CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)
Discussion
jshell said:
1. Are you suggesting other causes of death rose to cancel out the wonderfully positive effects of the vaccines? lol
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???
1) there will have been a multitude of reasons for death in people that were vaccinated. As there will have been for unvaccinated. UNless you think the only causes of death in vaccinated were adverse events from vaccination such TTP2. 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???
2) we were not told the were 100% effective. I read the data when it was published in 2020/21. Can't remember the exact the date for you though as I do it regularly
It seems quite apparent that you are drawing conclusions from data without understanding it and its nuances.
Rollin said:
The poster with the ADR was suggesting his batch number was one with the most ADRs, but if they don't know how many doses were in each batch, the info is irrelevant.
The context of my post was regarding the validaty and accuracy of the ADR submissions. There is nothing to verify they are true ADRsandyA700 said:
You may or may not be telling the truth aboutknowing someone falsely filling out ADR reports. Why did they do it? How did they do it, if they hadn't had a vaccine and would have needed the date of their vaccine(s) and the make and batch number - all things which you cannot simply invent.
Why did they do it? They believe the earth is flat, chemtrails, great reset, 5G is in lamposts, moon landing did not happen etc etcThey would need one make and batch number and could fill multiple Yellow Cards in with dates. Only had to look on Facebook for someone posting a picture of their vaccination card and you all the details required.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 2nd May 15:38
jshell said:
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'.
There was evolution in the nefrious actions.
I suspect a chunk of it could have been “we’ve ordered tens of millions of the things, the only one we can cancel is the Valneva one (prompting some short lived ire from Sturgeon about cancelling the “Scottish vaccine” because it was going to be manufactured in West Lothian) so how are we going to get rid of them before they’re out of date”There was evolution in the nefrious actions.
Donating them abroad might have been a better use of them, but the government was so committed to them being the saviour of all by that point that offering them to younger people in this country was inevitable. The coercion on younger people absolutely was not, however.
alangla said:
jshell said:
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'.
There was evolution in the nefrious actions.
I suspect a chunk of it could have been “we’ve ordered tens of millions of the things, the only one we can cancel is the Valneva one (prompting some short lived ire from Sturgeon about cancelling the “Scottish vaccine” because it was going to be manufactured in West Lothian) so how are we going to get rid of them before they’re out of date”There was evolution in the nefrious actions.
Donating them abroad might have been a better use of them, but the government was so committed to them being the saviour of all by that point that offering them to younger people in this country was inevitable. The coercion on younger people absolutely was not, however.
He thought that weird, and so do I . It suggests either monumental incompetence or an instruction to follow the rest of the world down the same, unknown path.
pavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
1. Are you suggesting other causes of death rose to cancel out the wonderfully positive effects of the vaccines? lol
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???
1) there will have been a multitude of reasons for death in people that were vaccinated. As there will have been for unvaccinated. UNless you think the only causes of death in vaccinated were adverse events from vaccination such TTP2. 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???
2) we were not told the were 100% effective. I read the data when it was published in 2020/21. Can't remember the exact the date for you though as I do it regularly
It seems quite apparent that you are drawing conclusions from data without understanding it and its nuances.
2. I just posted the statement from the Head of the Centre for Disease Control. I don't care what you read, everyone watching the news saw one of the world's chief medical officers say: 100%. You cannot catch or carry the virus. End of.
So, whilst I accept there are nuances, you, for some reason will wend a tortuous path of avoidance of what is staring us in the face. One wonders why the great efforts rather than simply saying: 'Hmm, I wonder if there's a problem there with a product from proven liars and charlattans?'.
Fascinating to see the adherents accept anything other than that those vaccines did next to nothing for the vast majority of the population, and may have damaged a large proportion.
jshell said:
I agree with what you say, but I think a more nefarious path was selected at some point. I know one of the authors of the Scottish Govt Pandemic procedural documents. He says that they spent months creating, reviewing, editing and approving them. He also said over dinner one night that the UK and Scottish governments literally threw out the approved procedures and just followed everyone else winging it.
He thought that weird, and so do I . It suggests either monumental incompetence or an instruction to follow the rest of the world down the same, unknown path.
