adnj]

Vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic.
Unvaccinated are more likely to be sick and display symptoms.
Both can spread the virus.
So who is more likely the carrier?
But the rhetoric is: blame the Unvaccinated for outbreaks.
The Dutch 85% fully vaccinated but cowering under an outbreak.
When India, Africa, Haiti not showing major outbreaks they saying oh its poor record keeping....well there should be vultures covering dead bodies all over these countries...covid should have been wiping them out....
Many doctors who treating patients privately with success in Trinidad afraid to say what they are using.
The general hospitals focus on oxygen and treating comorbidities.
Where are most of the deaths taking place?
When people state what they and their family used and survived they are censored by social media and mainstream media.
Vaccine is your choice.
There is no evidence that vaccination is ending this pandemic.

Plenty sense ...

Private doctors not scared just cautious.

No. It is not.

There is no correlation between a person being asymptomatic and their vaccination status. Vaccinated people are simply LESS LIKELY to be infected - and therefore less likely to be infectious whether asymptomatic or not.

Considering that at least one third of COVID infections are entirely symptom-free, yet still potentially contagious, it is important to know whether vaccinated people are likely to become carriers of the virus. Not every carrier spreads the virus, though. If a carrier’s viral load is relatively low—meaning that fewer viral particles are shed while breathing and speaking—the risk of transmission is substantially reduced. One possible indirect benefit of a COVID vaccine, then, may be to reduce the viral load in so-called breakthrough cases, or vaccinated people who get infected.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... t-enough1/

[PariaMan]

Better odds

[matr1x]

Wasn't Terry boasting about the high vaccination rate on daily show?



Waste of time

[axe]

You all like to get derogatory when someone offer alternative views. Many of you run to Google for the latest research findings.
What you may not know that many experts are finding out that these research authorities seemed to be compromised, even with the Lancet allowing certain papers through then removing after public opinion was already affected....example the infamous piece on hydroxychloroquine.
Many so called neutral research was in fact funded by Zuckerberg, GAVI, Pfizer etc to show other treatments do not work. Have you ever looked at who did the funding. Even WHO research whistle-blowers have complained that the demand for double blinded evidence in the face of observational evidence is very difficult without heavy financing, and that the financiers often change the goal of research during the duration of research. A good example is how they changed the end point for remdesivir midpoint which was unprecedented but WHO, FDA all turned a blind eye.
All these things have disheartened many key experts in these subject area especially during this pandemic.
Most of you just read headlines and build opinion then come to challenge people intelligence as if you so smart because of a search engine.
Is is so strange when they don't let doctors who are treating hundreds of patients talk and be interviewed but rather these suits who are political in their agenda do all the published interviewed and label everything else as antivax.

Go ahead now cheerleaders...

[adnj]

You all like to get derogatory when someone offer alternative views. Many of you run to Google for the latest research findings.
What you may not know that many experts are finding out that these research authorities seemed to be compromised, even with the Lancet allowing certain papers through then removing after public opinion was already affected....example the infamous piece on hydroxychloroquine.
Many so called neutral research was in fact funded by Zuckerberg, GAVI, Pfizer etc to show other treatments do not work. Have you ever looked at who did the funding. Even WHO research whistle-blowers have complained that the demand for double blinded evidence in the face of observational evidence is very difficult without heavy financing, and that the financiers often change the goal of research during the duration of research. A good example is how they changed the end point for remdesivir midpoint which was unprecedented but WHO, FDA all turned a blind eye.
All these things have disheartened many key experts in these subject area especially during this pandemic.
Most of you just read headlines and build opinion then come to challenge people intelligence as if you so smart because of a search engine.
Is is so strange when they don't let doctors who are treating hundreds of patients talk and be interviewed but rather these suits who are political in their agenda do all the published interviewed and label everything else as antivax.

Go ahead now cheerleaders...

What's your point?

You may not be aware that most research studies are considered to provide only a waypoint in whether a fact has been established or disproven.

Relatively few authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions.

Just 500 of more than 30,000 authors named in the retraction database (which includes co-authors) account for about one-quarter of the 10,500 retractions we analyzed. One hundred of those authors have 13 or more retractions each. Those withdrawals are usually the result of deliberate misconduct, not errors.

A retraction does not always signal scientific misbehavior.

Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.

