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

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If you want to respond to Skybuck here to refute him, please do not
quote his conspiracy theory links, invented figures and crazy ideas.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.)

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".

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 */

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

>
> 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.