CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
andyA700 said:
Hants PHer said:
I don't think it's fair to say that people - I'm one of them - calling for proper data analysis are 'ignoring' issues such as jshell describes. Indeed, if such anecdotes didn't exist then there'd be no need for further investigation.
The problem is that one should not create policy on the basis of anecdotes. As I've said before, I don't know anyone suffering from blood clots or rare cancers. I can't recall anyone I know reporting serious side effects soon after a Covid vaccination. Does my anecdotal experience trump those of jshell or Roderick Spode, or vice versa? Of course not. The only proper way forward is careful analysis, prompted by 'signals' such as those reported in this thread.
Now, such analysis may or may not happen, we'll see. Data driven studies, assuming that they are possible, surely must be preferable to a bunch of contradictory anecdotes. What we should reject, in my opinion, is the "Join the dots! It simply must be the vaccines! What else could it be?" cries. Such a simplistic approach is, frankly, unscientific.
The data which we have at the moment, very much down to the adr's (Adverse Drug Reaction reports) which detail the numbers of reports made by the public detailing symptoms and when they started. Because I had the first and second Astra Zenaca jabs, I have sourced the reports for just Astra Zeneca and matched my jab batch numbers to the reports.The problem is that one should not create policy on the basis of anecdotes. As I've said before, I don't know anyone suffering from blood clots or rare cancers. I can't recall anyone I know reporting serious side effects soon after a Covid vaccination. Does my anecdotal experience trump those of jshell or Roderick Spode, or vice versa? Of course not. The only proper way forward is careful analysis, prompted by 'signals' such as those reported in this thread.
Now, such analysis may or may not happen, we'll see. Data driven studies, assuming that they are possible, surely must be preferable to a bunch of contradictory anecdotes. What we should reject, in my opinion, is the "Join the dots! It simply must be the vaccines! What else could it be?" cries. Such a simplistic approach is, frankly, unscientific.
As you will see, my first jab on 27th February 2021, was from the most reported AZ vaccine batch PV46664. My second AZ jab on 10th May 2021 was from batch PV46677 which is in 28th position. Bear in mind that report is only up to 28/06/2022.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641...
93.6% had received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine
88.2% had received a second dose
70.2% had received three or more doses
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
If we assume the over 12 population is around 52 million, that means circa 46 million had two doses at that point.
We have always known that there were risks from these vaccines. Because there are risks from all vaccines. If we define a rare event as something that happens 1 in 20,000 vaccines, then we should still see more than 4,000 people affected by that rare event. More again if you factor in boosters.
The question is not if these events are happening, because that is undeniable. It is if the regularity is unexpected.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 2nd May 13:51
I'd also add that when I looked at the ONS data, for the last set before they had to stop publishing it, there was a very clear warning sign. I took the data for the 40 - 69 yr olds (attempt to remove need for age standardisation), vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Between March - May 2021 and March - May 2022 the proportional head of population dying moved from the unvaccinated being greater over to the vaccinated dying in greater proportions per 100,000.
Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Rollin said:
Are those ADRs per million doses?
No they are just the ones received. One thing to be cautious of is they are not verified. I know someone who was filling out Yellow Cards like confetti at a wedding despite never receiving any vaccines alongside others who legitimately reported injection site pain for each one they received. jshell said:
I'd also add that when I looked at the ONS data, for the last set before they had to stop publishing it, there was a very clear warning sign. I took the data for the 40 - 69 yr olds (attempt to remove need for age standardisation), vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Between March - May 2021 and March - May 2022 the proportional head of population dying moved from the unvaccinated being greater over to the vaccinated dying in greater proportions per 100,000.
Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Of course it will as the number of vaccinated greatly outweighed unvaccinated. That is not exactly statistically significant.Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 2nd May 13:56
jshell said:
There are very many studies going on by professional bodies around the world. The problem is they are fairly unseen from a legacy Corporate media standpoint. For 90+% of people, if it's not on the BBC or in the Guardian then it doesn't exist - that means others can scream 'CT'er'!
