2092 replies to this topic

[Gal220]

double post 

 

Edited by Gal220, 17 December 2023 - 06:24 AM.

[Gal220]

Yep, I'm a J&J guy, & glad I was: https://brownstone.o...-wrong-vaccine/

 

Have People Been Given the Wrong Vaccine?

 

1 Pfizer shot or half/quarter might have been best, at least for alpha.   Spike is still being detected 2 years later after mRNA

Moderna is 3x the dose of Pfizer, clearly the regulatory agencies failed to do their job

 

 

Dr Marty Makary discusses the CDC failure in this thread

Anyone familiar with vaccines recognized immediately the spacing between shots was too short

 

"Ever wonder why a quarter of America was knocked down/in bed for a day after their 2nd dose?  The interval was too short."

https://twitter.com/...618583417401348

 

 

Fauci and Collins should be charged, intentionally lied about natural immunity leading to more vaccine injuries

https://twitter.com/...157117721047042

[HBRU]

Trouble specially with ChAdOx1nCov-19 ... Astrazeneca / Oxford. That was not a mRNA vaccine.

 

The italian study Mind posted discovered Astrazeneca / Oxford gived the most of the neurological trouble.

This vaccine was a live virus vaccine.... and live virus vaccine can give more trouble to immuno compromised people.

 

https://www.mdpi.com...393X/11/10/1621

[HBRU]

Yep, I'm a J&J guy, & glad I was: https://brownstone.o...-wrong-vaccine/

 

Have People Been Given the Wrong Vaccine?

 

Randomized controlled trials show all-cause mortality reduction from the Covid adenovirus-vector vaccines (RR=0.37, 95%CI: 0.19-0.70) but not from the mRNA vaccines (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.63-1.71). 

 

Have people been given vaccines that don’t work (Pfizer/Moderna) instead of vaccines that do work (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson)? 

 

There is clear evidence that the adenovirus-vector vaccines reduced mortality. For every 100 deaths in the unvaccinated, there are only 37 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 19 to 70 deaths. This result comes from five different RCTs for three different vaccines, but it is primarily driven by the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. 

For the mRNA vaccines, on the other hand, there was no evidence of a mortality reduction. For every 100 deaths among the unvaccinated, there are 103 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 63 to 171 deaths. That is, the mRNA vaccines may reduce mortality a little bit, or they may increase it; we do not know. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contributed equally to this result, so there is no evidence that one is better or worse than the other.

 

At least in Italy Astrazeneca was given only to special category of people, usually pubblic officiers... dont know in the rest of the world.

Because of the common feeling it was MUCH MORE impacting than Pfizer Vaccine, even a lot of people refused to make Astrazeneca vaccine.

Moderna was also percived MORE impacting than Pfizer, but at least in 2021 Moderna in Italy was not so much diffused.

 

Dai medici e dentisti di Roma ai sindacati dei poliziotti, chi dice no al vaccino Astrazeneca - Il Sole 24 ORE

[HBRU]

There is clear evidence that the adenovirus-vector vaccines reduced mortality. For every 100 deaths in the unvaccinated, there are only 37 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 19 to 70 deaths.

 

Maybe an hormetic effect :D... because Astrazeneca was not really pleasant to be made, nobody almost wanted that... tough it seems it was effective.

[Dorian Grey]

Case Closed!  

 

Vinay Prasad, (MD MPH; Physician & Professor Hematologist/ Oncologist Professor of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Medicine Author of 450+ Peer Reviewed papers, 2 Books, 2 Podcasts, 100+ op-eds.)...

 

...  does a deep dive into the observational studies supporting the new Fall Vaccine/Boost, and really rips it to shreds with a compelling list of implausibilities regarding the science.  

 

https://youtu.be/sKb...O4BJQZdpDdcDeBD

 

This is the best report on the value of continued COVID vaccination I've seen.  Please share it widely.  

[Empiricus]

Case Closed!  

