TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
hover11 wrote: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 revenueredmanjp wrote:hover11 wrote: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 okredmanjp wrote:Kenjo wrote: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.
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?
Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.hover11 wrote:Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your healthteems1 wrote:You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.hover11 wrote:Medical Associates opened a covid 19 wardPhone Surgeon wrote:If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go
Unless my agent is lying , anything that requires ICU or HDU care or disablement in any form I'm covered forteems1 wrote:Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.hover11 wrote:Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your healthteems1 wrote:You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.hover11 wrote:Medical Associates opened a covid 19 wardPhone Surgeon wrote:If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go
Chances are Covid wasn't on that list when you signed the contract.
hover11 wrote:Unless my agent is lying , anything that requires ICU or HDU care or disablement in any form I'm covered forteems1 wrote:Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.hover11 wrote:Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your healthteems1 wrote:You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.hover11 wrote:Medical Associates opened a covid 19 wardPhone Surgeon wrote:If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go
Chances are Covid wasn't on that list when you signed the contract.
hover11 wrote:Unless my agent is lying , anything that requires ICU or HDU care or disablement in any form I'm covered forteems1 wrote:Critical Illness is stated in your contract to only cover 21 specific diseases.hover11 wrote:Critical illness and life 2 million guardian life.... money is no object when it comes to your healthteems1 wrote:You should follow up with your provider to see what level of coverage they provide.hover11 wrote:Medical Associates opened a covid 19 wardPhone Surgeon wrote:If you have covid no private medical center taking you. It's straight to public health you go
Chances are Covid wasn't on that list when you signed the contract.
axe wrote: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.
No. It is not.drchaos wrote:axe wrote: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.
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.
axe wrote: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 wrote:axe wrote: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 wrote:adnj wrote:axe wrote: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 wrote:nismotrinidappa wrote:adnj wrote:axe wrote: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.
Dave wrote:Trump and follow suit?
drchaos wrote:axe wrote: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.
Ben_spanna wrote:Love what Austria is doing
LOCKDOWN for all Unvaccinated people and allowing the vaccinated to do as they want freely.
We need that here
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?nismotrinidappa wrote:adnj wrote:axe wrote: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.
drchaos wrote: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.
ed360123 wrote: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 wrote:94% of persons in ICU are unvaccinated.
How can you argue against that?
drchaos wrote: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.
i_code_and_stuff wrote:drchaos wrote: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 wrote:i_code_and_stuff wrote:drchaos wrote: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.
Or do like Singapore, if you not vaccinated and get Covid you will be charged the full cost of treatmentBen_spanna wrote:Love what Austria is doing
LOCKDOWN for all Unvaccinated people and allowing the vaccinated to do as they want freely.
We need that here
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: matr1x and 84 guests