The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.


https://www.science.org/content/article ... th-penalty

[nismotrinidappa]

You all like to get derogatory when someone offer alternative views. Many of you run to Google for the latest research findings.
What you may not know that many experts are finding out that these research authorities seemed to be compromised, even with the Lancet allowing certain papers through then removing after public opinion was already affected....example the infamous piece on hydroxychloroquine.
Many so called neutral research was in fact funded by Zuckerberg, GAVI, Pfizer etc to show other treatments do not work. Have you ever looked at who did the funding. Even WHO research whistle-blowers have complained that the demand for double blinded evidence in the face of observational evidence is very difficult without heavy financing, and that the financiers often change the goal of research during the duration of research. A good example is how they changed the end point for remdesivir midpoint which was unprecedented but WHO, FDA all turned a blind eye.
All these things have disheartened many key experts in these subject area especially during this pandemic.
Most of you just read headlines and build opinion then come to challenge people intelligence as if you so smart because of a search engine.
Is is so strange when they don't let doctors who are treating hundreds of patients talk and be interviewed but rather these suits who are political in their agenda do all the published interviewed and label everything else as antivax.

Go ahead now cheerleaders...

What's your point?

You may not be aware that most research studies are considered to provide only a waypoint in whether a fact has been established or disproven.

Relatively few authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions.

Just 500 of more than 30,000 authors named in the retraction database (which includes co-authors) account for about one-quarter of the 10,500 retractions we analyzed. One hundred of those authors have 13 or more retractions each. Those withdrawals are usually the result of deliberate misconduct, not errors.

A retraction does not always signal scientific misbehavior.

Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.

The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.


https://www.science.org/content/article ... th-penalty

Lmao the Man point is that the world is being deceived with the whole story.

95% of the news and reports are lies and altered. Big pharma controls and alters and suppresses.

Who want to vax let them vax. Who dont want to vax leave them the hell alone. You vax and feel you safe good for you. Who dont vax and sick and die will meet their maker it's their choice. Who vax and mutate into zombies next two years will be put into cages and neutralized . Stop beating up and frothing up. Who dont vax and healthy will live on and just share up everybody else's assets left behind.

[adnj]

You all like to get derogatory when someone offer alternative views. Many of you run to Google for the latest research findings.
What you may not know that many experts are finding out that these research authorities seemed to be compromised, even with the Lancet allowing certain papers through then removing after public opinion was already affected....example the infamous piece on hydroxychloroquine.
Many so called neutral research was in fact funded by Zuckerberg, GAVI, Pfizer etc to show other treatments do not work. Have you ever looked at who did the funding. Even WHO research whistle-blowers have complained that the demand for double blinded evidence in the face of observational evidence is very difficult without heavy financing, and that the financiers often change the goal of research during the duration of research. A good example is how they changed the end point for remdesivir midpoint which was unprecedented but WHO, FDA all turned a blind eye.
All these things have disheartened many key experts in these subject area especially during this pandemic.
Most of you just read headlines and build opinion then come to challenge people intelligence as if you so smart because of a search engine.
Is is so strange when they don't let doctors who are treating hundreds of patients talk and be interviewed but rather these suits who are political in their agenda do all the published interviewed and label everything else as antivax.

Go ahead now cheerleaders...

What's your point?

You may not be aware that most research studies are considered to provide only a waypoint in whether a fact has been established or disproven.

Relatively few authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions.

Just 500 of more than 30,000 authors named in the retraction database (which includes co-authors) account for about one-quarter of the 10,500 retractions we analyzed. One hundred of those authors have 13 or more retractions each. Those withdrawals are usually the result of deliberate misconduct, not errors.

A retraction does not always signal scientific misbehavior.

Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.

The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.


https://www.science.org/content/article ... th-penalty

Lmao the Man point is that the world is being deceived with the whole story.

95% of the news and reports are lies and altered. Big pharma controls and alters and suppresses.

Who want to vax let them vax. Who dont want to vax leave them the hell alone. You vax and feel you safe good for you. Who dont vax and sick and die will meet their maker it's their choice. Who vax and mutate into zombies next two years will be put into cages and neutralized . Stop beating up and frothing up. Who dont vax and healthy will live on and just share up everybody else's assets left behind.

You wake up talking dumb sh!t? You're not making a point either.

If the information that is available to you indicates that there is a conspiracy and a coverup and you have no ability to find the truth, then you simply haven't tried hard enough.

Get your ass out there and dig up some facts instead of just b!tching and moaning.

