Latest deaths data vaxed verses unvaxed UK

a reply to: AcrobaticDreams

You said in the earliest days. June 4th is not the earliest days. In the earliest days they did recommend testing. The data showed it was not needed. Then Delta hit, and it became clear it needed to be done again and they changed back to testing. Seems to me that's exactly how it should be done.

If we stick with serious illness and deaths then asymptomatic/mild illness in those tested don't matter, and the CDC recommended testing for vaccinated AND symptomatic so vaccination status didn't matter if you had symptoms.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Simply because everything Fauci and Gates has a hand in, has made them rich and caused misery to many, why should this be any different. It is only a matter of time to see their past form repeat itself. Only this time they have it organized politically, which is stretching the time of misery. The whole society seems to be deconstructing and our reality is in peril. It is no longer a vaccine it is a political agenda.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

I just read the raw figures it is just the raw data spin it any way you want.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: AndyMayhew

I just read the raw figures it is just the raw data spin it any way you want.

No, you read a portion of the data. Then you drew a conclusion.

originally posted by: anonentity
It does look like ADE is accelerating

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No just a simple graph, no conclusions just a fact. With a few comments by the originator. Simple facts. Why are you scared of them.?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No just a simple graph, no conclusions just a fact. With a few comments by the originator. Simple facts. Why are you scared of them.?

Sooo... as Occam said, you simply read a portion and came to a conclusion... oh sorry fact.

no conclusions just a fact.

How does this sentence make any sense? you have no conclusions but state fact. Wouldnt stating such as being fact be you coming to a conclusion? (given the conclusion you have come to is hardly a broad consensus and as such cant be seen as fact).

if that makes sense.

Occam isnt scared of facts... they are scared of the sheer presence of Dunning Krueger. They are a RN telling you actual facts... yet you and so many others simply say 'I know better!'. THAT is something to be actually scared of.

a reply to: anonentity

Scared? Why would I be scared of facts that prove the vaccine works? The numbers you pushed as evidence the vaccines are bad actually prove the opposite, I already proved how.

If you want to prove me wrong it's simple. Post the data for serious illness by age group, vaccination status, and then vaccination percentages in that age group. Simple maths, why are you scared?

a reply to: BigfootNZ

Here are a few more simple facts. That the shot is great for pregnant women, well yes and no depends on your point of view.www.bitchute.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: BigfootNZ

Here are a few more simple facts. That the shot is great for pregnant women, well yes and no depends on your point of view.www.bitchute.com...

I wouldnt say i know any of that as fact, how is it fact if one side says one thing and another say the opposite? (and im not touching anything from Bitchute, you have what you label as fake news i guess I have mine). But logically anything a mother takes can have consequences for their unborn child, even a vaccine... # happens, and nothings for certain. Its why they give warnings even on the most innocuous of medical things.

What i do know as fact is i had my second jab yesterday (4 weeks since my first), arms as sore as the first time, a little queasy but hey havent had anything to eat this morning but outside of that im no different than i was post jabs... and my conclusion (not fact) is that ill be just as much the same in 6 months to a year as i am now, ill get back to you when that becomes a fact (then again im hardly the most healthiest of people so who knows lifes a funny thing *shrug*).

Mines the Pfizer by the way... sure hope those little graphine alien nano bots and magnetic particals give me back my hairline ( I can dream cant I?), or maybe my old high metabolism.

a reply to: BigfootNZ

In that case, you are out of the game for independent statistics. Because everything else is spun.If you don't trust VEARS data or official Government statistics you only have what the car salesman says about the car.

a reply to: anonentity

Still waiting on that data, guess you are just scared after all.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: BigfootNZ

In that case, you are out of the game for independent statistics. Because everything else is spun.If you don't trust VEARS data or official Government statistics you only have what the car salesman says about the car.

So if i question your sources veracity, or dont see an issue with the vaccine (and hey im not saying big pharma wouldnt take advantage of the situation)... im wrong on all fronts?

To be clear, like you im a Conspiracy Theorist or at least used to be, i havent payed it much heed in a good 7+ years (granted ive mellowed alot over the last 20 years and i was a far more skeptical type of CT compared to most you'll find to begin with)... But I dont trust most Governments, I dont like nor trust Big Pharma most of the time but because i dont see a conspiracy in this particular historical event or question the ethics of some of the extreme within the community im one of the sheeple?

If so, then color me Sheeple... doesnt matter one fig to me, im just annoyed and saddened at the depths of lunacy parts of the CT circles have dropped to with this pandemic, and i thought the whole 2012-13 shebang was the pinnacle of nadir the CT community could fall too.

a reply to: BigfootNZ

How can you question the veracity of my source if you have not bothered to look? Good luck.

originally posted by: Justoneman
I find they stomp on stories of American Drs and Nurses that could possibly bring useful data to the table but it FLIES IN THE FACE of the official lie

Perhaps they do, but problem with trying to draw conclusions from that observation is this:

Sure, if the vaccine is in truth a poison, then ‘they’ would stomp on stories that might reveal this.

But, if ‘they’ genuinely believed that the vaccine is the only way to defeat Covid, then they would also stomp on stories bad mouthing the vaccine.

I agree that there’s an undeniable MSM bias towards reporting the successes and hiding the failures, but that doesn’t tell us why.

Whether for benevolent or malevolent motives the vaccine propaganda war is on for our hearts and minds.

a reply to: McGinty

I try and post stuff from reliable sources, so it goes on the table for reasonable discussion. But no reasonable discussion seems to transpire. That's what happens when the Propaganda grip is applied. So we have to assume that the future will get more dystopian, but in reality, what does a society devoid of free thinking and discussion look like?. Well, look at the old Soviet block countries. History s being changed, books are getting removed and criticism is being called hate speech better wake up fast.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: BigfootNZ

How can you question the veracity of my source if you have not bothered to look? Good luck.

Your source says unvaccinated are far more likely to get ill. Your source.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes in the first up to eighteen age group, did you bother with the rest? I am not trying to hide anything here. Oh by the way just found this if anyone can be stuffed, not only is MSM saying sterilization might be a good thing but Buses with stickers on the side saying Kids can have strokes too, sound like the normalization of the narrative. www.bitchute.com...
You also have no Covid cases in Western Australia, but the hospitals are now overwhelmed.....vaccine injuries sound possible?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Justoneman

Why trust either? Far quicker and more usesful to learn the basic maths and be able to verify or refute claims rather than have to rely on claims made by organisations with agendas.

What Occam is pointing out is very basic maths that he and many others have previously explained why such claims are false and why data needs to be standardised before it is analysed, not siding with the media.

Claims that somehow you/they have trustworthy data to share is the issue. The lies are so deep we can't ignore them and we can't accept the data from those sources.

But you will be "siding with the media" if you use the numbers from the organizations who lie to us. We have to rely on other sources when you can't trust the CDC & Prevention. We have to understand that there is a serious agenda to brainwash people with fat lies for some reason. We have to look to ourselves to become true skeptics that dig in and sift thru the often total BS angles the media have taken to whip us up into their fear.

a reply to: anonentity

Indeed! Objectivity and hindsight a pretty much unobtainable in first person (as Dickens so well illustrated with his ghosts to provide these view points to Scrooge)

I wonder how our ‘free speech-freedoms’ look from overseas at this point in the witch hunts (sorry, I mean ‘cancel culture). Those nations we see as repressed under dictators, well at least those peoples know who their villains are.

The genius of western dictatorships is that everyone’s been fooled into thinking it’s not a dictatorship. Like the saying goes, the best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing us he doesn’t exist.

Dbl post