The Covid-19 Jabs are an Insult to Real Vaccines - Look How Fast Their Efficacy Plummets.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

All the numbers I have seen suggest recovered from covid gives excellent protection.

So does being vaccinated.

I don't think we know conclusively which is better and it almost certainly varies by individual.

Some studies suggest having both is even better.

Cheers - Dave

Completely unsupported and I suspect completely inccurate as well.

Maybe you could point out the inaccuracies and the unsupported information, please use non-mainstream media sources ;-) I do realize that is the way a lot people proceed these days. Make the person providing the information show all their links and support info because the person demanding it is too biased or lazy to do their own research.

Then after they show all their links and support info, the person demanding the links call in bunk anyway. I ain't your momma, you're not living in my basement or attic, so do your own research if you think mine is wrong.

Cheers - Dave

Hitchen's razor applies to you entire post.

Did I type anything there that was untrue or unsupported?

Cheers - Dave

I have provided links (unlike you).

Here is another one.

www.nejm.org...

That fact you think VAERs or Yellow card would debunk them shows you really haven't researched the topic.

Here's some links ;-) Just remember the grand total of around 35,000 deaths is actually only about 1% according to the Harvard referenced paper by the NIH and then the second NIH paper runs between 13% and 74%. So adverse effects including deaths logically would be between 1.33 times to roughly 100 times the stated numbers.

Passports
NIH Study
VAERS
NIH, re Harvard Study of 1% Reporting
Ye llow Card UK Site
WHO Vaccine AE Site

On the WHO site, make sure you use "covid-19 vaccine" without quotes in their search engine

Cheers - Dave

CDC disclaimer on VAERs.

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

You can't use the data that way, similar applies with yellow card reporting in UK

It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines as many factors can influence ADR reporting

ETA according to your reasoning above there should be 3.5 million excess deaths from vaccines. The numbers show that to be completely untrue.

Not my reasoning, the Harvard study says 1% reporting. If you take the other NIH study that is 13%-74% the numbers become more like 47,000 (@74%) to about 270,000 (@13%). Since we are not getting accurate reporting, the actual number of dead due to the jabs is difficult to determine. So it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the number of dead from the jab are between 47,000 and 3.5 million. My greatest concern however is that we are discussing a totally unacceptable number of deaths here for an experimental genetic treatment in trials until March 2023. The number of deaths on the low end are unacceptable and obscene.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What cdc category do vaccine deaths fall under?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What cdc category do vaccine deaths fall under?

Get to here and click the boxes to accept, then select "Search CDC Wonder" CDC Data Request or "Download VAERS Data" and drop it into an excel or quattro spreadsheet, or an access database.

Get to here and find Vaccine Characteristic then select covid 19, carry on down the page and select the adverse effect you are looking for. CDC Dataset Request

Death is under death, that's the category.

Cheers - Dave

My liver took a lot of damage, but it healed up all right within five years of quitting with the aid of some silimaron from Holy Thistle. The Holy thistle did not cure my kidney damage from the meds though, but it has not progressed anymore since quitting. I did have a loss of some enzyme activity from those meds, I guess the liver did lose some of it's specialized properties and maybe some damage to the pancreas. I was on them for a total of five years, with one medication called Depakote causing the most long term damage. I honestly do not think I would have lived one more year if the neurologist would not have stopped all the meds.

I tried the keto diet and it did not work alone to stop the problems. Plus the sticky poop sucked.

Asparagus and cabbage work well, the cabbage cooked of course, but both do actually cause side effects if consumed to much. A lot of cabbage can block the glutamine production in the muscles and cause inflammation everywhere. The meds did the same thing, I could barely walk anywhere with some of the meds, I was aching at every joint...same method of action on the enzyme glutiminase. I finally found out why my side effects were happening, a glutamine supplement capsule twice a day and I am now feeling a lot better in the joints and tendons.

Taurine works really good in combination with the glutamine for me, I can go longer without specialized soups to control my epilepsy, but still need to consume it once a week. Magnesium did not work for my epilepsy, I do get some muscle jerks occasionally with my epilepsy, but no full blown seizures that take me down. Taurine does pretty well control those but magnesium did not when I did not have the soups for a week.

Boiled cabbage is the only cruciferous veggie that worked for my epilepsy, Kale did not work, neither does broccoli or cauliflour or rutabagga. I think it is the Sinergen in cabbage which increases when it is boiled that controls it the best....but that also lowers glutamine levels, so I am glad I got that figured out now. One good thing about the glutamine supplement...500 mg two times a day and my craving for sweets went away.

