Mark Steyn Questions Why Young Healthy People Are Dying Across The UK

a reply to: Kurokage

So now you're a liar and you work for the NIH?

Why you...



A Fauci mouth piece right in our very midst!

A troll of the worst kind.

a reply to: Kurokage

the rise is around +1000 deaths even if split +500 for ambulance delays that 52k per year rise in under 65s while a bad flu year is 52k for the over 65s.. in a UK context this is catastrophic as you're talking workers rather than retirees, it also doesn't show lost workdays debt incured due to lost wages or the pressure it puts on the health and social services.

bottom line is this more than covid needs a war footing response otherwise this winter will serve a bill our society can not afford to pay..

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: Kurokage

except this interpretation of UK data is not incorrect we see similar interpretation acroos the board.. there is an issue and at present a clear argument as to causes on both left and right with many competing interests in-between as to which political party to affix the blame too..

as with everything today it boils down not to science but rather to politics and who can be blamed rather than what can we do to fix the issue..

UK health officials analyse recent rise in excess deaths

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care told The BMJ, “Analysis is ongoing, but early investigation suggests that circulatory diseases and diabetes may be partly responsible for the excess deaths. These latest results emphasise the importance of active management of cardiovascular risk, as there is good evidence that many cardiovascular deaths are potentially preventable.”

Patients with circulatory diseases, including heart attacks and strokes, have been particularly affected by very long waits for ambulances and emergency care, as well as delays in routine checks—all knock-on effects of the covid pandemic.

A recent briefing from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Office for National Statistics shows that the pandemic has had significant indirect effects on the diagnosis of some long term conditions, particularly coronary heart disease, asthma, and atrial fibrillation.2

You make some good points, and as the article states...

has had significant indirect effects on the diagnosis of some long term conditions, particularly coronary heart disease, asthma, and atrial fibrillation.

The very small rise can be due to alot of things, from missed diagnosis caused by untreated problems due to the telphone servicesGPs have been using since the pandemic and also other issues from long term from covvid infection.

Why haven't you gotten your 5 booster yet?

Wow, your fear of vaccines pushes you to make all kinds of stupid accusations doesn't it??
Please tell me my medical history and working history? You sure can make up some stories to back you rediculious claims.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Kurokage

So now you're a liar and you work for the NIH?

Why you...

A Fauci mouth piece right in our very midst!

A troll of the worst kind.

Trolls of the worst kind are people like you who follow like sheep and post lies and inaccuracies, to further a decitful agenda.
Please keep making yourself look even more foolish and post a link to where i say I work for the NIH?? When did they open up here in Great Britian?

Buy the way, you do know a MOD can look to see where I'm posting from and where I've been posting from for the last 16 years!

I bet you wont apologise for that lie, will you!! If you stoop any lower, your arse will be dragging on the floor.

a reply to: Kurokage

Your reputation around here is toast except with
your vaxx addict needle freak croannies.

You got nothing.

a reply to: Kurokage
What do you think about the change in recommendation, for pregnant women and breast feeding women, on the uk government website?

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Kurokage

Your reputation around here is toast except with
your vaxx addict needle freak croannies.

You got nothing.

Really and post again the proof you've added to the site??? Oh, thats right, you can't!!!

Your defence of a failed professor is worrying, maybe you should message him your feelings of love?!?!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Kurokage
What do you think about the change in recommendation, for pregnant women and breast feeding women, on the uk government website?

UK gov website.

I would say follow what your doctor says but the Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are a good site too

RCOG

They also have links to data from other website such as UKTIS and the British fertility Society.

a reply to: Kurokage

Don't blame me for knowing something smelly.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Kurokage

Don't blame me for knowing something smelly.

Whats that, your breath??

So you can't post a link to were I've lied then can you?!?
You can't post a link to a post were I say I work for some American company can you?!?!

I've never meet a person who is such a sheep that posts what another sheeps says without even checking if its true. You should go back to your circle jerk over Bhakdi.....

a reply to: Kurokage
Pregnant women were told they were in the high risk group and that it was safe.

Now it's changed to not recommended because of lack of data.

What do you think of that?

a reply to: Kurokage

I just looked at the link you replied with and notice that your uk government link is from April 2022.

Try reading the updated version 16 August 2022.
www.gov.uk... tech-covid-19-vaccine

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Kurokage
Pregnant women were told they were in the high risk group and that it was safe.

Now it's changed to not recommended because of lack of data.

What do you think of that?

Could you link to that or something?

This from the UKTIS site.

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and impacts on fertility
Unfounded claims have suggested that anti-S protein antibodies developed following COVID-19 vaccination may cross-react with the human placental protein syncytin-1, and thereby damage the placenta.[37] These claims are contradicted by several studies including findings from: i) animal DART studies[2-5]; ii) protein amino acid sequencing studies which show limited similarities between the S protein and syncytin-1[37]; and iii) a clinical observational study which found no significant difference in successful frozen embryo transfer between SARS-CoV-2 vaccine seropositive, infection seropositive and seronegative women.[38] Preliminary data describing fertility rates among women who received the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine in clinical trials also provide no evidence of impaired fertility following vaccination prior to conception.[34]

Heres a link to data from the UK goverment publishing service.

Link

The stillbirth rate for vaccinated women who gave birth (3.35 per 1,000, 95%CI 2.71 to 4.15)
was similar to the rate for unvaccinated women (3.60 per 1,000, 95%CI 3.40 to 3.81) giving birth
between January and August 2021 (Figure 6). In the same period, the proportion of vaccinated
women giving birth to babies with low birthweight (5.28%, 95%CI 5.01 to 5.57) was comparable
to the proportion for unvaccinated women (5.36%, 95%CI 5.29 to 5.44) (Figure 7). Similarly,
0.93% (95%CI 0.82 to 1.06) of vaccinated pregnant women and 0.80% (95%CI 0.77 to 0.83) of
unvaccinated pregnant women had a very low birthweight baby.
The proportion of women with premature births was 6.51% (95%CI 6.21 to 6.82) in vaccinated
women and 5.99% (95%CI 5.91 to 6.08) in unvaccinated women. The proportion of women with
very premature births was 1.71% (95%CI 1.55 to 1.88) in vaccinated and 1.74% (95%CI 1.70 to
1.79) in unvaccinated women. The proportion of women with extremely premature births was
1.09% (95%CI 0.97 to 1.23) in vaccinated women and 1.21% (95%CI 1.17 to 1.25) in
unvaccinated women

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Kurokage

I just looked at the link you replied with and notice that your uk government link is from April 2022.

Try reading the updated version 16 August 2022.
www.gov.uk... tech-covid-19-vaccine

Website not found......

a reply to: Kurokage

Yes I just clicked it and that's what it says now.....it was there yesterday and now it's gone.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Published 6 December 2020
Last updated 11 April 2022 +

This is from the site, it hasn't been updated since april.....

a reply to: Kurokage

Anybody employed by the NIH stinks to high heaven.

That's you.

a reply to: Kurokage

I wrote a post with quotes from the link before it was removed.....
You can read it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Kurokage

Anybody employed by the NIH stinks to high heaven.

That's you.

PLEASE POST A LINK to were i say I work for NIH!! Otherwise you keep making yourself look so foolish here.

I live in the Great Britain, and anyboby with even a tiny amount of intellect could see that on my Avatar. Even ask a Mod if you want, but when you're proven wrong you should be a man and apologize, but you wont will you, because you're not!!!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Kurokage

I wrote a post with quotes from the link before it was removed.....
You can read it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not calling you a lair but that text could be from anywhere.
If it is from the source you claim, then it was possibly removed because more data has become avalible, and will be posted very soon.
What people can't seem to grasp is that with any vaccine or medication there will be a number of side effects. People never read the information pamphlet that comes with any medication or vaccine, even simple painkillers can be dangerous to pregnent women.
I did post a link to week 47 of covid-19 vaccine surveillance report which has a section on pregnancy. There doesn't seem to be any real evidence of the vaccine effecting pregnancy, but more data could show any problems.