 

Vinay Prasad, (MD MPH; Physician & Professor Hematologist/ Oncologist Professor of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Medicine Author of 450+ Peer Reviewed papers, 2 Books, 2 Podcasts, 100+ op-eds.)...

 

...  does a deep dive into the observational studies supporting the new Fall Vaccine/Boost, and really rips it to shreds with a compelling list of implausibilities regarding the science.  

 

https://youtu.be/sKb...O4BJQZdpDdcDeBD

 

This is the best report on the value of continued COVID vaccination I've seen.  Please share it widely.  

 

"If anyone is going to benefit from the boosters, it's the people in nursing homes" Prasad says.  Then he goes and lists all the countries that recommend the booster to persons over age 65.   If I was a nursing home patient, I would come away from this video thinking that probably it won't hurt me to get the booster.   

 

Prasad spends most of the video making the case that the booster won't do any good, he spends not so much time talking about the risks the booster will destroy your health or kill you. Prasad says there's initial benefit that fades over time. In the process of opposing the fall booster, Prasad turns to the opinions of scientists complicit with the COVID vaccine roll out.   The opinions of these scoundrels are actually Prasad's top reasons the public should not get boosted!  

 

What's really going on with this kind of video?  

Edited by Empiricus, 21 December 2023 - 07:30 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

"If anyone is going to benefit from the boosters, it's the people in nursing homes" Prasad says.  Then he goes and lists all the countries that recommend the booster to persons over age 65.   If I was a nursing home patient, I would come away from this video thinking that probably it won't hurt me to get the booster.   

 

Prasad spends most of the video making the case that the booster won't do any good, he spends not so much time talking about the risks the booster will destroy your health or kill you. Prasad says there's initial benefit that fades over time. In the process of opposing the fall booster, Prasad turns to the opinions of scientists complicit with the COVID vaccine roll out.   The opinions of these scoundrels are actually Prasad's top reasons the public should not get boosted!  

 

What's really going on with this kind of video?  

 

I guess it all boils down to risk vs reward.  90 days protection at best (unless the variant has mutated), with the inherent risk of multiple jabs every year from here on out.  If you're in your late 70s/80s or in a nursing home, you've got little to lose (life expectancy minimal anyway), but for those with a bit more (life) to lose, the risk of repeated vaccination with lipid-nano vaccines must be measured more carefully against the admittedly and obviously minimal benefit.  

 

Even if you boost twice a year, you're still completely unprotected half the year...  With all the risk of continuing and endless multiple mRNA jabs as far as the eye can see.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 21 December 2023 - 03:22 PM.

[Empiricus]

I guess it all boils down to risk vs reward.  90 days protection at best (unless the variant has mutated), with the inherent risk of multiple jabs every year from here on out.  If you're in your late 70s/80s or in a nursing home, you've got little to lose (life expectancy minimal anyway), but for those with a bit more (life) to lose, the risk of repeated vaccination with lipid-nano vaccines must be measured more carefully against the admittedly and obviously minimal benefit.  

 

Even if you boost twice a year, you're still completely unprotected half the year...  With all the risk of continuing and endless multiple mRNA jabs as far as the eye can see.  

 

My point is that these mRNA vaccines should have been withdrawn from the market by now.  There is abundant evidence they don't meet a minimum safety threshold for human consumption. 

 

The idea that elderly stand to benefit more from COVID vaccines than younger people was introduced by health authorities in the early days of the vaccine roll-out.  I know it lacked scientific basis at the time.  I don't think it's ever been supported by rigorous studies. So when I hear the doctor in the video pay lip service to this idea that the mRNA vaccines could be helpful to the elderly I knowing I'm hearing more B.S. that belongs in the trashcan along with masks being beneficial, antiseptic spays are useful, social distancing is helpful, the naturally immune should also line up to be vaccinated, the vaccines are safe for pregnant women....  The idea that the elderly can benefit from COVID vaccines is another unscientific statement that has been taken to be true because people in high positions have kept inferring it. 

Edited by Empiricus, 21 December 2023 - 06:02 PM.

