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

originally posted by: carewemustJohnson & Johnson is never at 90% effectiveness.

You are correct. This is a lie. J&J is 67% effective right off the bat. It is generally similar to CanSino which uses Ad5 virus instead of Ad26 virus. CanSino has 65% effectiveness right off the bat.

a reply to: carewemust

Fauci is working an a sand fly treatment which might fight Covid. It will be mandated once they get enough test subjects.

Apologies if this has already been posted, but here's a more technical description of why pushing for 100% vaccination against COVID-19 is a monumentally bad idea.

eugyppius.substack.com...

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

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.

FFS's everybody has a disclaimer on their website. You think the CDC isn't open to lawsuits? Of course they have a disclaimer lol. BTW, if the deaths are equivalent between the jab'd and unjab'd, what is the point of the jab? 2nd BTW, just heard from a good friend's wife this afternoon, he had second shot, he has DVT and autoimmune disorders now, he was a perfectly healthy 47 year old before this garbage, and he can't walk, work or do much of anything. Isn't the jab just ef'ing great? When he dies and he will likely die, he will be number 22 that I knew.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: carewemust

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.)

I know, it's obscene the game they are playing. I just mentioned on another thread, a good friend and client of mine got his second jab and within two months developed a slow moving DVT, he's clotting slow and serious autoimmune disorders. His joints are inflamed and breaking down, he can't walk or do much of anything. When I went by his place today, his wife told me. He's such a good guy, but I expect the jab will take him. When he dies, he will be the 22nd person that I knew with the jab that died.

Cheers - Dave

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

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.

FFS's everybody has a disclaimer on their website. You think the CDC isn't open to lawsuits? Of course they have a disclaimer lol. BTW, if the deaths are equivalent between the jab'd and unjab'd, what is the point of the jab? 2nd BTW, just heard from a good friend's wife this afternoon, he had second shot, he has DVT and autoimmune disorders now, he was a perfectly healthy 47 year old before this garbage, and he can't walk, work or do much of anything. Isn't the jab just ef'ing great? When he dies and he will likely die, he will be number 22 that I knew.

Cheers - Dave

It explains exactly why you can't use the vaers figures the way you are trying to.

Deaths aren't equivalent between vaccinated and unvaccinated. There is about a 90% reduction in covid deaths if vaccinated.

I will not be Fauci's beagle!!

Nov 2, 2021 Update

Prior to December 2019, the experimental drugs now being injected into the arms of American adults and children were not eligible to be labeled as "Vaccines". Congress (mysteriously) granted that ability, 1 month before Covid-19 arrived on U.S. soil!

Source: www.lifesitenews.com...

Holy smokes..

originally posted by: carewemust
Monday, October 25, 2021

The longer these Covid-19 "vaccines" are in the arms of Americans, the more accurate and detailed study results are available. This is a big one, with a large sample size of 620,000 human beings.

The Veteran Health Administration Study of 620,000 vaccinated individuals shows a decline in COVID-19 Vaccine effectiveness from February 1st to Mid August, 2021.

Overall vaccine protection was down to 53.9% on August 13th, from 92% in March.

J&J vaccine protection was down to 3% by August 13th. The J&J vaccine offers almost no protection after about three months.

The Pfizer vaccine effectiveness was down to 50% by August 13th.

Moderna provided just 64% protection by August 13th.

Summary Article: www.nextbigfuture.com...

The huge Veterans Health Administration(VA) study: www.medrxiv.org...

It's unbelievable that a drug designed to prevent contraction of a disease can be classified as a "vaccine", when its efficacy declines to 54% after just 6 months, and continues downhill from there.

Imagine if a newly designed bullet-proof vest, or birth-control pill, only worked 54% of the time. Would they be awarded the "seal of approval" by their respective industry certification authority? NOPE.

Due to lack of effectiveness, the PFIZER, MODERNA, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON drugs should not be categorized as true vaccines. Doing so is deceiving the public, and lowering the confidence in vaccines, going forward. These 3 vaccine imposters are giving the name "vaccine", a black eye.

And the "boosters" that the Biden Administration are pushing on the population, are nothing more than smaller doses of the vaccines. So in 3 or 4 months, you're back to being only 54% protected against Covid-19 again.

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust

'medRxiv (pronounced "med-archive") is a free online archive and distribution server for complete but unpublished manuscripts (preprints) in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences. Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."

From your second source.

Sounds legit, eh?

Do you ever read/check your sources or are you just spamming them out on here regardless?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You're doing a good job. Star 4 you!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You're doing a good job. Star 4 you!

Job? I'm not the one that seems to have a full time one.......

Any excuse or apology for posting obvious bs like this, like, constantly? No?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: ScepticScot

You already have a more than 90% likelihood of not needing to be hospitalized and a 99.8% likelihood of not dying.

There never was a need for vaccines, especially when they don't work and have never worked on respiratory diseases.

The vaccines do work, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. A 10% chance(your figure) is still a pretty high chance and for the incredibly minor inconvenience of having a injection it seems a fairly obvious choice.

For many people the survival rate is much worse than 99.8%.

you could get a saline shot and have the same results. If people with comorbidity are more prone to die if they develop covid, they are not going to be helped with these vaccines. Everyone else will survive, just as they would have naturally.

You will still spread it, catch it and if you're prone, suffer from it. Regardless of your passport that lets you go to a park, saying otherwise.

This is not about health. It's about control. How much are you willing to give up... then be thankful and celebrate when slithers of your freedoms are given back.. Like a slave.

The evidence (and reality) says you are wrong.

Sorry.

Show me the evidence that I am wrong. Please, don't just say it, show it.

I'll wait. And no googling now, you have the information at hand to claim such things, obviously.

What specific part of your wrongness do you want evidence for? You want one that isn't from a search engine?

How about a little maths. More than .2% of the US population has died from covid, so even if every single person had already caught covid your claim of a 99.8% survivability would be wrong.

They died WITH Covid, not FROM Covid. It's that kind of dishonest statistics which is why this is all bull#.

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: ScepticScot

You already have a more than 90% likelihood of not needing to be hospitalized and a 99.8% likelihood of not dying.

There never was a need for vaccines, especially when they don't work and have never worked on respiratory diseases.

The vaccines do work, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. A 10% chance(your figure) is still a pretty high chance and for the incredibly minor inconvenience of having a injection it seems a fairly obvious choice.

For many people the survival rate is much worse than 99.8%.

you could get a saline shot and have the same results. If people with comorbidity are more prone to die if they develop covid, they are not going to be helped with these vaccines. Everyone else will survive, just as they would have naturally.

You will still spread it, catch it and if you're prone, suffer from it. Regardless of your passport that lets you go to a park, saying otherwise.

This is not about health. It's about control. How much are you willing to give up... then be thankful and celebrate when slithers of your freedoms are given back.. Like a slave.

The evidence (and reality) says you are wrong.

Sorry.

Show me the evidence that I am wrong. Please, don't just say it, show it.

I'll wait. And no googling now, you have the information at hand to claim such things, obviously.

What specific part of your wrongness do you want evidence for? You want one that isn't from a search engine?

How about a little maths. More than .2% of the US population has died from covid, so even if every single person had already caught covid your claim of a 99.8% survivability would be wrong.

They died WITH Covid, not FROM Covid. It's that kind of dishonest statistics which is why this is all bull#.

Feel free to explain how you know better what killed them than the medical professionals issuing the death certificates.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I don't need to. It literally is, WITH Covid, not From Covid. If it was a death from Covid for certain, it would be FROM Covid.

Every death in the Covid death statistic is with Covid, and almost every case is riddled with comorbidities and a vast majority of those are past the average life expectancy.

There is nothing about this statistic that states categorically it was in fact, Covid and Covid alone that did these people in. In fact a person could die with Covid in their system with literally zero symptoms, from damn near anything, and so long as Covid is in their system it is labelled as a death with Covid, and thus enters into the system as a death with Covid, which is then dishonestly shortened down to a Covid death.

Then people hear the stupid statistics of Covid deaths and think Covid has by itself literally killed all these people, when the truth is, they have no #ing clue who Covid has killed, or even when/if it even played a part in their death. It's just fear tactics using word play and statistics.

a reply to: Puppylove

Do you have a source for your statistics?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

WTF are you talking about, I gave no statistics. I described how they are gotten. You want a source for that? I don't know what this source is, or how reliable, was the first one I could find, and I'm here for discussion and not homework, so you want more or don't like it, too bad.

Your Stupid Link

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

WTF are you talking about, I gave no statistics. I described how they are gotten. You want a source for that? I don't know what this source is, or how reliable, was the first one I could find, and I'm here for discussion and not homework, so you want more or don't like it, too bad.

Your Stupid Link

Well, if you don't know there is not much point discussing it with you, is there.

What do you mean by my "stupid link"?

That's not me.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ScepticScot

I don't need to. It literally is, WITH Covid, not From Covid. If it was a death from Covid for certain, it would be FROM Covid.

Every death in the Covid death statistic is with Covid, and almost every case is riddled with comorbidities and a vast majority of those are past the average life expectancy.

There is nothing about this statistic that states categorically it was in fact, Covid and Covid alone that did these people in. In fact a person could die with Covid in their system with literally zero symptoms, from damn near anything, and so long as Covid is in their system it is labelled as a death with Covid, and thus enters into the system as a death with Covid, which is then dishonestly shortened down to a Covid death.

Then people hear the stupid statistics of Covid deaths and think Covid has by itself literally killed all these people, when the truth is, they have no #ing clue who Covid has killed, or even when/if it even played a part in their death. It's just fear tactics using word play and statistics.

Having comorbities doesn't mean it wasn't covid that killed them. If someone with diabetes gets covid and dies the diabetes may well be a contributing factor, but they would still very much be alive if they hadn't got covid .

The excess death figures show how deadly covid is, the idea that thse people would have died anyway is completely false.

a reply to: ScepticScot

COVID-19 pushed them over the cliff faster. What you'll see is LOWER U.S. death tolls than normal, in 2023, 2024, 2025.

Many who would have died in those years due to their existing conditions, died in 2020 and 2021.