Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #164762 > unrolled thread

Re: a Update 23: 103.7% dead babies, PFizer document leaks onto the internet !

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: a Update 23: 103.7% dead babies, PFizer document leaks onto the internet ! Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-02-03 22:24 +0000
    Re: Covid conspiracy theories David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-02-04 08:38 +0100
      Re: Covid conspiracy theories Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 10:58 -0800
      Re: Covid conspiracy theories Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-02-06 21:55 +0000
        Re: Covid conspiracy theories yohan ston <yohanston5@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 23:03 +0000
          Re: Covid conspiracy theories skybuck2000 <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2022-02-08 00:12 -0800
    Re: a Update 23: 103.7% dead babies, PFizer document leaks onto the internet ! Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2022-02-04 08:13 -0700
    Re: a Update 23: 103.7% dead babies, PFizer document leaks onto the internet ! skybuck2000 <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2022-02-08 00:09 -0800

#164762 — Re: a Update 23: 103.7% dead babies, PFizer document leaks onto the internet !

On 03/02/2022 15:52, skybuck2000 wrote:
> 3 february 2022:
> 
> I have very important information for you if you are a woman and are pregnant or want to become pregnant and want to give birth to a healthy baby.
> 
> A confidental PFizer document just leaked onto the internet where PFizer itself reports that of all reported pregancy outcomes 100% of the babies DIED !
> 
> All reported pregnancy outcomes of women injected with PFizer corona vaccine
> 
> It becomes even more crazy it's 103.7% because there was a TWIN too, and they all died !
> 
> 28 babies died out of a reported 27 pregancies.
> 
> The document is here and it is full of mambo jumbo to try and mislead as much as possible, good luck analyzing it:
> 
> https://drtrozzi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Pfizer-Cumulative-Analysis-of-Post-authorization-Adverse-Event-Reports.pdf
> 
> Bye for now,
>    Skybuck Flying ! =D

Hmm. Technical stuff isn't that complicated.

Lets assume for now that this isn't just something posted up by a random 
madman, and look.

And I don't find any reference to 27 or 28 babies, pregnancies, or 
anything vaguely like it. Feel free to point me at the right bit.

Last time I looked into this I got some numbers.

We can divide the population into:
Unvaccinated
Fully vaccinated 2 or more weeks ago (so it's had time to take effect)
Somewhere in between (1 jab, or only just had it)

About 750 people have died of COVID despite being fully vaccinated.

About 2000 people, mostly with specific medical conditions, have died 
shortly after being vaccinated.

And about 140,000 have died of COVID because they weren't vaccinated.

I'll take odds of 140,000:2000 any time.

Andy

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#164770 — Re: Covid conspiracy theories

On 03/02/2022 23:24, Vir Campestris wrote:
<snip>

> Hmm. Technical stuff isn't that complicated.
> 

If you want to respond to Skybuck here to refute him, please do not
quote his conspiracy theory links, invented figures and crazy ideas.
Each time these things get posted on the net, it increases their
circulation and credence amongst those that believe them.  You do not
want your good name associated with that kind of thing.  At least snip
quotations to the bare minimum of the exact point you are refuting.

And note that many people in c.l.c. and other technical groups have
filtered out Skybuck entirely - they only see his posts if someone
quotes them.  Some people think he should always be ignored, others
think it is important to refute incorrect information - I'm giving no
opinion or judgement here.


(Obviously you are right that the original post is drivel and
vaccinations are the smart thing to do.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164784 — Re: Covid conspiracy theories

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 03/02/2022 23:24, Vir Campestris wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Hmm. Technical stuff isn't that complicated.
>> 
>
> If you want to respond to Skybuck here to refute him, please do not
[...]

I suggest that that's all you needed to say.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164834 — Re: Covid conspiracy theories

On 04/02/2022 07:38, David Brown wrote:
> If you want to respond to Skybuck here to refute him, please do not
> quote his conspiracy theory links, invented figures and crazy ideas.

You're right, I should have snipped more, and I apologise.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164836 — Re: Covid conspiracy theories

> 
> You're right, I should have snipped more, and I apologise.
> 

Snipping alone is not going to help. What people should do is to 
kill-file the miscreants. There are three of them currently active here:

SkyBuck
Ramine
Olcott

There was a fourth one whose name I forget; He was peddling his religion 
here and for him people can solve all programming problems by going the 
church regularly! He was a real nutt here going on and on about religion.

x-posted to c++ for info only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164868 — Re: Covid conspiracy theories

On Monday, February 7, 2022 at 12:08:37 AM UTC+1, yohan ston wrote:
> > 
> > You're right, I should have snipped more, and I apologise. 
> >
> Snipping alone is not going to help. What people should do is to 
> kill-file the miscreants. There are three of them currently active here: 
> 
> SkyBuck 
> Ramine 
> Olcott 
> 
> There was a fourth one whose name I forget; He was peddling his religion 
> here and for him people can solve all programming problems by going the 
> church regularly! He was a real nutt here going on and on about religion. 
> 
> x-posted to c++ for info only.

LOL THE REST OF YOU ARE JUST A BUNCH OF IDIOTS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

TRYING TO CONVINCE AN HONEST/HONORABLE MAN LIKE A BUNCH OF ZOMBIES LOL.

TO DISREGARD THE THRUTH OR SOMETHING HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

BYE,
  SKYBUCK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164778

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> Lets assume for now that this isn't just something posted up by a
> random madman, and look.

There's your mistake right there.  He's the poster child for "please do
not engage".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164867

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:25:35 PM UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 03/02/2022 15:52, skybuck2000 wrote: 
> > 3 february 2022: 
> > 
> > I have very important information for you if you are a woman and are pregnant or want to become pregnant and want to give birth to a healthy baby. 
> > 
> > A confidental PFizer document just leaked onto the internet where PFizer itself reports that of all reported pregancy outcomes 100% of the babies DIED ! 
> > 
> > All reported pregnancy outcomes of women injected with PFizer corona vaccine 
> > 
> > It becomes even more crazy it's 103.7% because there was a TWIN too, and they all died ! 
> > 
> > 28 babies died out of a reported 27 pregancies. 
> > 
> > The document is here and it is full of mambo jumbo to try and mislead as much as possible, good luck analyzing it: 
> > 
> > https://drtrozzi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Pfizer-Cumulative-Analysis-of-Post-authorization-Adverse-Event-Reports.pdf 
> > 
> > Bye for now, 
> > Skybuck Flying ! =D 
> 
> Hmm. Technical stuff isn't that complicated. 

You are confused, this is medical stuff.

> Lets assume for now that this isn't just something posted up by a random 
> madman, and look. 

Good, give benefit of the doubt.

> And I don't find any reference to 27 or 28 babies, pregnancies, or 

AH !

You've been mislead by PFizer then.

> anything vaguely like it. Feel free to point me at the right bit. 

You are a couragous and honorable man, who admits he don't understand it, but is trying to.

Here is the solution to the PFizer puzzle:

PAGE 12: "Table 6. Description of Missing Information"

TOPIC: "Use in Pregnancy and lactation"

"270 pregnancies"
of which
"outcome pending (5),"
+
"). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies"

5+238 = 243 unknown outcomes.

So 270 - 243 = 27 PREGANCIES WITH KNOWN/REPORTED OUTCOMES.

Then it goes on:

spontaneous abortion (23),


1xpremature birth with neonatal death, 
1x spontaneous abortion withintrauterine death 
(2 each)
1 x 2 
1 x 2
= 4

1 x spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, 
1 x and normal outcome 
(1 each)

23 + 4 + 1 = 28 DEAD BABIES

SO WHAT WE DO KNOWN IS THAT FROM THE 27 KNOWN PREGANCY OUTCOMES 28 BABIES DIED.

(28/27) * 100 = 103.7%

There wrote it a bit better specially for you.

> Last time I looked into this I got some numbers. 

Where you got the numbers from ?

> 
> We can divide the population into: 
> Unvaccinated 
> Fully vaccinated 2 or more weeks ago (so it's had time to take effect) 
> Somewhere in between (1 jab, or only just had it) 

People who die from the shot immediately are not counted as vaccine deaths, weird or what ! 

I would divide them into 4 groups:
A. not infected and not vaccinated
B. infected and not vaccinated
C. not infected and vaccinated
D. infected and vaccinated

With group D it's hard to tell from which they have died.
 
> About 750 people have died of COVID despite being fully vaccinated. 
> 
> About 2000 people, mostly with specific medical conditions, have died 
> shortly after being vaccinated. 
> 
> And about 140,000 have died of COVID because they weren't vaccinated. 
> 
> I'll take odds of 140,000:2000 any time. 


HAHA, then you probably believe the TEST lie.

And the grandpa-died-and-got-fake-test-stuff-up-his-nose-after-death ! LOL.

So many ways that numbers are manipulated.

Now excuse me while I go scream at google and firefox for writing this shitty editor that goes up to the top line so I can't see the message.

Developers these days, oh my god.

Bye,
  Skybuck.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web