[Mind]

The CDC admits they have no data about using various vaccines together, even though they are pushing for people to take combinations.

 

Once again I am incensed about this "rubber-stamping" of COVID injections. Rejuvenation companies that we all support have to go through years of trials, jump through hoop after hoop, and spend hundreds of millions of dollars, just to get one therapeutic approved. If they alter their product even slightly, or suggest it in combination with another therapeutic, they have to go through the whole process again.

 

COVID injections in combination with other various vaccine technologies are getting approved with no such investigation/trials. The mRNA injections never passed a legitimate human trial. All of the mouse trials were failures. They were rushed into the marketplace. If you haven't figured out that the FDA and CDC are utterly corrupt and bought out by big pharma corps, you are not really looking at the evidence.

_____________________________

 

A recent peer-reviewed paper in Nature states that intramuscular vaccines against respiratory viruses are basically useless. That is why the researchers developed an inhalable powder that can attack the infection at its source. You should be extremely angry about this revelation. Perhaps this powder is a good vaccine technology, but the previous vaccines were sold on a lie. You might remember that Dr Bhakdi said this from the beginning - that you can't vaccinate for a respiratory virus through muscle and expect very good results. For his CORRECT assessment about the injectable mRNA "vaccines" he was harassed, belittled, sued, etc... He was always correct. Don't expect any apologies. The health bureaucrats pushing the failed the current "mRNA" injections are unethical, corrupt, and incompetent.

____________________________

 

Considering the recent huge spike in cancer among young people, at least some responsible scientists are elucidating possible mechanisms through which the mRNA COVID injections could be a factor.

Edited by Mind, 22 December 2023 - 06:58 PM.

[Mind]

If people who review the evidence and rationally decide they don't need the COVID injection are anti-science, anti-vax, "conspiracy nuts", then that includes most of the world now, including the EU.

 

Maybe people are worried about the vax-created spike protein lingering in their bodies for who knows how long. This paper might have been posted earlier, but worth reviewing again. The Vax spike protein lingers in the body and might be causing the mysterious long COVID symptoms and the authors say it is possible the mRNA from the vax might integrate into cellular DNA.

 

New white paper argues that vaccine mandates are not warranted as a public health policy. Good to see more voices asking for a return to real medical ethics.

 

In contrast, (surprise, surprise) the CEO of Moderna thinks there should be no open rational debate about vaccination.

 

[Gal220]

So where are we at this year?  Kory was able to get some larger publications to point out 158k extra deaths this year

 

"In the first 9 months of this year, 158,000 more Americans died unexpectedly than in all of 2019." That's more than all U.S. combat deaths since WWII combined.

 

Is the government afraid of what it will find if it looks deeper into excess deaths?"

 

 

The silence from the MSM and 3 letter agencies says it all

 

Campbell discusses the excess deaths from 2022 and 2023 in several countries, since our health agencies will not

 

[Mind]

This study (pre-print) finds that cardiac deaths in the Pfizer trial were 3.7 times higher in the vaccinated arm than the placebo arm. For whatever reason, 38 deaths that occurred during the trial were either not reported to the FDA or the FDA ignored the data.

 

Amazing (or disturbing) how the CDC continues to push the COVID injection on kids. In this recent paper/summary, if you dig down into the data, you will find that the "vaccinated" kids are more likely to be hospitalized, more likely to need intensive care, more likely to need supplemental oxygen, more likely to die of COVID, and need to stay in the in the hospital longer than their unvaccinated counterparts.

 

Nothing says failure of a "vaccine" more than Bernie Sanders getting booster after booster and getting COVID over and over and over. If he read the Cleveland Clinic study (peer-reviewed) he would be know that getting more boosters raises the odds of getting COVID over and over again.

Edited by Mind, 29 December 2023 - 11:04 PM.

[Hip]

 

Amazing (or disturbing) how the CDC continues to push the COVID injection on kids. In this recent paper/summary, if you dig down into the data, you will find that the "vaccinated" kids are more likely to be hospitalized, more likely to need intensive care, more likely to need supplemental oxygen, more likely to die of COVID, and need to stay in the in the hospital longer than their unvaccinated counterparts.

 

Kids that are vaccinated will tend to be those with underlying health issues which make them more vulnerable to COVID. Thus you might expect the vaccinated to be more likely to suffer ill effects from COVID. Had these vulnerable kids not been vaccinated, they would have suffered an even higher incidence of ill effects.

 

This of course is stating the obvious.

 

And if you read the paper you linked to, it says precisely that:

children with underlying medical conditions might be more likely to be vaccinated and, because of their underlying conditions, more likely to be hospitalized or to need respiratory support

[Hip]

This study (pre-print) finds that cardiac deaths in the Pfizer trial were 3.7 times higher in the vaccinated arm than the placebo arm. For whatever reason, 38 deaths that occurred during the trial were either not reported to the FDA or the FDA ignored the data.

 

The paper's abstract is not written in a clear way, but the bit which was clear to me is this:

Surprisingly, a comparison of the number of subject deaths per week during the 33 Weeks of this study found no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial

[Mind]

New peer-reviewed study indicates that increased odds of getting long COVID (whatever it is) is independently associated with the COVID injections. More shots=more long COVID.

Edited by Mind, 30 December 2023 - 01:28 PM.

[DanCG]

Kids that are vaccinated will tend to be those with underlying health issues which make them more vulnerable to COVID. Thus you might expect the vaccinated to be more likely to suffer ill effects from COVID. Had these vulnerable kids not been vaccinated, they would have suffered an even higher incidence of ill effects.

 

This of course is stating the obvious.

 

And if you read the paper you linked to, it says precisely that:

Quote:

children with underlying medical conditions might be more likely to be vaccinated and, because of their underlying conditions, more likely to be hospitalized or to need respiratory support

 

 

The key word in this quote is “might”. This is known as “hand waving”. It is an attempt at an explanation that would avoid the simple explanation that would be reached by application of Occam’s razor: the vaccines did not protect, but actually harmed immune defenses. Notice that no “underlying conditions” are named, nor is there any reference to any attempt to identify them. Nor is there any evidence that parents are getting their children vaccinated because they think their child is particularly vulnerable as opposed to simply doing as they were told. Remember too, that in the early phase of the vaccine rollout, the given reason for vaccinating children was not to protect the children themselves, but to prevent transmission to the vulnerable adults in contact with the children. Now that that reason has been shown to be invalid, another rationale is being invented.

 

Even if it were true that there exists a subset of children with particular conditions who would benefit from the vaccines, why would it be good policy to advocate vaccination of all children? Why do not the promotional scripts say. “If your child has ______, then get them vaccinated, because we have evidence that this will save their lives”. The answer is, of course, that the evidence does not exist.

[DanCG]

Surprisingly, a comparison of the number of subject deaths per week during the 33 Weeks of this study found no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial

Why would the authors think that “no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial, the placebo-controlled portion of the trial” is a surprising result? Obviously because the vaccine was supposed to be already preventing death by week 20. It was at week 20 that the vaccine got emergency use authorization.

The study went on for 6 months. At the end, the authors report “an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls. This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer/BioNTech”.

 

Safe and Effective!

[Hip]

The key word in this quote is “might”. This is known as “hand waving”. It is an attempt at an explanation that would avoid the simple explanation that would be reached by application of Occam’s razor: the vaccines did not protect, but actually harmed immune defenses.  

 

If you think about your statement for a minute, the suggestion that the vaccines may have harmed immune responses, you will realise that it cannot be right, as I shall explain:

 

As we know, it's mainly only the vulnerable (with underlying diseases) and the elderly who are killed by COVID. Healthy people are not often killed by this virus.

 

Thus if we are talking about vulnerable kids versus healthy kids, nearly all the COVID deaths in children will occur in the vulnerable kids, and very few deaths will occur in healthy kids. 

 

So without the vaccine, you would expect the vulnerable kids group to show orders of magnitude more deaths than the healthy kids group.

 

 

Now if the vaccine acted to further compromise immunity, as you suggest it might, you would then expect even more vulnerable kids to die of COVID, because an immune damaging vaccine will only further exaggerate these kid's vulnerability.

 

It is fair to assume that the parents of vulnerable kids are much more likely to get their child vaccinated. So the vaccinated kids group will contain most of the vulnerable kids.

 

Therefore by your supposition that the vaccine may damage immunity, you might expect to see an even greater difference in death rate between the vulnerable and the healthy.

 

But the study does not show this. It does not show orders of magnitude difference between these two groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated kids. 

 

Therefore your supposition that the vaccine may damage immunity does not seem likely.

Edited by Hip, 30 December 2023 - 08:51 PM.

[Hip]

New peer-reviewed study indicates that increased odds of getting long COVID (whatever it is) is independently associated with the COVID injections. More shots=more long COVID.

 

Shouldn't you address and correct your earlier errors (that I pointed out above) before continuing to post further confusion and misunderstanding?

 

You are using the trick of third rate journalists to gain attention: creating headlines which sound alarming, but when examined in greater depth, do not pan out.

 

The study you linked to itself spends a whole paragraph examining why those with two vaccinations apparently have a greater risk of LC. A balanced post would have included those details. 

Edited by Hip, 31 December 2023 - 05:33 AM.

[Hip]

Why would the authors think that “no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial, the placebo-controlled portion of the trial” is a surprising result? Obviously because the vaccine was supposed to be already preventing death by week 20. 

 

You would only expect more lives to be saved in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group if: (a) the trial was conducted in a location where there was a lot of COVID about; and (b), both groups contained a lot of elderly or vulnerable people. 

 

In my quick glance at the study, I could not find where it was conducted, or the age group of the participants.

Edited by Hip, 31 December 2023 - 05:48 AM.

[joesixpack]

Shouldn't you address and correct your earlier errors (that I pointed out above) before continuing to post further confusion and misunderstanding?

 

You are using the trick of third rate journalists to gain attention: creating headlines which sound alarming, but when examined in greater depth, do not pan out.

 

The study you linked to itself spends a whole paragraph examining why those with two vaccinations apparently have a greater risk of LC. A balanced post would have included those details. 

You are a waste if time. I may get banned for this, but there is not an other response that makes sense. Maybe I can still read the posts.

[Hip]

You are a waste if time. I may get banned for this, but there is not an other response that makes sense. Maybe I can still read the posts.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying you prefer clickbait headlines rather than nuanced discussion?  

[DanCG]

If you think about your statement for a minute, the suggestion that the vaccines may have harmed immune responses, you will realise that it cannot be right, as I shall explain:

 

As we know, it's mainly only the vulnerable (with underlying diseases) and the elderly who are killed by COVID. Healthy people are not often killed by this virus.

 

Thus if we are talking about vulnerable kids versus healthy kids, nearly all the COVID deaths in children will occur in the vulnerable kids, and very few deaths will occur in healthy kids. 

 

So without the vaccine, you would expect the vulnerable kids group to show orders of magnitude more deaths than the healthy kids group.

 

 

Now if the vaccine acted to further compromise immunity, as you suggest it might, you would then expect even more vulnerable kids to die of COVID, because an immune damaging vaccine will only further exaggerate these kid's vulnerability.

 

It is fair to assume that the parents of vulnerable kids are much more likely to get their child vaccinated. So the vaccinated kids group will contain most of the vulnerable kids.

 

Therefore by your supposition that the vaccine may damage immunity, you might expect to see an even greater difference in death rate between the vulnerable and the healthy.

 

But the study does not show this. It does not show orders of magnitude difference between these two groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated kids. 

 

Therefore your supposition that the vaccine may damage immunity does not seem likely.

