John Stockton Claims He Had Proof of 1000 Athletes Dying of Vaccine

[One Brow]

I think it came from a lab
I think there are more side effects than admitted
I think Pfizer is using COVID as a "cash cow" thus upping the pricing hundreds of percents
I think mutating a virus to make it "more potent" is obvious gain of function by definition
It's already known to have effects on the menstrual cycle
I think him saying government officials are keen to letting things slide because pharma has lobbied a lot of money and in return they get leniency.


I think him saying "don't tell anyone" countless times or "I'll take pfizer off of my resume", or "could you imagine the scandal" proves that he damn well knows what he's saying is extremely troublesome. I mean duh.... You don't say "don't tell anyone" if it's not meant to be hidden.

There's no evidence it came from a lab, and every reason to think it is a wild virus.
There's no evidence of these side effects.
I agree Pfizer is making money off the vaccine, but I have not heard of egregious pricing.
It's only gain of function if the virus is also equally or more infectious. Less infectious, more potent viruses would actually be a loss of function.
It's only know that some studies have reported an increase of less than a day, which is easily explained by stress.
I agree that under the EUA, Pfizer has limited responsibility (and after approval, even less, as injuries would be on the NVIC schedule). That doesn't make the vaccine dangerous.
It was not "I'll", but "I'd", indicating a hypothetical.

I agree that what he said was meant to be hidden, because bad faith actors would twist his words into a pretense that something was wrong.

 

[SteakNEggs]

There's no evidence it came from a lab, and every reason to think it is a wild virus.
There's no evidence of these side effects.
I agree Pfizer is making money off the vaccine, but I have not heard of egregious pricing.
It's only gain of function if the virus is also equally or more infectious. Less infectious, more potent viruses would actually be a loss of function.
It's only know that some studies have reported an increase of less than a day, which is easily explained by stress.
I agree that under the EUA, Pfizer has limited responsibility (and after approval, even less, as injuries would be on the NVIC schedule). That doesn't make the vaccine dangerous.
It was not "I'll", but "I'd", indicating a hypothetical.

I agree that what he said was meant to be hidden, because bad faith actors would twist his words into a pretense that something was wrong.

The only one hiding what was said is you guys. You are even claiming he's fake. I'm generalizing all of you.

Mutating a virus to make it more potent is gain if function.... Even the video @Red posted admitted it depended on what definition you use. 7:00 mark..


I'm not sure how him saying he thinks it came from a lab is twisting anything. Those are his words. I have quoted him word for word.

And to think that a virus randomly popped up literally thousands of feet from an institute studying mice(correction bat not mice) to human COVID transmission is coincidence is laughable imo. Wheres this animal? Wheres the other animals that had COVID? It... doesn't...exist... There's a reason we can't trace the origin and that China was so secretive.

 

[SteakNEggs]

From the US state Department

The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure.

Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - United States Department of State

For more than a year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation. Nearly two million people have died. Their families deserve...

2017-2021.state.gov

 

[One Brow]

I'll ignore the parts that respond to claims I didn't make.

Mutating a virus to make it more potent is gain if function.... Even the video @Red posted admitted it depended on what definition you use. 7:00 mark..

I'll settle for "not more dangerous". Since Pfizer R&D is not funded by NIH, the particular definition of "gain of function" doesn't matter as much as the lack of danger if there is a breach.

And to think that a virus randomly popped up literally thousands of feet from an institute studying mice(correction bat not mice) to human COVID transmission is coincidence is laughable imo.

Not when the lab is located in the general region where wild viruses of this type are known to evolve.

Wheres this animal? Wheres the other animals that had COVID? It... doesn't...exist...

There are dozens of known, wild corona viruses in the area, and almost certainly more that we have not uncovered.

There's a reason we can't trace the origin and that China was so secretive.

It took 7 years to trace the origin of the 2009 swine flu, and china is secretive about pretty much everything.

Nothing in the material you quoted offered any evidence of a lab origin, and the virus lacks features usually indicating genetic engineering.

