Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Cammd, this may be your first post on this thread.

Any particular reason you stay away from the elephant in the room?

Not sure what "Elephant" your referring to

Is it the dodgy conviction of Trump.

This is an American politics thread isn't it?

Congratulations CH3MTR4IL5

31 pages is an epic effort.

"Dodgey conviction of Trump"
Guys guilty as, and the evidence proved it.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
"Dodgey conviction of Trump"
Guys guilty as, and the evidence proved it.

Guilty of what, paying hush money, not a crime it's commonly called a non disclosure agreement.

The ignorance of Trump supporter is astounding

He was convicted for falsifying business records
Which is a felony in New York

Select to expand quote

IanR said..
The ignorance of Trump supporter is astounding

He was convicted for falsifying business records
Which is a felony in New York

Ease up with the insult please.

Falsifying business documents in New York is not a felony unless it's to conceal another crime. What is the other crime, because paying hush money is not a crime.

Select to expand quote

IanR said..
The ignorance of Trump supporter is astounding

He was convicted for falsifying business records
Which is a felony in New York

Violating campaign finance laws thereby contributing to an election win and catastrophic administration.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

IanR said..
The ignorance of Trump supporter is astounding

He was convicted for falsifying business records
Which is a felony in New York

Ease up with the insult please.

Falsifying business documents in New York is not a felony unless it's to conceal another crime. What is the other crime.

In the hush money trial, One of the crimes was calling a reimbursement a "legal expense " to make it tax deductible. Evidence showed the payments were noted as reimbursements in other documents. Tax fraud. Guilty.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Pcdefender said..
Cammd, this may be your first post on this thread.

Any particular reason you stay away from the elephant in the room?

Not sure what "Elephant" your referring to

Is it the dodgy conviction of Trump.

This is an American politics thread isn't it?

The elephant in the room is your inactivity to participate and disclose the truth regarding the massive harm the C19 shots caused.

Trump is the father of the shots therefore should stand trial for his part in breaking the Nuremberg Code.

It is illegal to coerce anyone to take experimental treatment.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Ease up with the insult please.

Falsifying business documents in New York is not a felony unless it's to conceal another crime. What is the other crime, because paying hush money is not a crime.

"Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury."

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..

The elephant in the room is your inactivity to participate and disclose the truth regarding the massive harm the C19 shots caused.

Trump is the father of the shots therefore should stand trial for his part in breaking the Nuremberg Code.

It is illegal to coerce anyone to take experimental treatment.

The elephant in the room is that in Australia ... "Unvaccinated individuals had a 7.7-fold greater mortality rate than those who were fully vaccinated among people aged 50+, which rose to 11.2-fold in those who had received a booster dose. If NSW had fully vaccinated its ~2.9 million 50+ residents earlier (by July 28, 2021), only 440 of the total 3,495 observed 50+ deaths would have been averted. Up to July 9, 2022, the booster campaign prevented 1,860 deaths. In the absence of a vaccination campaign, ~21,250 COVID-19 50+ deaths (conservative estimate) could have been expected in NSW i.e., some 6 times the actual total."journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299844

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Pcdefender said..

The elephant in the room is your inactivity to participate and disclose the truth regarding the massive harm the C19 shots caused.

Trump is the father of the shots therefore should stand trial for his part in breaking the Nuremberg Code.

It is illegal to coerce anyone to take experimental treatment.

The elephant in the room is that in Australia ... "Unvaccinated individuals had a 7.7-fold greater mortality rate than those who were fully vaccinated among people aged 50+, which rose to 11.2-fold in those who had received a booster dose. If NSW had fully vaccinated its ~2.9 million 50+ residents earlier (by July 28, 2021), only 440 of the total 3,495 observed 50+ deaths would have been averted. Up to July 9, 2022, the booster campaign prevented 1,860 deaths. In the absence of a vaccination campaign, ~21,250 COVID-19 50+ deaths (conservative estimate) could have been expected in NSW i.e., some 6 times the actual total."journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299844

How many of the deceased were resuscitated then vaccinated then reinfected to see if they would die this time? And were all studies conducted by infecting patients with the Wuhan Wild Type virus? Or is it ok to exclude weaker variants as a possible cause for reduced mortality?