[eitech]

You all like to get derogatory when someone offer alternative views. Many of you run to Google for the latest research findings.
What you may not know that many experts are finding out that these research authorities seemed to be compromised, even with the Lancet allowing certain papers through then removing after public opinion was already affected....example the infamous piece on hydroxychloroquine.
Many so called neutral research was in fact funded by Zuckerberg, GAVI, Pfizer etc to show other treatments do not work. Have you ever looked at who did the funding. Even WHO research whistle-blowers have complained that the demand for double blinded evidence in the face of observational evidence is very difficult without heavy financing, and that the financiers often change the goal of research during the duration of research. A good example is how they changed the end point for remdesivir midpoint which was unprecedented but WHO, FDA all turned a blind eye.
All these things have disheartened many key experts in these subject area especially during this pandemic.
Most of you just read headlines and build opinion then come to challenge people intelligence as if you so smart because of a search engine.
Is is so strange when they don't let doctors who are treating hundreds of patients talk and be interviewed but rather these suits who are political in their agenda do all the published interviewed and label everything else as antivax.

Go ahead now cheerleaders...

What's your point?

You may not be aware that most research studies are considered to provide only a waypoint in whether a fact has been established or disproven.

Relatively few authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions.

Just 500 of more than 30,000 authors named in the retraction database (which includes co-authors) account for about one-quarter of the 10,500 retractions we analyzed. One hundred of those authors have 13 or more retractions each. Those withdrawals are usually the result of deliberate misconduct, not errors.

A retraction does not always signal scientific misbehavior.

Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.

The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.


https://www.science.org/content/article ... th-penalty

Lmao the Man point is that the world is being deceived with the whole story.

95% of the news and reports are lies and altered. Big pharma controls and alters and suppresses.

Who want to vax let them vax. Who dont want to vax leave them the hell alone. You vax and feel you safe good for you. Who dont vax and sick and die will meet their maker it's their choice. Who vax and mutate into zombies next two years will be put into cages and neutralized . Stop beating up and frothing up. Who dont vax and healthy will live on and just share up everybody else's assets left behind.

You wake up talking dumb sh!t? You're not making a point either.

Lmao

[Ben_spanna]

Love what Austria is doing

LOCKDOWN for all Unvaccinated people and allowing the vaccinated to do as they want freely.

We need that here

[Dave]

Trump and follow suit?

[Ben_spanna]

Trump and follow suit?

damn, know how long i aint play ah hand of fours!!!!

[nismotrinidappa]

Lol adnj. I made my point and I explained the OP point. The point = tricks and lies.

Next point..STOP FORCING PEOPLE


Next point.. I'm not bitching and moaning just stating MY point which I am entitled to. And so are you.

The truth is in time we will know who was right and who was wrong unless oops you're dead..

[teems1]

Vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic.
Unvaccinated are more likely to be sick and display symptoms.
Both can spread the virus.
So who is more likely the carrier?
But the rhetoric is: blame the Unvaccinated for outbreaks.
The Dutch 85% fully vaccinated but cowering under an outbreak.
When India, Africa, Haiti not showing major outbreaks they saying oh its poor record keeping....well there should be vultures covering dead bodies all over these countries...covid should have been wiping them out....
Many doctors who treating patients privately with success in Trinidad afraid to say what they are using.
The general hospitals focus on oxygen and treating comorbidities.
Where are most of the deaths taking place?
When people state what they and their family used and survived they are censored by social media and mainstream media.
Vaccine is your choice.
There is no evidence that vaccination is ending this pandemic.

Plenty sense ...

Private doctors not scared just cautious.

Call names then, that way we'll know which doctors are quacks.

[Wraith King]

Love what Austria is doing

LOCKDOWN for all Unvaccinated people and allowing the vaccinated to do as they want freely.

We need that here

The vaccinated really making fools of themselves. Are all vaccinated persons stupid or is it just that the stupid ones speaking out?

[drchaos]

Y'all actually arguing with adnj?

The guy is as brainwashed as they get ... He has only 1 point of view which is heavily biased and one sided and is unwilling to accept the middle ground where the truth actually is found.

Doh waste allu time.

[VexXx Dogg]

What is the truth?