 

[Douchebag K]

Good grief. There’s more and more evidence Covid had nothing to do with originating in a wet market and every indication it leaked from the Wuhan lab. And anyone still professing that mRNA vaccine side effect are “rare” is either wilfully blind, cannot read or cannot put two and two together. This is nothing like a normal vaccine. And you are only better off having a vaccine compared to unvaccinated if you ARE IN A MORE VULNERABLE GROUP OF THE POPULATION, You cannot reasonably make a sweeping statement for the population as a whole.

Bye

 

[SteakNEggs]

I'll ignore the parts that respond to claims I didn't make.

I'll settle for "not more dangerous". Since Pfizer R&D is not funded by NIH, the particular definition of "gain of function" doesn't matter as much as the lack of danger if there is a breach.


Not when the lab is located in the general region where wild viruses of this type are known to evolve.


There are dozens of known, wild corona viruses in the area, and almost certainly more that we have not uncovered.


It took 7 years to trace the origin of the 2009 swine flu, and china is secretive about pretty much everything.

Nothing in the material you quoted offered any evidence of a lab origin, and the virus lacks features usually indicating genetic engineering.

You're more than welcome to prove your own self right and add your own insight rather than just tell me I'm wrong by adding absolutely little. Let's hear your opinions for once instead of these 2 liners that just basically say "nope". I appreciate the time you take but this is not proper conversation to me. This is me speak my mind and you just judge it. I'm honestly not trying to be rude but this one sentence back and fourth is tiresome. I mean that with respect not trying to pick a fight.

 

[gandalfe]

Not when the lab is located in the general region where wild viruses of this type are known to evolve.


There are dozens of known, wild corona viruses in the area, and almost certainly more that we have not uncovered.

That is precisely why the lab was located there, because of all the known viruses that could easily become zoonotic.

 

[One Brow]

Good grief. There’s more and more evidence Covid had nothing to do with originating in a wet market and every indication it leaked from the Wuhan lab.

I'm not sure what you mean by "originating", since this virus is related to viruses we've known about for decades. If you mean the first known cases, do you know of cases before the wet market outbreak?

Do you have evidence it leaked from a lab, or just nebulous indications that most epidemiologists disagree with.

And anyone still professing that mRNA vaccine side effect are “rare” is either wilfully blind, cannot read or cannot put two and two together.

Last I heard, less than 0.1% for recipients of the Pfizer vaccine. That's not rare? What's the standard for rare?

This is nothing like a normal vaccine. And you are only better off having a vaccine compared to unvaccinated if you ARE IN A MORE VULNERABLE GROUP OF THE POPULATION,

So, you've done the risk ratios and have some data to report?

Bye

See ya 'round.

 

[One Brow]

You're more than welcome to prove your own self right

Thanks, but my goal is to demonstrate that you have no evidence for your suppositions, and I'm happy with that.

and add your own insight rather than just tell me I'm wrong by adding absolutely little.

You've added a video that makes no damning claims and a letter from the State Department without any claims at all. You've added nothing.

I appreciate the time you take but this is not proper conversation to me.

I have no reason to believe you will be persuaded by any sort of evidence, so this is all the conversation you deserve. There are links and evidence galore in the main coronavirus thread, should you care to look.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but this one sentence back and fourth is tiresome. I mean that with respect not trying to pick a fight.

No offense taken.

 

[SteakNEggs]

Thanks, but my goal is to demonstrate that you have no evidence for your suppositions, and I'm happy with that.

I've provided plenty of evidence for many of my thoughts. That's literally what you're responding to. My evidence and thoughts is exactly what you word for word quote. You quote my evidence, then accuse me of not having evidence. If it wasn't for my evidence and thoughts you'd have nothing. Am I maybe wrong on things? Maybe. But at least I can express my opinion and where I stand.

With that said I'm done with you for a bit. What good is a one sided conversation? A guy saying you're wrong but can't even tell you why he's right. Meh.

 

[One Brow]

I've provided plenty of evidence for many of my thoughts. That's literally what you're responding to. My evidence and thoughts is exactly what you word for word quote.

Your evidence amounts to nothing.

With that said I'm done with you for a bit. What good is a one sided conversation? A guy saying you're wrong but can't even tell you why he's right. Meh.

I've explained why you're misinterpreting you links. Did you have difficulty understanding the explanations? I can re-word them.

 

[One Brow]

Good grief. There’s more and more evidence Covid had nothing to do with originating in a wet market and every indication it leaked from the Wuhan lab. And anyone still professing that mRNA vaccine side effect are “rare” is either wilfully blind, cannot read or cannot put two and two together. This is nothing like a normal vaccine. And you are only better off having a vaccine compared to unvaccinated if you ARE IN A MORE VULNERABLE GROUP OF THE POPULATION, You cannot reasonably make a sweeping statement for the population as a whole.

Bye

By the way, coivd19 has made it into the top 10 leading causes of death in children. Vaccines for covid have not.

COVID-19 as the Underlying Cause of Death Among Individuals Aged 0 to 19 Years in the US

This cross-sectional study evaluates whether COVID-19 is among the top 10 causes of death in children and young people aged 0 to 19 years in the US.

jamanetwork.com

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I do understand why the video is concerning to some people. I think I just have a different "why" than you. From my perspective, the video feeds into the fear-mongering that so many people engaged when they were asked to change their routines for the sake of their neighbors. You can make a lot of money in this world by telling people what they want to hear. 100 years ago it was literal snake oil, in 2020 it was an anti-malarial (a bacterium) medicine against a coronavirus-induced disease.

What do you feel Pfizer needs to be transparent about? The contents of their vaccine is public information. The tracking of side effects occurs in publicly available data sets. Is there information from Pfizer that you have tried to research, and found not available? Do you feel you have a right to know what the R&D departments of GE, or Ford, or Ralston-Purina is up to (destroying the concept of intellectual property)? Possibly, did you reach this position on transparency because you are hearing trusted sources say they are not being transparent?

It's almost as if you enjoy misunderstanding and misinterpereting. Let me lay out my point once again, step by step:

1) A concerning video of a man who claimed to be a Pfizer exec emerged. He said all sorts of explosive things.
2) The usual lineup of "fact checking" organizations threw out every excuse they could dream up as to why this video was not relevant information. Does anyone besides me ever find themselves wondering why the fact checking organizations behave as if they have a vested interest in propping up the liberal narrative, rather than communicating the actual facts?
3) One of the most prominent fact checker excuses was that there was no proof that the individual in the video was actually an employee of Pfizer. (I'm focusing on just this one issue for simplicity.)
4) Pfizer responded to the video but didn't bother clearing up whether the guy purporting to be an employee was actually an employee or not. In fact, they didn't directly address the video. They seemed to have been content to let the fact checker smokescreen cloud that issue, and apparently they like it that way.
5) Anyone with an ounce of curiosity, would want to know from Pfizer, was this clown an employee? You don't care to know and that says all I need to know about you.

To those of us who have lost our faith in the leadership of this pandemic response and so much more, it would be incredibly refreshing if those in power would flood the zone with truth. We want transparency, not more of the lies and obfuscation that have come to characterize so many of the issues of the day. But sadly, more obfuscation is what we are going to get because apparently it serves their purposes so well. Pretty sad.

Oh well. It's clearly not going to change as a result of complaining about it around here, so I'll leave you to your echo chamber. Have fun.

 

[gandalfe]

It's almost as if you enjoy misunderstanding and misinterpereting. Let me lay out my point once again, step by step:

1) A concerning video of a man who claimed to be a Pfizer exec emerged from a historically unreliable source. He appears to have said all sorts of explosive things.
2) The usual lineup of "fact checking" organizations threw out every excuse they could dream up as to why this video was not relevant information. Does anyone besides me ever find themselves wondering why the fact checking organizations behave as if they have a vested interest in propping up the liberal narrative, rather than communicating the actual facts? I don't like fact checkers so I'm going to make a bunch of nonspecific complaints.
3) One of the most prominent fact checker excuses was that there was no proof that the individual in the video was actually an employee of Pfizer. (I'm focusing on just this one issue for simplicity.)
4) Pfizer responded to the video but didn't bother clearing up whether the guy purporting to be an employee was actually an employee or not. In fact, they didn't directly address the video. They seemed to have been content to let the fact checker smokescreen cloud that issue, and apparently they like it that way. This is fairly standard PR when addressing dubious claims.
5) Anyone with an ounce of curiosity, would want to know from Pfizer, was this clown an employee? You don't care to know and that says all I need to know about you. You don't care about the same things I do, therefore your opinion is worthless.

FIFY.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The fact someone thinks a company should respond to this media clown company or thinks it's worth a discussion says everything I need to know about their opinions on this subject.

Worthless.

 

[SteakNEggs]

The fact someone thinks a company should respond to this media clown company or thinks it's worth a discussion says everything I need to know about their opinions on this subject.

Worthless.

They did respond though... That's the thing. They literally addressed what he said while not claiming he's a fake like the Qanons are saying. All they had to do to put this to bed was to say he wasn't a Pfizer employee like the Qanons fabricated. That's pretty telling that he is in fact real and that the Qanons fabricated a story out of thin air to hide the extremity of what he insinuated and brought forth. There's no other reason the Qanons would make up such bat **** crazy conspiracies that a guy on video was fake then them willingly trying to hide the potential truth that the vaccine could in fact be unsafe. I am not saying they are but a guy that is so high up in Pfizer saying that the vaccine could be dangerous and that he'd take them off his resume due to the magnitude of the scandal(his words the Qanon cult are saying he didn't say even though he's on video saying it)if the vaccine does in fact lead to future issues. This is why they are afraid to attack the actual words of what was said but instead fabricate conspiracies that he's a ghost on video.(being facetious at the absurdity of guys fabricating such crazy stuff, one dude even went as far as to say it could be cgi)

As I said I understand that if what he said is true that puts a huge damper on the way the force vax crowd treated people. I understand why they fabricate lies to protect what they did and how they acted towards people who didn't trust an experimental drug.

 

[One Brow]

It's almost as if you enjoy misunderstanding and misinterpereting. Let me lay out my point once again, step by step:

1) A concerning video of a man who claimed to be a Pfizer exec emerged. He said all sorts of explosive things.
2) The usual lineup of "fact checking" organizations threw out every excuse they could dream up as to why this video was not relevant information. Does anyone besides me ever find themselves wondering why the fact checking organizations behave as if they have a vested interest in propping up the liberal narrative, rather than communicating the actual facts?
3) One of the most prominent fact checker excuses was that there was no proof that the individual in the video was actually an employee of Pfizer. (I'm focusing on just this one issue for simplicity.)
4) Pfizer responded to the video but didn't bother clearing up whether the guy purporting to be an employee was actually an employee or not. In fact, they didn't directly address the video. They seemed to have been content to let the fact checker smokescreen cloud that issue, and apparently they like it that way.
5) Anyone with an ounce of curiosity, would want to know from Pfizer, was this clown an employee? You don't care to know and that says all I need to know about you.

To those of us who have lost our faith in the leadership of this pandemic response and so much more, it would be incredibly refreshing if those in power would flood the zone with truth. We want transparency, not more of the lies and obfuscation that have come to characterize so many of the issues of the day. But sadly, more obfuscation is what we are going to get because apparently it serves their purposes so well. Pretty sad.

Oh well. It's clearly not going to change as a result of complaining about it around here, so I'll leave you to your echo chamber. Have fun.

@gandalfe was quite eloquent. However, since this was in response to me, I wanted to offer my own take.

1) Could you point to one "explosive" thing in the video, and explain why I should care about it, without using scare-mongering terms?
2) Maybe it seems to you that fact-checking organizations have a liberal bias because facts have a liberal bias. What are the relevant "actual facts", to you?
3), 4), and 5) Since nothing this guy troubles me in the slightest, it's not relevant to me if he was who the video says he was. I'm willing to proceed in this conversation under the assumption that he was who the video said. With that point out of the way, perhaps you can explain why you found anything discussed in the video to be troubling?

I have no expectation that those in power are interested in flooding us with truth, but in this case, I'm not seeing the falsehoods you are worried about. Can you offer a list of items you specifically want more information about, information that is not publicly available?

Regarding this video, all I have been doing is asking you questions, to replace the "echo chamber" with valid concerns, and all you can do is come back and insult me by saying I prefer the echoes.

 

[One Brow]

... that the vaccine could be dangerous ...

Aspirin could be dangerous. Nyquil could be dangerous. Any genuine medicine could be dangerous.

... and that he'd take them off his resume due to the magnitude of the scandal ...

If there were a scandal, which there is not.

This is why they are afraid to attack the actual words of what was said ...

I embrace the words of what he said. You're just scaremongering off of distortions of what he said.

As I said I understand that if what he said is true that puts a huge damper on the way the force vax crowd treated people.

There is no "force vax crowd", and no one has been forced to take the covid vaccine.

... an experimental drug.

There is no experimental drug under discussion.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

@gandalfe was quite eloquent. However, since this was in response to me, I wanted to offer my own take.

1) Could you point to one "explosive" thing in the video, and explain why I should care about it, without using scare-mongering terms?
2) Maybe it seems to you that fact-checking organizations have a liberal bias because facts have a liberal bias. What are the relevant "actual facts", to you?
3), 4), and 5) Since nothing this guy troubles me in the slightest, it's not relevant to me if he was who the video says he was. I'm willing to proceed in this conversation under the assumption that he was who the video said. With that point out of the way, perhaps you can explain why you found anything discussed in the video to be troubling?

I have no expectation that those in power are interested in flooding us with truth, but in this case, I'm not seeing the falsehoods you are worried about. Can you offer a list of items you specifically want more information about, information that is not publicly available?

Regarding this video, all I have been doing is asking you questions, to replace the "echo chamber" with valid concerns, and all you can do is come back and insult me by saying I prefer the echoes.

Talking to you is like stepping into quicksand. LOL that there are no explosive claims in that video. "They'd rather we not, but we do these selected structure mutations to try to see if we can make them more potent." That's one of many very concerning direct quotes from this Pfizer executive. If one of Trump's accountants said, "We hide income by transferring money to Trump's charities and then allow Donald to use it to operate his helicopters and golf courses," would you tell me that the quote was no big deal and that the public should not demand a full explaination?

LOL that we should not demand transparency. LOL that there is any reason other than obfuscation for Pfizer to hide the employment status of this individual. LOL that nobody with credibility believes that COVID may have originated in a lab. LOL that Americans have not been forcefully compelled to get vaccinations. LOL that there are no soft on crime DAs who were elected with Soros money. LOL that actual facts have a liberal bias. Again and again supposedly fact checked and debunked versions of stories have turned out to be true, and the error is virtually always on the side of the liberal narrative. Hunter laptop, Jessie Smollette, Nick Sandman, and so many more, Shocking stories disappear from the news cycle because they are literally overwhelmed by the additional shocking stories that follow on their heels.

I'm going to relax and float to the surface now. Peace out, Jazzfanz.

 

[Mongoose]

By the way, coivd19 has made it into the top 10 leading causes of death in children. Vaccines for covid have not.

COVID-19 as the Underlying Cause of Death Among Individuals Aged 0 to 19 Years in the US

This cross-sectional study evaluates whether COVID-19 is among the top 10 causes of death in children and young people aged 0 to 19 years in the US.

jamanetwork.com

That is a very strange study- since when are 19 year olds considered children?
Also why is like every kind of accident listed as one cause of death? So covid sits just above the flu as a "leading cause of death".
Are they even counting covid deaths correctly? To me, it looks like they added 18 and 19 year olds so they could get covid deaths to even be relevant. This study looks like crap to me honestly.