That & politicking probably accounted for a lot. Given how hysterical the media was in Spring 2020, “following everyone else” was the safe option politically. If anything, Johnson was one of the bolder ones in terms of trying to re-open more quickly than any of the others, both domestically and in Europe, excluding Sweden obviously.He thought that weird, and so do I . It suggests either monumental incompetence or an instruction to follow the rest of the world down the same, unknown path.
alangla said:
jshell said:
I agree with what you say, but I think a more nefarious path was selected at some point. I know one of the authors of the Scottish Govt Pandemic procedural documents. He says that they spent months creating, reviewing, editing and approving them. He also said over dinner one night that the UK and Scottish governments literally threw out the approved procedures and just followed everyone else winging it.
He thought that weird, and so do I . It suggests either monumental incompetence or an instruction to follow the rest of the world down the same, unknown path.
That & politicking probably accounted for a lot. Given how hysterical the media was in Spring 2020, “following everyone else” was the safe option politically. If anything, Johnson was one of the bolder ones in terms of trying to re-open more quickly than any of the others, both domestically and in Europe, excluding Sweden obviously.He thought that weird, and so do I . It suggests either monumental incompetence or an instruction to follow the rest of the world down the same, unknown path.
jshell said:
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.
In that age group some get vaccinated and some do not.
A small proportion of COVID infections will result in death in that group. Statistically, on first exposure you would expect around ten times less deaths in the vaccinated.
Once you are past first exposure you have immunity in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. So you would expect no difference in deaths.
The trend should be a very short term benefit for the vaccinated, following which everyone should be the same.
jshell said:
1. So, you're saying the mortality profile for vaxxed versus unvaxxed in the population was different? One of them was cowering whilst the other was carefree and getting deaded? You're reaching. lol
2. I just posted the statement from the Head of the Centre for Disease Control. I don't care what you read, everyone watching the news saw one of the world's chief medical officers say: 100%. You cannot catch or carry the virus. End of.
So, whilst I accept there are nuances, you, for some reason will wend a tortuous path of avoidance of what is staring us in the face. One wonders why the great efforts rather than simply saying: 'Hmm, I wonder if there's a problem there with a product from proven liars and charlattans?'.
Fascinating to see the adherents accept anything other than that those vaccines did next to nothing for the vast majority of the population, and may have damaged a large proportion.
1) No I am saying you do not know to be able to draw inferences2. I just posted the statement from the Head of the Centre for Disease Control. I don't care what you read, everyone watching the news saw one of the world's chief medical officers say: 100%. You cannot catch or carry the virus. End of.
So, whilst I accept there are nuances, you, for some reason will wend a tortuous path of avoidance of what is staring us in the face. One wonders why the great efforts rather than simply saying: 'Hmm, I wonder if there's a problem there with a product from proven liars and charlattans?'.
Fascinating to see the adherents accept anything other than that those vaccines did next to nothing for the vast majority of the population, and may have damaged a large proportion.
2) Center for Disease Control is in the USA. It bears no relevance to the UK. A bit like FDA has bears no relevance to MHRA and NICE approvals.
No avoidance or tortuous paths.
Elysium said:
jshell said:
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.
In that age group some get vaccinated and some do not.
A small proportion of COVID infections will result in death in that group. Statistically, on first exposure you would expect around ten times less deaths in the vaccinated.
Once you are past first exposure you have immunity in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. So you would expect no difference in deaths.
The trend should be a very short term benefit for the vaccinated, following which everyone should be the same.
And, what about now? We know that the vaccine suppresses the immune system and normalises the body to Covid meaning that the vaccinated are more likely to have further infections.
Edited by jshell on Thursday 2nd May 17:10
pavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
1. So, you're saying the mortality profile for vaxxed versus unvaxxed in the population was different? One of them was cowering whilst the other was carefree and getting deaded? You're reaching. lol
2. I just posted the statement from the Head of the Centre for Disease Control. I don't care what you read, everyone watching the news saw one of the world's chief medical officers say: 100%. You cannot catch or carry the virus. End of.
So, whilst I accept there are nuances, you, for some reason will wend a tortuous path of avoidance of what is staring us in the face. One wonders why the great efforts rather than simply saying: 'Hmm, I wonder if there's a problem there with a product from proven liars and charlattans?'.
Fascinating to see the adherents accept anything other than that those vaccines did next to nothing for the vast majority of the population, and may have damaged a large proportion.
1) No I am saying you do not know to be able to draw inferences2. I just posted the statement from the Head of the Centre for Disease Control. I don't care what you read, everyone watching the news saw one of the world's chief medical officers say: 100%. You cannot catch or carry the virus. End of.
So, whilst I accept there are nuances, you, for some reason will wend a tortuous path of avoidance of what is staring us in the face. One wonders why the great efforts rather than simply saying: 'Hmm, I wonder if there's a problem there with a product from proven liars and charlattans?'.
Fascinating to see the adherents accept anything other than that those vaccines did next to nothing for the vast majority of the population, and may have damaged a large proportion.
2) Center for Disease Control is in the USA. It bears no relevance to the UK. A bit like FDA has bears no relevance to MHRA and NICE approvals.
No avoidance or tortuous paths.
2. They all worked together, US led and everyone heard the same message... Splitting hairs when the response and message was GLOBAL is diversionary. It took an Italian hearing to find out that Pfizer never tested for preventing transmission.
jshell said:
1. Well, that just means we shouldn't look at non-performing pseudo-vaccines and excess deaths though, right?
2. They all worked together, US led and everyone heard the same message... Splitting hairs when the response and message was GLOBAL is diversionary. It took an Italian hearing to find out that Pfizer never tested for preventing transmission.
You seem to be making conclusions from posts which show no indication of that. 2. They all worked together, US led and everyone heard the same message... Splitting hairs when the response and message was GLOBAL is diversionary. It took an Italian hearing to find out that Pfizer never tested for preventing transmission.
Actually UK & Europe led and the USA sort of followed.
I'm sure you will move onto something else now
pavarotti1980 said:
jshell said:
1. Well, that just means we shouldn't look at non-performing pseudo-vaccines and excess deaths though, right?
2. They all worked together, US led and everyone heard the same message... Splitting hairs when the response and message was GLOBAL is diversionary. It took an Italian hearing to find out that Pfizer never tested for preventing transmission.
You seem to be making conclusions from posts which show no indication of that. 2. They all worked together, US led and everyone heard the same message... Splitting hairs when the response and message was GLOBAL is diversionary. It took an Italian hearing to find out that Pfizer never tested for preventing transmission.
Actually UK & Europe led and the USA sort of followed.
I'm sure you will move onto something else now
king folly. What has been done to people is utterly criminal and the numbers show it.jshell said:
Elysium said:
jshell said:
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.
In that age group some get vaccinated and some do not.
A small proportion of COVID infections will result in death in that group. Statistically, on first exposure you would expect around ten times less deaths in the vaccinated.
Once you are past first exposure you have immunity in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. So you would expect no difference in deaths.
The trend should be a very short term benefit for the vaccinated, following which everyone should be the same.
And, what about now? We know that the vaccine suppresses the immune system and normalises the body to Covid meaning that the vaccinated are more likely to have further infections.
According to Deborah Birx, who led the US COVID response authorities 'hoped' the vaccines would reduce transmission by creating lasting immunity:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5022007/user-clip-d...
That hope was obviously ill-founded and arguably irrational since early data showed reinfection was not uncommon.
If we had limited the vaccine roll out to the elderly and vulnerable. We would not be having this discussion. The vaccination of younger people, COVID passports, coercion, mandates and endless boosters were all examples of us failing to realise that the vaccines would not stop transmission.
I suspect this is in part because the virus adapted to our best efforts to slow it down. Lockdowns worked for a while, but ultimately selected a more infectious virus. The vaccines probably also worked for a while, but then selected a more infectious immune evading virus in the form of Omicron.
The vaccines significantly reduced everyones chances of dying from COVID when first exposed. They are largely meaningless beyond that point.
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 whole of the pandemic policy enacted off the back of some TikTok videos, there were no statistics on the planet that showed that this “disease”, or whatever you believe it to be, was of any threat to anyone who wasn’t close to death already. So why not use anecdotes? It’s actually the only real truth we have, what we see with our eyes in our own sphere of influence.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.
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
You really have to look and seek out the information, you will not get it from the main “news” sources. Unfortunately, this then gets tarnished with “do your own research” meme. I mean the whole “disinformation” thing is a psyop in itself. Did anyone even mention the phrases “misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, expert, trust in science” so much prior to this?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
This is not an organic thing, it’s planned and planted. Do do your own research, it will take some time unfortunately, watch alternative stuff, read books, listen to hours and hours of people and then find a conclusion. If you do, you’re doing it wrong, as I don’t believe there is. Watching BBC news however will make you believe there is a conclusion, a one truth, a one thing that has been full fact fact checked.
That’s not reality.
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.
I’ve kept the leaflet, I’ve kept everything, because history is being rewritten every day. Side effects include a headache, feeling tired, sore arm. No mention of blood clots, myocarditis or death. They made it sound like it had been around for 30 years and was about a risky as popping a multivitamin.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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff