CORONA More embalmers report bizarre blood clots amid COVID vax campaign

rondaben

Veteran Member
rondaben ........LOL
I hear so much first hand from a Funeral Director/Coroner and from a front line emergency room nurse concerning V damage.....I see "anecdotal" and just laugh laugh laugh.....
And yet both are still decisively anecdotal by definition based on subjective observation and not empirical fact.
 

Codeno

Veteran Member
Codeno……I, too, am encouraged to hear your story, hard-earned perspective and the news that your wife is well……against all prescribed odds.

I agree absolutely with your assessment of the sorcerers and medical support structure they have amassed.

I am going to add that there are members myriad of all three branches of government, the media, the film industry and the enforcement arm for all of the above that are complicit and culpable, never more succinctly proven than by and through the events of the last three years.


Never has a war of this magnitude been waged against the working/responsible portion of mankind.

“Tribe”…….needs to expand its borders.

We are all in this together.



Take it from one whose eyes have been opened…..and wash your wife’s feet with your tears, tonight.


My compliments.

Thanks Samuel, I appreciate it.
 

Codeno

Veteran Member
I would not doubt it, but where is the proof? Who the hell is Jerr Bear?

In the twitter conversation, Jerr Bear says that Dr. Simone Gold has confirmed the story. Big confirmation if true, but still circular back to Jerr Bear.
 
Not sure why you take it as an insult. It's not. It's a simple statement of fact. Go look at and degree plan for it. It is disproportionately focused on restoration and aesthetics. They aren't sitting around doing analysis of clots and gross pathophysiology in their training. Their clientele is already decidedly dead and that process complete before they get the body. Their scientific opinion on what they are finding is anecdotal.
A better explanation of your inarticulate and unnecessarily insulting original post.

The head-space that you apparently live in, is distinctly not the head-space that most folks interact with, nor have sufficient understanding of, despite your occasional caustic comments to the contrary.

What is your purpose on this board? This is the second time I have asked you this question, directly.

If you are here for grins and giggles by tweaking the normies, your intentions are unacceptable. This board and membership are not here for your amusement, every time you find the need to publicly scratch one of your arrogant itches.

If you have specialized knowledge and understanding that the normies can use in their personal pursuits of understanding and intellectual growth, focus upon imparting that knowledge in a teachable-moment conversation style.

Be prepared for debate and counter-argument. It is the Socratic method, after all.

It really is that simple.



intothegoodnight
 

pauldingbabe

The Great Cat
What about people who get a blood transfusion from a donor who has received all the shots? Is their blood now contaminated and thereby opened to the same heinous blood clotting ?

rh

This is what I want to know as well. I may be having reconstructive surgery before the end of the year.

I will be donating 2 units of my own blood.

Sorry I don't trust that the vax isn't going to be transferred in the transfusion.

How many people became HIV+ from blood transfusion before someone finally caught on?
 

Redcat

Veteran Member
Fibrin is the structural component of clots. Every clot consist of them.

Can I just ask, what kind of medical person are you? A doctor? Nurse? Medical lab typist?

It would help to put what you put forward as your medical expertise in perspect.

Inquiring minds want to know.
 

Samuel Adams

Veteran Member
Can I just ask, what kind of medical person are you? A doctor? Nurse? Medical lab typist?

It would help to put what you put forward as your medical expertise in perspect.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Further dog-piling to suppress any voice of reason in 3…2…
 
For pete's sake cut it out. This personal crap does absolutely nothing for the board. Ignore Rondaben if you like. We all have filters, shields and reasonably functional skin.
The couple of months I was on Twitter I probably blocked a dozen morons and trolls, until I earned the honor of a permanent ban. Here, I have only blocked one member, and it was for his annoying “slang” used in posting, which has changed and has been unblocked. Only one certified idiot of the FE persuasion, and I simply don’t hang in that asylum any more. Everyone else I can handle.
 

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!
This is what I want to know as well. I may be having reconstructive surgery before the end of the year.

I will be donating 2 units of my own blood.

Sorry I don't trust that the vax isn't going to be transferred in the transfusion.

How many people became HIV+ from blood transfusion before someone finally caught on?

My grandmother did that routinely. Donating your own blood ahead of a surgery is smart practice. Your body almost certainly will not reject your own, even if it's older.
 

Walrus Whisperer

Hope in chains...
LOL... That's NOT what my Tribe's experience shows. The Pure Bloods may not even notice that they're positive, while the vaxxed crowd gets genuinely sick for a week or two - over and over and over again.
This is what happened to me. At the very beginning of all this, I had to go have investigation into what was wrong with me. Turned out I had luekemia. I haven't had so much as a cold, for nearly 2 years now. I am not vaxxed.
I neglected to say that they tested me and I tested positive for covid.
 
Last edited:

Sammy55

Veteran Member
What about people who get a blood transfusion from a donor who has received all the shots? Is their blood now contaminated and thereby opened to the same heinous blood clotting ?

rh
That's what I've been wondering. We have a friend who recently had a hip replacement. During the surgery, he lost a lot of blood and they had to have a blood transfusion. As far as I know, he did not take the clot shot. Does this mean that he might have gotten shot-contaminated blood? Are the blood donor people even asking people if they had the clot shots? This really does open up to contaminating a whole lot more people!! I'm due for a hip replacement, but I think I'll bear with the pain until the blood donors are asked if they ever had the clot shots.
 

Parakeet

Senior Member
What about people who get a blood transfusion from a donor who has received all the shots? Is their blood now contaminated and thereby opened to the same heinous blood clotting ?

rh
I'm leaning towards yes on this. My reasoning is that if the spike protein can be passed in breast milk (which it is) it would seem equally as likely that it could be passed through blood from one person to another.

With the agenda of those pushing the vax, I would chalk that up to a feature not a flaw.
 

bw

Fringe Ranger
What about people who get a blood transfusion from a donor who has received all the shots? Is their blood now contaminated and thereby opened to the same heinous blood clotting ?
The spike could be passed in the blood, in my opinion, but I see no reason to think it would then become self-replicating in the new body. The spike is the product of the mRNA after infecting the subject's cells, but it's not an active agent on its own, merely a toxic product.
 

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
That's what I've been wondering. We have a friend who recently had a hip replacement. During the surgery, he lost a lot of blood and they had to have a blood transfusion. As far as I know, he did not take the clot shot. Does this mean that he might have gotten shot-contaminated blood? Are the blood donor people even asking people if they had the clot shots? This really does open up to contaminating a whole lot more people!! I'm due for a hip replacement, but I think I'll bear with the pain until the blood donors are asked if they ever had the clot shots.
No! Get scheduled for surgery (please find a surgeon who will do an anterior replacement... recovery time is much shorter and more complete!) and then bank a pint or two of blood for yourself ahead of time. Most people don't need a transfusion for hip replacement, anyway, but just in case, you'll have healthy blood on hand.

Summerthyme
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
And yet both are still decisively anecdotal by definition based on subjective observation and not empirical fact.

I have an honest question for you.

Many certified medical doctors--with many years of experience--have testified from their own expertise that these shots are harmful.

They have, furthermore, presented both their own findings and the findings of other doctors to substantiate their opinions.

Yet you-- a Lab Tech and PA -- totally discount all these doctors, apparently simply because you, a Lab Tech and PA, do not agree with them.

I would like, therefore, to honestly ask you---

What would it take, to change your opinion?

What kind of "peer reviewed studies"?

Done by whom? (what doctors, medical school, medical organization, group, entity?)

Of what magnitude? (how many test subjects observed / analyzed in the results/conclusions reached?)

In short-- does there actually exist, under any circumstances, results showing the danger of these shots that would meet your criteria of not being "anecdotal" and actually cause you to change your mind?
 

rondaben

Veteran Member
I have an honest question for you.

Many certified medical doctors--with many years of experience--have testified from their own expertise that these shots are harmful.

They have, furthermore, presented both their own findings and the findings of other doctors to substantiate their opinions.

Yet you-- a Lab Tech and PA -- totally discount all these doctors, apparently simply because you, a Lab Tech and PA, do not agree with them.

I would like, therefore, to honestly ask you---

What would it take, to change your opinion?

What kind of "peer reviewed studies"?

Done by whom? (what doctors, medical school, medical organization, group, entity?)

Of what magnitude? (how many test subjects observed / analyzed in the results/conclusions reached?)

In short-- does there actually exist, under any circumstances, results showing the danger of these shots that would meet your criteria of not being "anecdotal" and actually cause you to change your mind?
Fair enough questions.

These doctors with concerns typically are bringing forth observations or suppositions without real data. Data that can be verified and reproduced in the form of a study. This is why their concerns for the most part have not been accepted by the broader medical community. Many have conflicts of interest that are overt that also discount those positions. It has nothing to do with if I agree with them or not.

Any reasonable study conducted with any reasonable amount of scientific application would be fine. Define the methods. Define the sample. Define how you obtained the data and if and how it supports the claims made. But you don't see that. You invariably see public displays meant to further sales of supplements, secret health books, and assertions to try to establish some credibility and not reproducible data. Who does it doesn't particularly matter. Why is important as is applicability to the broader population.

This question was asked of me almost a year ago...


There (post 36) I noted:
There is an increased rate above baseline for myocarditis in young males. That's real. Yes, the vaccine could be less effective against new strains. With delta be saw breakthroughs but still had quite effective protection from severe disease. That won't always be true.

With treatments I'm not a big fan of remdesivir. Im a fan of regeneron. If people want to use treatments like IVM and NAC they likely aren't harmful but I'm personally not convinced they do much beyond placebo and should be allowed to (but not to force providers to prescribe if they disagree).

I am clearly biased towards articles that disregard basic facts in favor of emotional or anecdotal reports. People are free to believe what they think is true.
There were issues associated with increased rates of myocarditis in younger males. Then I noted that the vaccine could also be less effective against new strains--as it was with BA.5. I saw remdesivir be less effective (MY subjective observations) but that was also shown to be the case with studies. I pointed out that things like IVM and NAC at that time didn't have clinical data for support--I would say that now there is reasonable indication for NAC as providing some benefit.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
Fair enough questions.

These doctors with concerns typically are bringing forth observations or suppositions without real data. Data that can be verified and reproduced in the form of a study. This is why their concerns for the most part have not been accepted by the broader medical community. Many have conflicts of interest that are overt that also discount those positions. It has nothing to do with if I agree with them or not.

Any reasonable study conducted with any reasonable amount of scientific application would be fine. Define the methods. Define the sample. Define how you obtained the data and if and how it supports the claims made. But you don't see that. You invariably see public displays meant to further sales of supplements, secret health books, and assertions to try to establish some credibility and not reproducible data. Who does it doesn't particularly matter. Why is important as is applicability to the broader population.

This question was asked of me almost a year ago...


There (post 36) I noted:

There were issues associated with increased rates of myocarditis in younger males. Then I noted that the vaccine could also be less effective against new strains--as it was with BA.5. I saw remdesivir be less effective (MY subjective observations) but that was also shown to be the case with studies. I pointed out that things like IVM and NAC at that time didn't have clinical data for support--I would say that now there is reasonable indication for NAC as providing some benefit.
thank you.

So --- can you explain why you discount the Pfizer report on their vaccines--including reports of many and serious side-effects?

The info can be found on the thread New (May 2022) Pfizer FOIA document dump reveals 3385 deaths reported in first 3 months of trials, severe neurological harms and much more
 

rondaben

Veteran Member
Top