Sugary foods make it worse, except I can eat blueberry deserts and strawberry shortcake (aluminum free baking powder) without problems, something in the blueberry pie somehow cancels out the sugar causing increased risk. I never found any research to explain it, the blueberries I use are wild blueberries that contain about ten times as much antioxidents as tame ones....maybe those specific antioxidants are what buffers the problem. Also any chemistry that destroys histiminase creation causes increased risk...tomatoes are good at destroying it, so are avacados, so my histamine levels jump way up and increase risk of seizures if I eat stuff with tomatoes in it or guacamole. I also have to watch food that causes a histamine release from muscle stores and of course limit histamine foods somewhat. I found that Parmesan cheese is created with microbes that create antihistamine chemistry and some of them are neutral. It took a real lot of research over the years to figure out all I know about diet and epilepsy, I quit keeping track of a rough estimate of research articles at ten thousand articles over five years ago. The research now is probably more diverse, so I cannot tie it just to epilepsy research after those original ten grand, it applies to way more things because now it deals with enzymes and metabolism and ways to cross the blood brain barrier while not dragging other things along. In that first research I found that foods containing allum and other aluminum chemistry were pretty much a trigger. They also increase allergies because alum is a neuroexcitant. So I now just eat pickles without it and that helps a lot. It is in some cheeses and aluminum chemistry is also in baking powders and added to control mold and stuff to promote food preservation so it was a trial and error campaign and lots of research to identify how to tell if a product has it, it is not required to be listed if the level is below a certain amount here in America, but often companies list it if any is in it.

I can go on and on with what I have researched and the testing of things on myself. Sage leaf is supposed to be bad for epilepsy, but it actually lowers my risk it seemed and finally I found out why. In Temporal lobe epilepsies on the left side of the body temporal lobe...my left hand side, it actually lowers seizure activity by increasing the activity in parts of the brain to accept the extra workload from the reduction of filtering from damage of the left temporal lobe. So I can use sage in my soups with no problem. It does not increase the temporal lobe activity.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

Then why are the supply chains collapsing?

Several reasons but none of them related to the covid vaccine.

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785
On a side note, has anyone seen ANY studies about how many people are dying from the vaccine? I'm aware of the VAERS reports, but I mean an actual scientific study. I think the vaccines have been around long enough that someone should've tried to quantify this by now. Obviously it's not easy to directly link the vaccine to the deaths, but you'd think someone would've at least tried to do something.

Overall mortality amongst vaccinated is lower than non vaccinated.

www.cdc.gov...

That doesn't obviously mean no deaths from covid vaccines, but it shows no mass deaths as many on this site have claimed.

The CDC... well then, that proves it. You're right. We should all praise fauci and the CDC... they know better than anything.

I almost fell for the truth, phew, thanks mate. nothing wrong with listening to people with a vested interest, as opposed to those who know better but are shut down, cancelled and banned.

Perhaps you would prefer a bitchute video?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll just leave this here, a reference from the above mentioned article.

Interpretation A prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.

15. Hall V Foulkes S Charlett A et al.
Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020.
medRxiv. 2021; (published online Jan 15.) (preprint).
The actual reference link

Cheers - Dave

Your link shows people with previous infection are better protected than than those who haven't been either previously infected or vacinated.

I don't think anyone doubts that.

I thought there was some doubt there, apologies if I misread ;-) It's like the "Spanish Flu" I think, they have found B and T cells in people who recovered from the Spanish Flu, so it was still in their systems, 80 years later. It seems some people are denying the efficacy of the recovered immunity over the jab.

Cheers - Dave

All the numbers I have seen suggest recovered from covid gives excellent protection.

So does being vaccinated.

I don't think we know conclusively which is better and it almost certainly varies by individual.

Some studies suggest having both is even better.

Cheers - Dave

Completely unsupported and I suspect completely inccurate as well.

Maybe you could point out the inaccuracies and the unsupported information, please use non-mainstream media sources ;-) I do realize that is the way a lot people proceed these days. Make the person providing the information show all their links and support info because the person demanding it is too biased or lazy to do their own research.

Then after they show all their links and support info, the person demanding the links call in bunk anyway. I ain't your momma, you're not living in my basement or attic, so do your own research if you think mine is wrong.

Cheers - Dave

Hitchen's razor applies to you entire post.

Did I type anything there that was untrue or unsupported?

Cheers - Dave

I have provided links (unlike you).

Here is another one.

www.nejm.org...

That fact you think VAERs or Yellow card would debunk them shows you really haven't researched the topic.

Here's some links ;-) Just remember the grand total of around 35,000 deaths is actually only about 1% according to the Harvard referenced paper by the NIH and then the second NIH paper runs between 13% and 74%. So adverse effects including deaths logically would be between 1.33 times to roughly 100 times the stated numbers.

Passports
NIH Study
VAERS
NIH, re Harvard Study of 1% Reporting
Ye llow Card UK Site
WHO Vaccine AE Site

On the WHO site, make sure you use "covid-19 vaccine" without quotes in their search engine

Cheers - Dave

CDC disclaimer on VAERs.

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

You can't use the data that way, similar applies with yellow card reporting in UK

It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines as many factors can influence ADR reporting

ETA according to your reasoning above there should be 3.5 million excess deaths from vaccines. The numbers show that to be completely untrue.

Not my reasoning, the Harvard study says 1% reporting. If you take the other NIH study that is 13%-74% the numbers become more like 47,000 (@74%) to about 270,000 (@13%). Since we are not getting accurate reporting, the actual number of dead due to the jabs is difficult to determine. So it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the number of dead from the jab are between 47,000 and 3.5 million. My greatest concern however is that we are discussing a totally unacceptable number of deaths here for an experimental genetic treatment in trials until March 2023. The number of deaths on the low end are unacceptable and obscene.