[adnj]

*popcorn*

[ed360123]

You all like to get derogatory when someone offer alternative views. Many of you run to Google for the latest research findings.
What you may not know that many experts are finding out that these research authorities seemed to be compromised, even with the Lancet allowing certain papers through then removing after public opinion was already affected....example the infamous piece on hydroxychloroquine.
Many so called neutral research was in fact funded by Zuckerberg, GAVI, Pfizer etc to show other treatments do not work. Have you ever looked at who did the funding. Even WHO research whistle-blowers have complained that the demand for double blinded evidence in the face of observational evidence is very difficult without heavy financing, and that the financiers often change the goal of research during the duration of research. A good example is how they changed the end point for remdesivir midpoint which was unprecedented but WHO, FDA all turned a blind eye.
All these things have disheartened many key experts in these subject area especially during this pandemic.
Most of you just read headlines and build opinion then come to challenge people intelligence as if you so smart because of a search engine.
Is is so strange when they don't let doctors who are treating hundreds of patients talk and be interviewed but rather these suits who are political in their agenda do all the published interviewed and label everything else as antivax.

Go ahead now cheerleaders...

What's your point?

You may not be aware that most research studies are considered to provide only a waypoint in whether a fact has been established or disproven.

Relatively few authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions.

Just 500 of more than 30,000 authors named in the retraction database (which includes co-authors) account for about one-quarter of the 10,500 retractions we analyzed. One hundred of those authors have 13 or more retractions each. Those withdrawals are usually the result of deliberate misconduct, not errors.

A retraction does not always signal scientific misbehavior.

Many scientists and members of the public tend to assume a retraction means a researcher has committed research misconduct. But the Retraction Watch data suggest that impression can be misleading.

The database includes a detailed taxonomy of reasons for retractions, taken from retraction notices (although a minority of notices don't specify the reason for withdrawal). Overall, nearly 40% of retraction notices did not mention fraud or other kinds of misconduct. Instead, the papers were retracted because of errors, problems with reproducibility, and other issues.


https://www.science.org/content/article ... th-penalty

Lmao the Man point is that the world is being deceived with the whole story.

95% of the news and reports are lies and altered. Big pharma controls and alters and suppresses.

Who want to vax let them vax. Who dont want to vax leave them the hell alone. You vax and feel you safe good for you. Who dont vax and sick and die will meet their maker it's their choice. Who vax and mutate into zombies next two years will be put into cages and neutralized . Stop beating up and frothing up. Who dont vax and healthy will live on and just share up everybody else's assets left behind.

So all the research and news stories that make vaccines look good are 'lies' and 'altered', but anything that claims the opposite is completely trustworthy?

[teems1]

Y'all actually arguing with adnj?

The guy is as brainwashed as they get ... He has only 1 point of view which is heavily biased and one sided and is unwilling to accept the middle ground where the truth actually is found.

Doh waste allu time.

94% of persons in ICU are unvaccinated.

How can you argue against that?

[adnj]

So all the research and news stories that make vaccines look good are 'lies' and 'altered', but anything that claims the opposite is completely trustworthy?

94% of persons in ICU are unvaccinated.

How can you argue against that?

[i_code_and_stuff]

Y'all actually arguing with adnj?

The guy is as brainwashed as they get ... He has only 1 point of view which is heavily biased and one sided and is unwilling to accept the middle ground where the truth actually is found.

Doh waste allu time.

this coming from the moron who a couple weeks ago before this surge was saying our healthcare system will be fine because "we already got hit as hard as we could"

kek

[drchaos]

Y'all actually arguing with adnj?

The guy is as brainwashed as they get ... He has only 1 point of view which is heavily biased and one sided and is unwilling to accept the middle ground where the truth actually is found.

Doh waste allu time.

this coming from the moron who a couple weeks ago before this surge was saying our healthcare system will be fine because "we already got hit as hard as we could"

kek

It is fine ... We have been running ICU bed shortages since I was an intern 12 years ago.
What has changed.

[teems1]

Y'all actually arguing with adnj?

The guy is as brainwashed as they get ... He has only 1 point of view which is heavily biased and one sided and is unwilling to accept the middle ground where the truth actually is found.

Doh waste allu time.

this coming from the moron who a couple weeks ago before this surge was saying our healthcare system will be fine because "we already got hit as hard as we could"

kek

It is fine ... We have been running ICU bed shortages since I was an intern 12 years ago.
What has changed.

It wasn't fine then, and it isn't fine now.

[ek4ever]

Love what Austria is doing

LOCKDOWN for all Unvaccinated people and allowing the vaccinated to do as they want freely.

We need that here

Or do like Singapore, if you not vaccinated and get Covid you will be charged the full cost of treatment