Like Delta?

Or the fact omicron was deemed comparable to the original strain?

Was the vaccine you participated in trialling ever marketed/approved?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Like Delta?

Or the fact omicron was deemed comparable to the original strain?

Was the vaccine you participated in trialling ever marketed/approved?

No. It was Covalia.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

cammd said..

Ease up with the insult please.

Falsifying business documents in New York is not a felony unless it's to conceal another crime. What is the other crime, because paying hush money is not a crime.

"Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury."

Yes the election crime was explained to the jury by the judge, would have been nice if that was included in the indictment, which it wasn't so there are big legal problems regarding the lack of due process. A defendant needs to know what they are defending before they get to court.

Um wrong here is the actual indictment

manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

And again in a less legalese format

manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/

Maybe now you will not just swallow Trumps lies or what you are feed by his propaganda machine

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said.

How many of the deceased were resuscitated then vaccinated then reinfected to see if they would die this time? And were all studies conducted by infecting patients with the Wuhan Wild Type virus? Or is it ok to exclude weaker variants as a possible cause for reduced mortality?

More likely that anti-vaccine loons would inject the corpse of someone who died of COVID just to get their numbers up. Note the earlier discussion about the cop charged with trying to get hold of the vaccination status of dead people.

Doctors tend to get on with doctoring, scientists get on with scienceing. Loons get on with looning.

Select to expand quote

IanR said..
Um wrong here is the actual indictment

manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

And again in a less legalese format

manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-president-donald-j-trump/

Maybe now you will not just swallow Trumps lies or what you are feed by his propaganda machine

Are you serious, did you even read the indictment. Where does it mention election crime.

Don't tell me to swallow trumps lies in the same sentence as your posting your own lies. There is a huge lack of process in this trial, you just proved it by posting a copy of the indictment FFS, and you call me ignorant, better take a look in the mirror I think.

Its a dodgy conviction. Its based on election fraud as explained in the Jury instructions but left off the indictment. The election fraud crime occurred when he made a legal payment repeat a legal payment. It became fraud when business records where falsified in 2017,

So the case is based on election fraud of the 2016 election because of something done in 2017, when the election is over and done. Seriously how do you interfere with an election that happened a year ago.

And all this election fraud ie paying off stormy daniels occurred as Trump was being accused of colluding with the Russians to pervert the election, that in fact turned out a false claim cooked up and trotted by the democrats, Media world wide ran with it, the FBI got on Board etc etc and Trump is being accused of election fraud. Don't see any double standards I guess.

This is a dodgy conviction and it needs to be looked at in association with everything else the democrats have thrown at him
Russia gate
2 impeachments
Now multiple criminal cases on top of this one that are just as dodgy.

Like the business fraud one where he borrowed money from a lender, payed the money back with interest. loan was closed, business completed, no one unhappy, no complaints from anyone but somehow its fraud because he over estimated his assets. He paid the loan off with interest, the banks happy, he is a good customer and somehow its fraud. OMG

The democrats do not want him to run for election, they are not interested in democracy, and you defend that. This is what you expect to see from a authoritarian regime, not a democracy. America reputation is in the gutter because of this. I am actually worried what will happen if they put him in jail, it will be anarchy.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
The elephant in the room is that in Australia ... "Unvaccinated individuals had a 7.7-fold greater mortality rate than those who were fully vaccinated among people aged 50+, which rose to 11.2-fold in those who had received a booster dose. If NSW had fully vaccinated its ~2.9 million 50+ residents earlier (by July 28, 2021), only 440 of the total 3,495 observed 50+ deaths would have been averted. Up to July 9, 2022, the booster campaign prevented 1,860 deaths. In the absence of a vaccination campaign, ~21,250 COVID-19 50+ deaths (conservative estimate) could have been expected in NSW i.e., some 6 times the actual total."journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299844

How about this peer reviewed study?



www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1325243/full

Soooo.....