Cheers - Dave

I have already provided a link showing there are no excess deaths comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated and the CDC confirms you can't use VAERs data the way you are trying to.

a reply to: ScepticScot

How do you know .

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

How do you know .

Why would it?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785
On a side note, has anyone seen ANY studies about how many people are dying from the vaccine? I'm aware of the VAERS reports, but I mean an actual scientific study. I think the vaccines have been around long enough that someone should've tried to quantify this by now. Obviously it's not easy to directly link the vaccine to the deaths, but you'd think someone would've at least tried to do something.

Overall mortality amongst vaccinated is lower than non vaccinated.

www.cdc.gov...

That doesn't obviously mean no deaths from covid vaccines, but it shows no mass deaths as many on this site have claimed.

The CDC... well then, that proves it. You're right. We should all praise fauci and the CDC... they know better than anything.

I almost fell for the truth, phew, thanks mate. nothing wrong with listening to people with a vested interest, as opposed to those who know better but are shut down, cancelled and banned.

Perhaps you would prefer a bitchute video?

Perhaps you can just provide links to your facts, and not have to google them to advocate.

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785
On a side note, has anyone seen ANY studies about how many people are dying from the vaccine? I'm aware of the VAERS reports, but I mean an actual scientific study. I think the vaccines have been around long enough that someone should've tried to quantify this by now. Obviously it's not easy to directly link the vaccine to the deaths, but you'd think someone would've at least tried to do something.

Overall mortality amongst vaccinated is lower than non vaccinated.

www.cdc.gov...

That doesn't obviously mean no deaths from covid vaccines, but it shows no mass deaths as many on this site have claimed.

The CDC... well then, that proves it. You're right. We should all praise fauci and the CDC... they know better than anything.

I almost fell for the truth, phew, thanks mate. nothing wrong with listening to people with a vested interest, as opposed to those who know better but are shut down, cancelled and banned.

Perhaps you would prefer a bitchute video?

Perhaps you can just provide links to your facts, and not have to google them to advocate.

I have provided multiple links in this thread.

Have you?

a reply to: Nyiah

Indeed.

I just got done with a "mandatory" hold from my workplace because someone got Covid. Lost a week plus of work, with no recompense because I categorically refuse to get the multiple jabs.

Tested three times. Negative all three times. Every other person who got put on the "mandatory" hold got compensation, because they were jabbed. Out of the, I believe, four people-not including me-involved, two actually got Covid...

So, tell me again about the so called effectiveness of this vaccine???? Rhetorical, nor aimed at you specifically.

Eh. Probably the same reason they call the flu shot a shot.

It ain’t a vaccine because it has similar efficacy.

Not exact science. But words have meaning.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What cdc category do vaccine deaths fall under?

Get to here and click the boxes to accept, then select "Search CDC Wonder" CDC Data Request or "Download VAERS Data" and drop it into an excel or quattro spreadsheet, or an access database.

Get to here and find Vaccine Characteristic then select covid 19, carry on down the page and select the adverse effect you are looking for. CDC Dataset Request

Death is under death, that's the category.

Cheers - Dave

That's too bad, and highly deceitful of the CDC and HHS. Thankyou.

I'm waiting for a whistleblower to come forward from deep inside the agency to describe how they are counting deaths as being in two categories, with one of them being Covid-19. (Makes it look like 650,000 people died of Covid-19, when the vast majority did not.)

originally posted by: slatesteam
Eh. Probably the same reason they call the flu shot a shot.

It ain’t a vaccine because it has similar efficacy.

Not exact science. But words have meaning.

"Shot" is just a terminology for "injection", or a quick drink.

Its a Flu "vaccine": en.wikipedia.org... in some publications, and not a vaccine in others.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: slatesteam
Eh. Probably the same reason they call the flu shot a shot.

It ain’t a vaccine because it has similar efficacy.

Not exact science. But words have meaning.

"Shot" is just a terminology for "injection", or a quick drink.

Its a Flu "vaccine": en.wikipedia.org... in some publications, and not a vaccine in others.

I see your point. To be fair until Marek’s virus came up I hadn’t heard of it.

But then I hadn’t heard the term leaky vaccine being used to describe the Covid one and what the ones the chickens were injected with.

“Leaky vaccine” doesn’t sound too convincing. Ya know?

originally posted by: carewemust
The Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines are only at 90% effectiveness for 3 months. From there, its a downhill trip.

Johnson & Johnson is never at 90% effectiveness.

And I say that even these numbers are pure unadulterated made up BS.

Unless you wish to argue that they aren't a bunch of liars that manipulate numbers for billions in profits?

originally posted by: slatesteam
Eh. Probably the same reason they call the flu shot a shot.

It ain’t a vaccine because it has similar efficacy.

Not exact science. But words have meaning.

Flu shot is flu vaccine. Flu vaccine comes in 2 types. One is shot. One is spray, the most common one being FluMist.

Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine