Why COVID vaccines cannot work, & irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaxx

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: ARM1968
As soon as I saw on the UK Gov website last year, August I think it was as tenders had to be in by end September, for a contract worth 3.1 BILLION for anticoagulants over the next 4 years, that did it for me. They knew exactly what's coming. The NHS annual bill for anticoagulants is between 23-25 million. You do the maths.
It stinks to its core.

Rainbows
Jane

That was a made up claim about the tender - the numbers add up with previous tenders (2.8bn) with mild rise due to aging population and 4% inflation on drug cost as it includes the cost of daily prescription drugs (blood thinners) while the NHS anti-coagulant bill doesn't (is a seperate cost and only includes a&e administered anti-coags)

Blood thinners/anti-coagulants are by far the most common drugs prescribed and also make up some of the highest cost drugs - Apixaban alone costs £356 million per year in England.
UK Prescription Drug Cost Analysis

a reply to: bastion
All I can tell you is I saw it on the Governments website myself like I said and I saw the figures. I did try searching for it again, but it's not throwing up anything now. I did post the link when it was an ongoing tender both here and on a n other social media site.
Rainbows
Jane

Seems to be a bit of a thing on ATS that any thread with "Irrefutable Proof" or "100% Proof" in the title is never anything of the sort.

Like this one.

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: bastion
All I can tell you is I saw it on the Governments website myself like I said and I saw the figures. I did try searching for it again, but it's not throwing up anything now. I did post the link when it was an ongoing tender both here and on a n other social media site.
Rainbows
Jane

I remember the one you're referring to you're certainly not making up the tender or the claimed NHS costings. I remember a thread about it on here showing the original gov tender. All the fugures you calim are accurate as far as I remember. The one on ATS was an assets/govhouse/whitepaper version but there's a copy of it here:Or al Anti Coagulant NHS tender

The costings claim was based on a charity in relation to cardio-vascular disesase blog AFAIK - while the person writing the blog had no nefarious purpose/justified concerns - they were based on a misinterpretation that prescriptions weren't included in that figure but is burried in the legalise.

The papers and evidence for the tender were published long before the vaccines were availlable and based on analysis of cost savings of anti-coags in 2011 - 2014 to 2014 - 2017 period: heart.bmj.com...

It's worth keeping an eye on upcoming tenders and reports from cardio-vascular colleges/nurses/societies but the current/recent tender was based on evidence prior to the introduction of the vaccine.

Better Listen !!

Mass Panic Soon !!

😲

US sets WORLD record 489,267 COVID cases in 24 hours as country risks grinding to a HALT: 'Incoming viral blizzard will make it hard to keep everyday life operating'

a reply to: 1947boomer

BS?... It seems to be you who doesn't understand what you read... From your own excerpts...

"The team found that just one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s BNT162b2 vaccine or Moderna’s mRNA-1273 product induced salivary immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies against the COVID-19 causative agent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

From one of the excerpts I added in the op...

...
Conclusion
Histopathologic analysis show clear evidence of vaccine-induced autoimmune-like pathology in multiple organs. That myriad adverse events deriving from such auto-attack processes must be expected to very frequently occur in all individuals, particularly following booster injections, is self-evident.
...

On COVID vaccines: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination

Even the data from all over the world shows that the first vaccine seemed to be ok for most people. But the people who kept getting the second, third, and boosters the more people got boosters or other COVID-19 vaccines the more likely they developed serious side effects, including death. Not to mention the fact that the more COVID-19 vaccines/boosters people got the more likely they got infected even from the vaccine itself like Fauci admitted could happen...

Fauci Admits That Covid Vaccines May Actually Make People ‘Worse’ “...Not Be The First Time"

Here is a graph showing that people who got just one vaccine shot were for the most part okay, but when people started getting more COVID-19 shots/booster, the more they got the worse it got and the more people who keep getting serious side effects, including death...



In the above, the orange bars are people who got just one COVID-19 vaccine. The red bars is people who got a second dose, and as you can see getting the second vaccine only caused people to get worse.

Also, as you can see in the above graph, at first the unvaccinated were the ones getting sick, and probably hospitalized the most(Which this graph doesn't show but is a logical conclusion). But as time went on the immune system of the unvaccinated got stronger, and you can see that as their natural immunity kicked in the unvaccinated were getting less, and less sick or less needed to be hospitalized.(which these graphs don't show but is a logical conclusion) Meanwhile those who got a second dose were the ones getting sick the most.

Anyway, not only did you prove that you are unable to understand your own excerpts, but in fact the only one posting BS is you, as you keep on denying what the evidence from all over the world keeps saying...

I have written this several times, the more COVID-19 vaccines/booster people got the more overloaded their system gets and the worse they get and the more likely that people will not just get sick, but also the more likely they get serious side effects from the vaccines themselves as well as from COVID-19.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
Seems to be a bit of a thing on ATS that any thread with "Irrefutable Proof" or "100% Proof" in the title is never anything of the sort.

Like this one.

And every single time someone like you posts, you just make claims which you can't corroborate...

originally posted by: ntech
Considering what I know about the Biblical Apocalypse and the incredibly bad timing of the pandemic and the vaccines I would say this.

Covid appears to be an action of the pale horseman. But is his disease here the Covid? Or the vaccines?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could be both to be honest, although the vaccine will result in far, far more deaths than Covid. I know a number of people in the medical professions, with experience across the board. Most of them are way too scared to discuss what they are seeing openly, but many of them are considering their positions.

The damage done by the first two jabs is obvious in many, but not all recipients. Cumulative damage caused by boosters is becoming more obvious and issues are arising in those who received a booster early. A lot of auto immune problems are being seen, with patients displaying a variety of symptoms and conditions that are appearing due to severely weakened immune systems. As one of my friends said, ‘we are running out of fingers to plug the dam.’

The above is just my take and what I have heard, so take them with the usual caveats. However it does seem that we are on the edge of a truly perilous cliff.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: 1947boomer

Could these figures reflect behavioural patterns?

We see the infection rate rise for the double-dosed. Could that be because after 2 doses they wrongly assume they’re immune from infection? Whereas in reality they can still catch covid with the vaccine giving them more protection from severe illness. So these idiots stop distancing etc and get themselves and others around them infected.

Those with just one dose have the lowest infection rate of all. Imo that strengthens my theory…

If the vaccine was causing infection, then it’s far more likely those with 1 dose would have a higher, or at least the same infection rate as those with no doses. Instead it’s far lower… Why?

2 DOSES = believing they are immune, so their relaxed distancing and fewer covid symptoms causes more of them to be infected.

NO DOSES = more vulnerable to infection - plus a proportion of them have no doses because they don’t believe in covid, making them most likely of all to become infected.

1 DOSE = believing in covid enough to get a jab, but do not yet believe they have immunity until they get the second dose, so they will be the most careful demographic of all, resulting in the figures we see in the graph.


ETA: the point is that infection figures can’t give us an accurate picture of what’s happening because of the behavioural variables. Hospital admissions and moreover covid deaths are a more accurate picture. Though these figures are still vulnerable to human error and political/corporate manipulation.

Whether this is a plandemic is up for debate, but the corporate entities’ rush for the vaccines-forever goldmine is naive to deny.

a reply to: McGinty

Human behavioural differences in the different groups certainly have an influence in results but the graph is deliberate lying with numbers as it fails to show or mention the huge differences in populations of each of the three groups. Bayesian maths and Markovian probabilities are often used in models to provide upper and lower limits as people can be more or less likely to be tested if double jabbed which is where your logical/valid behaviour hypothesis would be applied.

Comprisons and conclusions can't be drawn unti data is standardised (per 100,000, per relative risk ratio) - unvaccinated only make up 9% of over 16s but make up over 37% of the cases, 6% are single jabbed but make up 8% and 85% double jabbed but but make up 55% of cases.

The graph has been distorted to make it look as if double jabbed have the highest rate of cases when infact the unvaccinated have by far the highest rate, and risk of infection and double jabbed have the lowest - but still needs relative risk and markovian/bayestian application.

in the UK there's a big link between being unvaccinated poverty/poor diet/lower life expectancy - Glasgiow has one of lowest life expectancies in the world with lower average life expectancy than Gaza, Iraq, Iran, North Korea - this can artificially inflate vaccine effectiveness figures.

As over 96% of over 40s are vaccinated/vaccination appoaches 100% it also distorts the data as both unvaccinated and single dosed are gradually tending to 0%/very small and shrinking population such data becomes more and more pone to distorion as the sample sizes become so small the results fluctuate massively week on week.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

The cloth masks and even surgical masks have holes that are 1,000 times larger than any virus yet people believe these masks protect them...

Someone has to have said it already (but seeing this level of stupid enrages me literally), but it shows the blatant misunderstanding and ignorance so many people have... yet somehow its the medical profession and those that back them that are the ignorant ones right?

You do understand that you dont actually breath out naked viral particals right? You do know what the majority of breath actually is made of and what medium within the exhaled breath is carrying the virus right? Breath out onto a cold mirror if your unsure...

... its water droplets, water droplets that are typically larger than the holes in the masks (and HUGE compared to the viruses within them), with each droplet possibly carrying a few hundred to few thousand of the virus (if any at all), your stopping the exhaled moisture and mucus droplets containing the virus not the actual virus itself. If you reduce the number of virus loaded water droplets by huge margins guess what... the chances of others getting it or you getting it from others goes down significantly.

But no, you probably see number A being the size of the virus and number b being the size of the pores in a mask and go... hurrr durrr mask no work i are smart!, without understanding or even WANTING to understand the large amount of other factors going into it.

God... honestly. This is first year High-school biology people, hell its bog standard logical inference.

a reply to: bastion

Yep, this too! There're so many variables at play in a pandemic that almost any graph is a misrepresentation.

They're inadequate as evidence to debunk the official narrative. However, they're no more adequate as evidence to support the official narrative.

Far more dependable imo is the inevitable gold rush of usual suspects answering the call of financial opportunity. This is why i don't trust the vaccines and i don't need graphs to prove it when there's already a long list of crony covid contracts linked to the UK gov in this disaster capitalism venture.

The Bush family helped Hitler with his venture and were they punished? No, they became presidents. I imagine the current profiteers are betting that people will be equally forgiving/amnesiac/distracted when the covid vaccine truth is released in 80 year, or whatever it'll be. What the truth will reveal is anyone's guess, but i'm sure it'll involve fudged testing, political bribery and a reluctance to completely vanquish covid thereby killing the golden goose.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I'm failing to find any evidence that this has been submitted for any kind of peer review, or even published through a mainstream source. I'm just getting clickbait sites and fake articles coming up.

Surely something of the magnitude would have at least been put through the system.

You are wasting your time (although I appreciate your efforts to educate people). Folks here are going to cling to the idea that vaccination against COVID=death.


In another thread, someone purported that after ninety days post-vaccination, one would be susceptible to all kinds of terrible things. I have been fully vaccinated since the last day of March, and...I am good to go. So are all the people in my life that have also been vaccinated.

It is always interesting to me that on ATS, there are SO many folks who talk about having "no fear" when the Government comes to take their guns, rights, freedoms, etc., but are absolutely petrified by a vaccination that has proven to work.

originally posted by: Thejaybird

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I'm failing to find any evidence that this has been submitted for any kind of peer review, or even published through a mainstream source. I'm just getting clickbait sites and fake articles coming up.

Surely something of the magnitude would have at least been put through the system.

I have been fully vaccinated since the last day of March, and...I am good to go. So are all the people in my life that have also been vaccinated.

Sorry to bust your happy bubble, but you don't mention if you've had your booster or 3rd jab. Because if you haven't, in some places, you are no longer regarded as vaccinated because the efficacy of just the first 2 jabs wears off by 6 months.

Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: bastion

Yep, this too! There're so many variables at play in a pandemic that almost any graph is a misrepresentation.

They're inadequate as evidence to debunk the official narrative. However, they're no more adequate as evidence to support the official narrative.

Far more dependable imo is the inevitable gold rush of usual suspects answering the call of financial opportunity. This is why i don't trust the vaccines and i don't need graphs to prove it when there's already a long list of crony covid contracts linked to the UK gov in this disaster capitalism venture.

The Bush family helped Hitler with his venture and were they punished? No, they became presidents. I imagine the current profiteers are betting that people will be equally forgiving/amnesiac/distracted when the covid vaccine truth is released in 80 year, or whatever it'll be. What the truth will reveal is anyone's guess, but i'm sure it'll involve fudged testing, political bribery and a reluctance to completely vanquish covid thereby killing the golden goose.

Congratulations! You win the Godwin's Law Prize.

Well done!

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: 1947boomer

Could these figures reflect behavioural patterns?

We see the infection rate rise for the double-dosed. Could that be because after 2 doses they wrongly assume they’re immune from infection? Whereas in reality they can still catch covid with the vaccine giving them more protection from severe illness. So these idiots stop distancing etc and get themselves and others around them infected.

Those with just one dose have the lowest infection rate of all. Imo that strengthens my theory…

If the vaccine was causing infection, then it’s far more likely those with 1 dose would have a higher, or at least the same infection rate as those with no doses. Instead it’s far lower… Why?

2 DOSES = believing they are immune, so their relaxed distancing and fewer covid symptoms causes more of them to be infected.

NO DOSES = more vulnerable to infection - plus a proportion of them have no doses because they don’t believe in covid, making them most likely of all to become infected.

1 DOSE = believing in covid enough to get a jab, but do not yet believe they have immunity until they get the second dose, so they will be the most careful demographic of all, resulting in the figures we see in the graph.


ETA: the point is that infection figures can’t give us an accurate picture of what’s happening because of the behavioural variables. Hospital admissions and moreover covid deaths are a more accurate picture. Though these figures are still vulnerable to human error and political/corporate manipulation.

Whether this is a plandemic is up for debate, but the corporate entities’ rush for the vaccines-forever goldmine is naive to deny.

Studies have shown that the spike protein can remain in the body for up to 9 months I think it was. I don’t remember where I read it. It might have been McCullough on Joe Rogan, so with each booster you are overloading your system before eliminating the spike.

a reply to: macaronicaesar

Dr Mcullough? The Cardiologist? This one?


healthfeedback.org... -pandemic-and-vaccines/

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: marg6043

The thing about the common cold is that it's been around for so long that most of us have some level of immunity against it, and that when it does mutate it doesn't effect us in a serious way.

By vaxxing and boosting the government aims to get us up to a similar level of immunity, so that it won't matter if covid mutates again in the future because our basic level of immunity will be sufficient to reduce it to a common cold level threat.

Just look at influenza. It decimated the native American population for a generation, but now they're as immune to it as everybody else. If they'd had a vax back then it would have been a couple of years rather than a decade.

It's the exact opposite. Vaccines do NOT produce herd immunity. Your pronouncements about colds and flus above are because people naturally got them and recovered. Vaccines have only EVER been used AFTER this has happened. There has NEVER been a vaccine for a new virus, never will be. The effectiveness of the flu shot (which is iffy at best) only lasts 10-14 months. GETTING the flu and recovering it lasts forever for the strain you got, and many mutations, then when you get a mutation that's mutated enough, sure you can get the flu again, but you've got partial immunity. That is what you're describing above, and it will never happen with Covid if people insist on vaccinating.

originally posted by: thebtheb

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: marg6043

The thing about the common cold is that it's been around for so long that most of us have some level of immunity against it, and that when it does mutate it doesn't effect us in a serious way.

By vaxxing and boosting the government aims to get us up to a similar level of immunity, so that it won't matter if covid mutates again in the future because our basic level of immunity will be sufficient to reduce it to a common cold level threat.

Just look at influenza. It decimated the native American population for a generation, but now they're as immune to it as everybody else. If they'd had a vax back then it would have been a couple of years rather than a decade.

It's the exact opposite. Vaccines do NOT produce herd immunity. Your pronouncements about colds and flus above are because people naturally got them and recovered. Vaccines have only EVER been used AFTER this has happened. There has NEVER been a vaccine for a new virus, never will be. The effectiveness of the flu shot (which is iffy at best) only lasts 10-14 months. GETTING the flu and recovering it lasts forever for the strain you got, and many mutations, then when you get a mutation that's mutated enough, sure you can get the flu again, but you've got partial immunity. That is what you're describing above, and it will never happen with Covid if people insist on vaccinating.

Oh. It "only lasts 12 to 14 months"?

That sounds good? No?

a reply to: BigfootNZ
Hurr durr Mr Bigfoot, u so smart!

I guess you took into account the fact that the water droplets rest on the mask, vaporize with your warm breath, THEN pass through as vapor correct? Wow!

First year high-school seems to be a place you never got to.

Bye bye now.