Not only do vaccines do a pretty good job of reducing mortality in older people from COVID, in the wider population they may have even more value in reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation.

Select to expand quote

IanR said..
The ignorance of Trump supporter is astounding

I would have to agree with that, and am amazed how it's a world wide problem.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..

IanR said..
The ignorance of Trump supporter is astounding

I would have to agree with that, and am amazed how it's a world wide problem.

Says the person who claimed he was convicted of tax fraud,,,,, lol, do you even know what ignorance is.


So it seems we are back to just calling names seeing as though the arguments against a dodgy conviction don't hold water.

It clearly states it in the second document but if you need it in the legal format it is in the statement of fact from the indictment

manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

D3 said..
Like Delta?

Or the fact omicron was deemed comparable to the original strain?

Was the vaccine you participated in trialling ever marketed/approved?

No. It was Covalia.

So why would your reaction to that be listed as a side effect for a different vaccine?

Select to expand quote

IanR said..
It clearly states it in the second document but if you need it in the legal format it is in the statement of fact from the indictment

manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

I cannot see which felony count on the indictment lista election crime, perhaps you can point it out for me ......on the indictment, not some other document.

Because due process demands you should be notified of the thing your being charged for.

A statement of fact after the trial had begun doesn't cut it.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

How about this peer reviewed study?



www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1325243/full

"Conclusion: Although our cohort size is small, our results suggest that vaccination status of hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients may not be instructive in determining mortality risk. This may reflect that within the general population, those individuals at highest risk for COVID-19 mortality/immune failure are likely to be vaccinated. Importantly, the value of vaccination may be in preventing hospitalization as opposed to stratifying outcome among hospitalized patients, although our data do not address this possibility. Additional research to identify factors predictive of aberrant immunogenic responses to vaccination is warranted."

....
Corrigendum reads...
"In the published article, there was an error. The authors cited a previous publication in a way that can be misinterpreted if taken out of context.

A correction has been made to Discussion, paragraph 1, page 4.

This sentence previously stated:

"Of special relevance to our data (Supplementary Figure 1), Piotr Rzymski et al. reported that (9), counterintuitively, mortality rates increased with additional vaccine doses and increased postvaccination time".

The corrected sentence appears below:

"Of special relevance to our data (Supplementary Figure 1), Piotr Rzymski et al. reported that (9) among subgroups of Vax hospitalized patients (representing 1% of all hospitalized), mortality rates increased with additional vaccine doses and increased post-vaccination time (although deceased Vax patients represented only 0.2% of all hospitalized patients and 1% of all deceased individuals in the studied period)."

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated."

Select to expand quote

remery said..
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated."

Yeah so a peer reviewed paper says that vaxxed died at greater numbers than unvaxxed. Right?

There's a song forget its name from 40 or so years ago with the chorus line that goes something like this ....

blinded by the science

science as in scientism.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

remery said..
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated."

Yeah so a peer reviewed paper says that vaxxed died at greater numbers than unvaxxed. Right?

I just had a read of the paper. The authors note " Further, the small sample size did not allow us to carefully evaluate the role of individual comorbidities [including immunosuppression, cancer, diabetes and pulmonary disease highly prevalent among the Vax patients (Supplementary Table 1)]" I downloaded and had a look at the table. In a nutshell, the vax group are an older, pretty crook bunch so it's probably not surprising acute respiratory failure pushed them over. I would hazard a guess they had the vast majority of these co-morbidities before they were vaccinated. The bit I found most interesting was the researchers found that the vax group had a higher level of Ig4 a month post infection. Immunology is way too hard for me to understand completely, but I think in this case Ig4 is acting as a blocker, and therefore there is greater protection in these individuals at that point in time against reinfection.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
There's a song forget its name from 40 or so years ago with the chorus line that goes something like this ....

blinded by the science

Do you mean Thomas Dolby's "She blinded me with science" ? (1982)