But, if you start to look in Pubmed or other health journals then you find articles like this: https://www.healio.com/news/cardiology/20240425/us...
At some point the signals can't be professionally ignored, as they have been.
It is well worth following this account on Twitter, @EthicalSkeptic
Adding link to thread on Twitter for those who would like to head off and challenge any of the numbers, methodologies, etc rather than arguing on a motoring site:But, if you start to look in Pubmed or other health journals then you find articles like this: https://www.healio.com/news/cardiology/20240425/us...
At some point the signals can't be professionally ignored, as they have been.
It is well worth following this account on Twitter, @EthicalSkeptic
https://x.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/17846361381682...
pavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
I'd also add that when I looked at the ONS data, for the last set before they had to stop publishing it, there was a very clear warning sign. I took the data for the 40 - 69 yr olds (attempt to remove need for age standardisation), vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Between March - May 2021 and March - May 2022 the proportional head of population dying moved from the unvaccinated being greater over to the vaccinated dying in greater proportions per 100,000.
Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Of course it will as the number of vaccinated greatly outweighed unvaccinated. That is not exactly statistically significant.Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
jshell said:
What trend would you expect to see if the vaccines worked as advertised?
In relation to what? What is the trend you want to look at?I would use a % of deaths in the cohort. Even then it is nuanced as the cause of death is not being weighted with the data. Not as straight forward as your are implying
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 2nd May 14:06
pavarotti1980 said:
Rollin said:
Are those ADRs per million doses?
No they are just the ones received. One thing to be cautious of is they are not verified. I know someone who was filling out Yellow Cards like confetti at a wedding despite never receiving any vaccines alongside others who legitimately reported injection site pain for each one they received. jshell said:
I'd also add that when I looked at the ONS data, for the last set before they had to stop publishing it, there was a very clear warning sign. I took the data for the 40 - 69 yr olds (attempt to remove need for age standardisation), vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Between March - May 2021 and March - May 2022 the proportional head of population dying moved from the unvaccinated being greater over to the vaccinated dying in greater proportions per 100,000.
Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Of course it will as the number of vaccinated greatly outweighed unvaccinated. That is not exactly statistically significant.Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 2nd May 13:56
pavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
What trend would you expect to see if the vaccines worked as advertised?
In relation to what? What is the trend you want to look at?I would use a % of deaths in the cohort. Even then it is nuanced as the cause of death is not being weighted with the data. Not as straight forward as your are implying
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 2nd May 14:06
You see, people point to the %'s being close and argue over a small difference, but what they miss is that if that injeciton actually worked, then there should be a massive discrepancy of protected vaccinated and the promised carnage of a 'winter of death' for the unvaxxed.
There isn't, ergo the vaccines do the square root of SFA. Easy straight lines...
Remember, all those Dr's and Politicians told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. 'If you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid'! If you challenge that, you'll just be pointed to the vidoes of them actually saying those things.
jshell said:
Would you expect the death rates to be almost equal between the cohorts as demonstrated? Or should it be an order of magnitude lower in the vaxxed?
You see, people point to the %'s being close and argue over a small difference, but what they miss is that if that injeciton actually worked, then there should be a massive discrepancy of protected vaccinated and the promised carnage of a 'winter of death' for the unvaxxed.
There isn't, ergo the vaccines do the square root of SFA. Easy straight lines...
Remember, all those Dr's and Politicians told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. 'If you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid'! If you challenge that, you'll just be pointed to the vidoes of them actually saying those things.
No I would expect that the cohort with the greatest number will likely have higher numbers of deaths. You see, people point to the %'s being close and argue over a small difference, but what they miss is that if that injeciton actually worked, then there should be a massive discrepancy of protected vaccinated and the promised carnage of a 'winter of death' for the unvaxxed.
There isn't, ergo the vaccines do the square root of SFA. Easy straight lines...
Remember, all those Dr's and Politicians told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. 'If you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid'! If you challenge that, you'll just be pointed to the vidoes of them actually saying those things.
