96 year old vaccinated

a reply to: Crumbles

I read that two days after the shot the Aussie minister of health fell down the stairs and is now in ICU. Haven't heard anymore but it's a bit of a coincidence.

originally posted by: iasenko
I'll just drop that one here:

By 14th January, 43,740 people in Norway had been vaccinated against COVID-19. A large proportion of those vaccinated are nursing home residents. The Norwegian Medicines Agency reported that up to and including the 13th January, there had been 23 deaths reported in connection with vaccination, and that common side effects may have contributed to a severe disease course among severely frail elderly people.

www.fhi.no...

From your source to keep it honest.

"Fatal incidents among these severely frail patients following vaccination do not imply a causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and death," explains Dr Sara Viksmoen Watle, Senior Physician at the NIPH.

“In order to be able to interpret this information, it is important to see the full picture. Nursing home residents are at very high risk of a severe disease course or dying from COVID-19, and have therefore been prioritised for vaccination. A large proportion of those who live in nursing homes have severe underlying conditions or are in the last stages of life. Life expectancy in nursing homes is relatively short and on average, more than 300 people die in Norwegian nursing homes every week,” says Dr Watle.

Apples meet Oranges

a reply to: Blaine91555

They might be a good clue though concerning a possible causal relationship. They certainly don't imply that there is no causal relationship, why don't they ever feel the need to point that out when commenting on these "deaths reported in connection with vaccination"? As the article decides to put it, which differs from how Dr. Sara Viksmoen Watle, Senior Physician at The Norwegian Institute of Public Health puts it, who does not want to see or acknowledge a causal relationship, nor is she willing to point out even a possible causal relationship or that it might be an indication of such; she would much rather, as well as have you, interpret it as, 'oh well, these people were on their deathbeds anyway, would have died anyway', without any sharing of statistical data to support such preferred interpretations that she is alluding to in the other stuff you quoted. And by doing so, influencing others to prefer such interpretations as well by focussing on that, rather than the questions: How were these people doing before the vaccination, the details, such as the details shared in the OP? Would they really have died if they hadn't gotten the vaccination? To answer those questions or take an educated guess at it, you need the details, similar to the details given in the OP regarding how well someone is doing, in spite of their age or "severe underlying conditions" (a vague general term that can apply to almost everyone of considerable age in a nursing home, what if the underlying condition is not so serious in terms of killing you within days? You can't tell from that term, how convenient to leave that out if that is the case for the majority of these 23 people who died).

And what if it's known that all these 23 people were actually doing rather well before the vaccine (similar to the 96 year old from the OP), in spite of their "[supposedly] severe [which is in the eye of the beholder; see details above, the question is: where they "severe" enough to kill them within days] underlying conditions" or being deemed to be "in the last stages of life" merely because of their age and where they are (a nursing home)? And these details are withheld or conveniently ignored in any evaluation whether or not the vaccinations might have something to do with pushing them over the edge? As they are withheld in this article, and perhaps in the activity described in the article as:

"processes reports of suspected side effects after coronavirus vaccination on behalf of the Norwegian Medicines Agency."

When processing these reports, do they look at the specific details per patient and make an honest evaluation whether or not they would have still been alive now, or lived at least longer than they did now with the vaccination? Or is that evaluation biased and based on a desire to either not see, or acknowledge a potential causal relationship between the vaccination and whatever is finishing these people off, pushing them over the edge as I described it earlier?

I made some sidenotes in one of the sentences there to elaborate on the description "severe" in this context (regarding the questions one should be asking themselves in evaluating this news report and the preferred interpretation promoted by Dr. Watle), but just in case that makes the sentence there a bit convoluted, here it is without the sidenotes:

And what if it's known that all these 23 people were actually doing rather well before the vaccine (similar to the 96 year old from the OP), in spite of their "severe underlying conditions" or being deemed to be "in the last stages of life" merely because of their age and where they are (a nursing home)?

After all, you can have what someone else biasedly refers to as "severe underlying conditions"* and still not die within days, you know. *: someone who biasedly wants to give or promote the impression that it was these that killed the person rather than the vaccination. Even when they died within days after receiving that vaccination. An unbiased person may want to re-focus their priorities as to what evidence or details to look for concerning what interpretation of the facts, rather than look for an excuse to interpret it as not being related to the vaccination and grasping at possibly misrepresented straws (possibly knowing better, that these "severe underlying conditions" had not yet reached a critical stage in these 23 people that would indicate the high possibility of death within days).

There's also the question and accompanying details whether or not there was a significant deterioration after vaccination and before death (especially when death occurs within weeks rather than days), for which there are also no details shared by either the article nor the officials commenting on their 'processing of these reports', as the article described their handling of the data and how they will ultimately present it to the public, leaving out any inconvenient details that do not match with their preferred interpretation, or the impression or picture they prefer you to get from it by using this technique.

Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. [often capitalizing on the ambiguity of language]

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

All vaccines for the past 70 years before the new Phizer, Moderna , and J&J. Vaccines for COVID-19 went through 5-10 years of short term and long term trials that included animal testing and human testing for short term effects and long term effects.

1. ⁠These COVID-19 vaccines have not been tested in any Animals other than mice or rodents. I don’t think mice are very comparable to a humans anatomy.
2. ⁠There has been no long term testing other than the past maybe two months for any of these vaccines.

Doesn’t this concern anyone? Why are we not putting the same rigorous testing rules on these vaccines like we have for all other vaccines for the past 70 years?

In my opinion if you get any of the 3 vaccines you are volunteering to participate in the long term study of the effects of a vaccine that is considered experimental. When the FDA approved it they issued an EUA which means “Emergency Use Authorization”.

They only issued these for vaccines that still considered experimental.

Why would I want to participate in a long term study of an experimental vaccine where if something happens the manufacturer has complete immunity from lawsuits? (Thank you congress from 1986) Oh and I don’t even get compensated for my participation in the long term study either!

Just a quick update. She came to the door yesterday just to talk. No outgoing which was odd, but was happy to see her up. She said her knees havent gotten any better and has to use the Walker no matter what now. I just told her she was doing great, and at least you can get around with the walker.

Someone who lives to be in their 90's should avoid this jab like the plague. The immune system is already going great guns.

All that stick did for your client is F up a perfectly functioning body.

I'm only getting it because it will likely be required for travel. I have an expensive vacation planned later this year. I'm putting my health on the line by getting it.

The really rotten thing is you cannot sue the makers of these vaccines if they backfire on you. That is just plain wrong.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

Hope it works out for you. What? Are the legally immune?

a reply to: Crumbles
Great news that she is up and about a bit. Glad to read that. Thanks for the update!