The observation is that “the vaccinated children are more likely to be hospitalized, more likely to need intensive care, more likely to need supplemental oxygen, more likely to die of COVID, and need to stay in the in the hospital longer than their unvaccinated counterparts”. Supposedly, the vaccine was intended to prevent all of these outcomes. If the vaccinated and unvaccinated were equal in all of these outcomes, that would merely mean that the vaccines don’t work. The simplest interpretation of the actual data is that the vaccines were harmful. To get around this, the you and the authors postulate that the vaccinated population was skewed from the start toward sickly, vulnerable children.

 

First, it is obvious that the vaccine did not rescue these poor kids, if they exist. If the vaccine was beneficial, it should have pulled the vulnerable population up toward the healthy population. Now you have to conjure up an “orders of magnitude” difference to say that this wretched population would have had an even worse time of it there were no vaccine. How is this more likely than saying that the vaccine changed a healthy population into a vulnerable one?

 

Secondly, the whole idea of a particularly vulnerable population is speculation, as evidenced by the word “might”. The data records only vaccinated and unvaccinated. The data does not divide the population into healthy and vulnerable. If there were any identifiable predisposing factor in the vaccinated population that could explain why the vaccinated children had worse outcomes, the authors would have jumped on it. Also, if this particularly vulnerable population existed, it would have shown up in the illness and death incidences during the time before the vaccines were introduced.

[DanCG]

You would only expect more lives to be saved in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group if: (a) the trial was conducted in a location where there was a lot of COVID about; and (b), both groups contained a lot of elderly or vulnerable people. 

 

In my quick glance at the study, I could not find where it was conducted, or the age group of the participants.

Your glance at the study must have been very quick indeed. The first sentence of the Abstract states, 

 

“The analysis reported here is unique in that it is the first study of the original data from the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial (CA4591001) to be carried out by a group unaffiliated with the trial sponsor.”

 

That is why the authors were surprised to find “no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial”.

 

 

 

!

Edited by DanCG, 31 December 2023 - 07:37 PM.

[Hip]

 The simplest interpretation of the actual data is that the vaccines were harmful. 

 

In these Longecity COVID threads, it is often the simpleton explanation that is preferred.

[Hip]

 If there were any identifiable predisposing factor in the vaccinated population that could explain why the vaccinated children had worse outcomes, the authors would have jumped on it. 

 

There was, and they did:

 

For example, children with underlying medical conditions might be more likely to be vaccinated and, because of their underlying conditions, more likely to be hospitalized or to need respiratory support, which could bias the observed VE.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm7248a2.htm

[DanCG]

There was, and they did:

 

For example, children with underlying medical conditions might be more likely to be vaccinated and, because of their underlying conditions, more likely to be hospitalized or to need respiratory support, which could bias the observed VE

 

 

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm7248a2.htm

We already identified this sentence as pure speculation, as evidenced by the words “might” and “could”. What underlying condition are they referring to? They don’t know of any particular underlying condition, they are just speculating that such underlying conditions might exist. And the only reason they (and you) are making this speculation is to grasp at some straw that will save them from accepting the obvious implications of the data.

[Daniel Cooper]

Kids that are vaccinated will tend to be those with underlying health issues which make them more vulnerable to COVID. Thus you might expect the vaccinated to be more likely to suffer ill effects from COVID. Had these vulnerable kids not been vaccinated, they would have suffered an even higher incidence of ill effects.

 

This of course is stating the obvious.

 

And if you read the paper you linked to, it says precisely that:

 

That might be true. But it would need to be proven rather than just speculated upon.

 

In my personal anecdotal experience - the children that were most likely to be vaccinated where those that had middle and upper income helicopter parents.

 

But who knows what the facts are. Not the authors of the paper because they used the word "might".
 

[joesixpack]

That might be true. But it would need to be proven rather than just speculated upon.

 

In my personal anecdotal experience - the children that were most likely to be vaccinated where those that had middle and upper income helicopter parents.

 

But who knows what the facts are. Not the authors of the paper because they used the word "might".
 

 

Correct, the children that would benefit the least from the vaccine, got it, and the others did fine without it.