Vaccines were never said to be 100% effective. They were demonstrated to be 93% efficacious against their primary endpoint (which does not mean 93 out 100 are "protected")
Rollin said:
So who says there's the same number of doses per batch? There wasn't with Pfizer vaccine.
Not sure anyone has said thatpavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
Would you expect the death rates to be almost equal between the cohorts as demonstrated? Or should it be an order of magnitude lower in the vaxxed?
You see, people point to the %'s being close and argue over a small difference, but what they miss is that if that injeciton actually worked, then there should be a massive discrepancy of protected vaccinated and the promised carnage of a 'winter of death' for the unvaxxed.
There isn't, ergo the vaccines do the square root of SFA. Easy straight lines...
Remember, all those Dr's and Politicians told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. 'If you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid'! If you challenge that, you'll just be pointed to the vidoes of them actually saying those things.
No I would expect that the cohort with the greatest number will likely have higher numbers of deaths. You see, people point to the %'s being close and argue over a small difference, but what they miss is that if that injeciton actually worked, then there should be a massive discrepancy of protected vaccinated and the promised carnage of a 'winter of death' for the unvaxxed.
There isn't, ergo the vaccines do the square root of SFA. Easy straight lines...
Remember, all those Dr's and Politicians told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. 'If you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid'! If you challenge that, you'll just be pointed to the vidoes of them actually saying those things.
Vaccines were never said to be 100% effective. They were demonstrated to be 93% efficacious against their primary endpoint (which does not mean 93 out 100 are "protected")
2. We were told they were 100% effective. Joe Biden: 'If you get vaccinated you won't catch Covid'
jshell said:
pavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
Would you expect the death rates to be almost equal between the cohorts as demonstrated? Or should it be an order of magnitude lower in the vaxxed?
You see, people point to the %'s being close and argue over a small difference, but what they miss is that if that injeciton actually worked, then there should be a massive discrepancy of protected vaccinated and the promised carnage of a 'winter of death' for the unvaxxed.
There isn't, ergo the vaccines do the square root of SFA. Easy straight lines...
Remember, all those Dr's and Politicians told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. 'If you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid'! If you challenge that, you'll just be pointed to the vidoes of them actually saying those things.
No I would expect that the cohort with the greatest number will likely have higher numbers of deaths. You see, people point to the %'s being close and argue over a small difference, but what they miss is that if that injeciton actually worked, then there should be a massive discrepancy of protected vaccinated and the promised carnage of a 'winter of death' for the unvaxxed.
There isn't, ergo the vaccines do the square root of SFA. Easy straight lines...
Remember, all those Dr's and Politicians told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. 'If you get vaccinated, you won't get Covid'! If you challenge that, you'll just be pointed to the vidoes of them actually saying those things.
Vaccines were never said to be 100% effective. They were demonstrated to be 93% efficacious against their primary endpoint (which does not mean 93 out 100 are "protected")
2. We were told they were 100% effective. Joe Biden: 'If you get vaccinated you won't catch Covid'
jshell said:
1. Those numbers I showed disagree with you. They are at best equal, at worst a disaster.
2. We were told they were 100% effective. Joe Biden: 'If you get vaccinated you won't catch Covid'
1) Do they? Do they distinguish the cause of death within the cohorts to prove something? 2. We were told they were 100% effective. Joe Biden: 'If you get vaccinated you won't catch Covid'
2) I wasn't told anything by Joe Biden. I read the SPC and trial data. What was the primary endpoint for the vaccines?
pavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
1. Those numbers I showed disagree with you. They are at best equal, at worst a disaster.
2. We were told they were 100% effective. Joe Biden: 'If you get vaccinated you won't catch Covid'
1) Do they? Do they distinguish the cause of death within the cohorts to prove something? 2. We were told they were 100% effective. Joe Biden: 'If you get vaccinated you won't catch Covid'
2) I wasn't told anything by Joe Biden. I read the SPC and trial data. What was the primary endpoint for the vaccines?
2. We were all told they were 100% effective. But now you read data whilst trying to find reasons why the ONS data isn't very favourable?
Diversions and mental gymnastics whever the narrative is questioned.
Not a single question on the earlier graphs posted and no-one heading over to challenge the methodolgy showing that at fantasy best, these vaccines do SFA to reduce deaths outside of the first short few weeks.
Let's also remember when looking at the ONS data, weren't people classed as 'unvaccinated' for 14 days after the injection? If so, how many of those unvaccinated deaths had been jabbed???
Elysium said:
According to the ONS the proportion of UK people over 12 who were vaccinated as of August 2022 was as follows:
93.6% had received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine
88.2% had received a second dose
70.2% had received three or more doses
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
If we assume the over 12 population is around 52 million, that means circa 46 million had two doses at that point.
We have always known that there were risks from these vaccines. Because there are risks from all vaccines. If we define a rare event as something that happens 1 in 20,000 vaccines, then we should still see more than 4,000 people affected by that rare event. More again if you factor in boosters.
The question is not if these events are happening, because that is undeniable. It is if the regularity is unexpected.
The recent comments got me thinking so I dug out the vaccination leaflet that I received sometime in 2021 - I was 61 then so maybe in the first tranche.93.6% had received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine
88.2% had received a second dose
70.2% had received three or more doses
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
If we assume the over 12 population is around 52 million, that means circa 46 million had two doses at that point.
We have always known that there were risks from these vaccines. Because there are risks from all vaccines. If we define a rare event as something that happens 1 in 20,000 vaccines, then we should still see more than 4,000 people affected by that rare event. More again if you factor in boosters.
The question is not if these events are happening, because that is undeniable. It is if the regularity is unexpected.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 2nd May 13:51
A few things that it states
Overall fewer 1 in 100 people infected will die but this rises to 1 in 10 for over 75. Still saying a small number will have Severe disease.
Several vaccines will be used and only approved on the basis of large studies of safety and effectiveness - there was no mention of EUA
Only recommended for those at highest risk of catching covid and suffering serious complications including older people, over 65 health and social care workers, care home residents and staff, certain clinical conditions including a BMI over 40.
Pregnant women may prefer to wait until they have completed their pregnancy
We do not yet know how much it will reduce the chance of you catching and passing on the virus.So, it is important to protect those around you.
Reduce the chance of you suffering from covid 19 and like all medicines no vaccine is completely effective
Most side effects are mild and short term and very common side effects include pain at the site, feeling tired, headache and general aches or mild flu like symptoms
No mention of blood clots or anything else although it does mention the Yellow Card scheme at rhe end.
Final thing said Vaccination, helping to protect those most vulnerable.
The point is that I wonder how many people read the leaflet - speaking to some friends at the time, they had no idea that the approval was EUA and probably didn’t know how many people had taken part in the trials or that they effective rate was based on less than 200 actual infected people.
Anyway, make of all that what you want although ny view is that many people were unaware of what the position was and that there was very little informed consent. Also, there was no justification for rolling it out to all and sundry - yes the vulnerable although I would suggest that a healthy 35 year old Health or social care worker did not require the vaccine.
Boringvolvodriver said:
The recent comments got me thinking so I dug out the vaccination leaflet that I received sometime in 2021 - I was 61 then so maybe in the first tranche.
A few things that it states
Overall fewer 1 in 100 people infected will die but this rises to 1 in 10 for over 75. Still saying a small number will have Severe disease.
Several vaccines will be used and only approved on the basis of large studies of safety and effectiveness - there was no mention of EUA
Only recommended for those at highest risk of catching covid and suffering serious complications including older people, over 65 health and social care workers, care home residents and staff, certain clinical conditions including a BMI over 40.
Pregnant women may prefer to wait until they have completed their pregnancy
We do not yet know how much it will reduce the chance of you catching and passing on the virus.So, it is important to protect those around you.
Reduce the chance of you suffering from covid 19 and like all medicines no vaccine is completely effective
Most side effects are mild and short term and very common side effects include pain at the site, feeling tired, headache and general aches or mild flu like symptoms
No mention of blood clots or anything else although it does mention the Yellow Card scheme at rhe end.
Final thing said Vaccination, helping to protect those most vulnerable.
The point is that I wonder how many people read the leaflet - speaking to some friends at the time, they had no idea that the approval was EUA and probably didn’t know how many people had taken part in the trials or that they effective rate was based on less than 200 actual infected people.
Anyway, make of all that what you want although ny view is that many people were unaware of what the position was and that there was very little informed consent. Also, there was no justification for rolling it out to all and sundry - yes the vulnerable although I would suggest that a healthy 35 year old Health or social care worker did not require the vaccine.
What I make of that is that it wasn't a planned social experiment at the start. But, later, someone either said: 'let's run an experiment on population compliance', or 'we can make $millions here by giving them to bloody everyone'.A few things that it states
Overall fewer 1 in 100 people infected will die but this rises to 1 in 10 for over 75. Still saying a small number will have Severe disease.
Several vaccines will be used and only approved on the basis of large studies of safety and effectiveness - there was no mention of EUA
Only recommended for those at highest risk of catching covid and suffering serious complications including older people, over 65 health and social care workers, care home residents and staff, certain clinical conditions including a BMI over 40.
Pregnant women may prefer to wait until they have completed their pregnancy
We do not yet know how much it will reduce the chance of you catching and passing on the virus.So, it is important to protect those around you.
Reduce the chance of you suffering from covid 19 and like all medicines no vaccine is completely effective
Most side effects are mild and short term and very common side effects include pain at the site, feeling tired, headache and general aches or mild flu like symptoms
No mention of blood clots or anything else although it does mention the Yellow Card scheme at rhe end.
Final thing said Vaccination, helping to protect those most vulnerable.
The point is that I wonder how many people read the leaflet - speaking to some friends at the time, they had no idea that the approval was EUA and probably didn’t know how many people had taken part in the trials or that they effective rate was based on less than 200 actual infected people.
Anyway, make of all that what you want although ny view is that many people were unaware of what the position was and that there was very little informed consent. Also, there was no justification for rolling it out to all and sundry - yes the vulnerable although I would suggest that a healthy 35 year old Health or social care worker did not require the vaccine.
There was evolution in the nefrious actions.
pavarotti1980 said:
Rollin said:
Are those ADRs per million doses?
No they are just the ones received. One thing to be cautious of is they are not verified. I know someone who was filling out Yellow Cards like confetti at a wedding despite never receiving any vaccines alongside others who legitimately reported injection site pain for each one they received. jshell said:
I'd also add that when I looked at the ONS data, for the last set before they had to stop publishing it, there was a very clear warning sign. I took the data for the 40 - 69 yr olds (attempt to remove need for age standardisation), vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Between March - May 2021 and March - May 2022 the proportional head of population dying moved from the unvaccinated being greater over to the vaccinated dying in greater proportions per 100,000.
Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Of course it will as the number of vaccinated greatly outweighed unvaccinated. That is not exactly statistically significant.Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 2nd May 13:56
andyA700 said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Rollin said:
Are those ADRs per million doses?
No they are just the ones received. One thing to be cautious of is they are not verified. I know someone who was filling out Yellow Cards like confetti at a wedding despite never receiving any vaccines alongside others who legitimately reported injection site pain for each one they received. jshell said:
I'd also add that when I looked at the ONS data, for the last set before they had to stop publishing it, there was a very clear warning sign. I took the data for the 40 - 69 yr olds (attempt to remove need for age standardisation), vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Between March - May 2021 and March - May 2022 the proportional head of population dying moved from the unvaccinated being greater over to the vaccinated dying in greater proportions per 100,000.
Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Of course it will as the number of vaccinated greatly outweighed unvaccinated. That is not exactly statistically significant.Not incredibly scientific, but certainly and early signal that the vaccine was not doing what it said on the tin.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 2nd May 13:56
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff