Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Personal anecdotes and bias.

Volunteering in a vaccine centre, I was one of the first to receive two doses of Pfizer’s messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine, at the end of January 2021. Although I knew my individual risk was small from COVID-19 at age 43 with optimal metabolic health, the main reason I took the jab was to prevent transmission of the virus to my vulnerable patients. During early 2021, I was both surprised and concerned by a number of my vaccine-hesitant patients and people in my social network who were asking me to comment on what I regarded at the time as merely ‘anti-vax’ propaganda.

I was asked to appear on Good Morning Britain after a previously vaccine-hesitant film director Gurinder Chadha, Order of the British Empire (OBE), who was also interviewed, explained that I convinced her to take the jab.

But a very unexpected and extremely harrowing personal tragedy was to happen a few months later that would be the start of my own journey into what would ultimately prove to be a revelatory and eye-opening experience so profound that after six months of critically appraising the data myself, speaking to eminent scientists involved in COVID-19 research, vaccine safety and development, and two investigative medical journalists, I have slowly and reluctantly concluded that contrary to my own initial dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is far from being as safe and effective as we first thought. This critical appraisal is based upon the analytical framework for practicing and teaching evidence-based medicine, specifically utilising individual clinical expertise and/or experience with use of the best available evidence and taking into consideration patient preferences and values.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think you have read it not that you know what you are talking about.

And here we are with the typical "insult the person because they don't agree with me" it didn't take you long did it!

You lose any argument straight away.

What insult? I don't think you have read it though. No insults are here. It has taken me long enough about 13 pages where in the last 3-4 I keep refuting a range of unsubstantiated claims such as the ones above.

not that you know what you are talking about.

Really? You're not trying to be insulting?
You're the typical anti-vaxer, you must all believe what I post with an opinion piece that doesn't have any actual data, then when people question you on it, you become insulting.
I read it and found it lacking any real data.

Ah I see! You don't have any arguments and are calling me anti-vaxxer. Expectable. It doesn't change much though as I have keep refuting the unsubstantiated claims made in this thread for a long time now.

What I have posted though shows precisely that your narrative isn't served in this case. On the other hand you still posting that the contributions at the end of the first page are the same as the conclusions. Simply because you haven't read the paper.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

People can read the article and judge for themselves.

It contains no research and is full of bias, personal anecdotes and subjective opinions.

People on this forum tend to read the clip note presented to them on bitchute, and not to read the actual articles.

The same is true with news stories. It's why you have people claiming that the vax reduces your immunity, based on them having seen an article on Infowars, which references a research paper that actually says that being overweight reduces the effectiveness of the vax.

Or why people here still think that the UK recently declared that the vax wasn't safe for children, when in actual fact all that happened was that a time-limited vax program stopped.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

In fact, the posts in this thread "refuting" the paper themselves appear to be full of bias and subjective opinions and lacking in any research.

I second this. If the Dr. is wrong, post his assertion and your rebuttal. Otherwise, what you're contributing is a subjective and biased opinion.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Personal anecdotes and bias.

Volunteering in a vaccine centre, I was one of the first to receive two doses of Pfizer’s messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine, at the end of January 2021. Although I knew my individual risk was small from COVID-19 at age 43 with optimal metabolic health, the main reason I took the jab was to prevent transmission of the virus to my vulnerable patients. During early 2021, I was both surprised and concerned by a number of my vaccine-hesitant patients and people in my social network who were asking me to comment on what I regarded at the time as merely ‘anti-vax’ propaganda.

I was asked to appear on Good Morning Britain after a previously vaccine-hesitant film director Gurinder Chadha, Order of the British Empire (OBE), who was also interviewed, explained that I convinced her to take the jab.

But a very unexpected and extremely harrowing personal tragedy was to happen a few months later that would be the start of my own journey into what would ultimately prove to be a revelatory and eye-opening experience so profound that after six months of critically appraising the data myself, speaking to eminent scientists involved in COVID-19 research, vaccine safety and development, and two investigative medical journalists, I have slowly and reluctantly concluded that contrary to my own initial dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is far from being as safe and effective as we first thought. This critical appraisal is based upon the analytical framework for practicing and teaching evidence-based medicine, specifically utilising individual clinical expertise and/or experience with use of the best available evidence and taking into consideration patient preferences and values.

If you think so then you should write to the journal and ask them to retract the paper.

Make a good case though as your personal takes isn't evidence. On the other hand Dr Malhotra has published and has been peer reviewed.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Personal anecdotes and bias.

Volunteering in a vaccine centre, I was one of the first to receive two doses of Pfizer’s messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine, at the end of January 2021. Although I knew my individual risk was small from COVID-19 at age 43 with optimal metabolic health, the main reason I took the jab was to prevent transmission of the virus to my vulnerable patients. During early 2021, I was both surprised and concerned by a number of my vaccine-hesitant patients and people in my social network who were asking me to comment on what I regarded at the time as merely ‘anti-vax’ propaganda.

I was asked to appear on Good Morning Britain after a previously vaccine-hesitant film director Gurinder Chadha, Order of the British Empire (OBE), who was also interviewed, explained that I convinced her to take the jab.

But a very unexpected and extremely harrowing personal tragedy was to happen a few months later that would be the start of my own journey into what would ultimately prove to be a revelatory and eye-opening experience so profound that after six months of critically appraising the data myself, speaking to eminent scientists involved in COVID-19 research, vaccine safety and development, and two investigative medical journalists, I have slowly and reluctantly concluded that contrary to my own initial dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is far from being as safe and effective as we first thought. This critical appraisal is based upon the analytical framework for practicing and teaching evidence-based medicine, specifically utilising individual clinical expertise and/or experience with use of the best available evidence and taking into consideration patient preferences and values.

If you think so then you should write to the journal and ask them to retract the paper.

Make a good case though as your personal takes isn't evidence. On the other hand Dr Malhotra has published and has been peer reviewed.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think you have read it not that you know what you are talking about.

And here we are with the typical "insult the person because they don't agree with me" it didn't take you long did it!

You lose any argument straight away.

What insult? I don't think you have read it though. No insults are here. It has taken me long enough about 13 pages where in the last 3-4 I keep refuting a range of unsubstantiated claims such as the ones above.

not that you know what you are talking about.

Really? You're not trying to be insulting?
You're the typical anti-vaxer, you must all believe what I post with an opinion piece that doesn't have any actual data, then when people question you on it, you become insulting.
I read it and found it lacking any real data.

Ah I see! You don't have any arguments and are calling me anti-vaxxer. Expectable. It doesn't change much though as I have keto refueling the unsubstantiated claims made in this thread for a long time now.

What I have posted though shows precisely that your narrative isn't served in this case. On the other hand you still posting that the contributions at the end of the first page are the same as the conclusions. Simply because you haven't read the paper.

First thing I noticed as well

So funny when they do precisely the thing they rail about.

I'll read the paper and get back to you with my impressions.

He doesn't need to as its a review article and as such his opinion is admissible.

It's not a research paper and as such not bound by the same rules of publication.

You are supposed to know that.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Personal anecdotes and bias.

Volunteering in a vaccine centre, I was one of the first to receive two doses of Pfizer’s messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine, at the end of January 2021. Although I knew my individual risk was small from COVID-19 at age 43 with optimal metabolic health, the main reason I took the jab was to prevent transmission of the virus to my vulnerable patients. During early 2021, I was both surprised and concerned by a number of my vaccine-hesitant patients and people in my social network who were asking me to comment on what I regarded at the time as merely ‘anti-vax’ propaganda.

I was asked to appear on Good Morning Britain after a previously vaccine-hesitant film director Gurinder Chadha, Order of the British Empire (OBE), who was also interviewed, explained that I convinced her to take the jab.

But a very unexpected and extremely harrowing personal tragedy was to happen a few months later that would be the start of my own journey into what would ultimately prove to be a revelatory and eye-opening experience so profound that after six months of critically appraising the data myself, speaking to eminent scientists involved in COVID-19 research, vaccine safety and development, and two investigative medical journalists, I have slowly and reluctantly concluded that contrary to my own initial dogmatic beliefs, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is far from being as safe and effective as we first thought. This critical appraisal is based upon the analytical framework for practicing and teaching evidence-based medicine, specifically utilising individual clinical expertise and/or experience with use of the best available evidence and taking into consideration patient preferences and values.

If you think so then you should write to the journal and ask them to retract the paper.

Make a good case though as your personal takes isn't evidence. On the other hand Dr Malhotra has published and has been peer reviewed.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

More scientific resesrch definitely needs to mention Good Morning Britain.

If he had been on Loose Women I would be 100% convinced.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Asmodeus3

In fact, those posts "refuting" the paper themselves appear to be full of bias and subjective opinions and lacking in any research.

I second this. If the Dr. is wrong, post his assertion and your rebuttal. Otherwise, this is a subjective and biased opinion.

They can't deal with a peer reviewed study. Which they now call a non study! The claims have been upgraded throughout the day. At the beginning one claimed Dr Malhotra hadn't published anything. This attempt failed.

Then that the study isn't peer reviewed
This attempt failed too

Now they claim this isn't a study and proper research.

Hilarious!

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Who said he hadn't published anything?

It's a legit peer reviewed study. The shills are strong in this thread and seem to all come out at the same time. What discord server are you guys coordinating on?

a reply to: nonspecific

Of course is a peer reviewed scientific research paper and not the views of a pedestrian.
That's why it was peer reviewed as such.
I did explain be you what the review is..

He doesn't have to do anything by the way.

Whoever has doubts about the quality of his paper can offer a rebuttal and not personal unsubstantiated opinions.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Look at the slop they've devolved the thread into. 5 pages of railing against an author and questioning its existence, validity, questions about what is a review define research is this peer review really as good as other peer reviews
"antivaxxr" thrown in for some laughs
Nothing at all regarding content.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Who said he hadn't published anything?

You have said that he hasn't published the paper he did earlier. And then you upgraded your argument that it's not a peer reviewed paper after it was made clear that he did publish the paper.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Look at the slop they've devolved the thread into. 5 pages of railing against an author and questioning its existence, validity, questions about what is a review define research is this peer review really as good as other peer reviews
"antivaxxr" thrown in for some laughs
Nothing at all regarding content.

It's just a massive defeat for them.
But I like to dismantle their arguments.
They are doing it quite a lot online presenting themselves as experts and gradually exposing themselves to the point they will doubt everyone and everything without any evidence and without any reasonable argument. No qualifications either but having a go against one of the top cardiologists seems to be a very unwise move.

Here are the results

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19. Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Who said he hadn't published anything?

You have said that he hasn't published the paper he did earlier. And then you upgraded your argument that it's not a peer reviewed paper after it was made clear that he did publish the paper.

Please link to where i said he hadn't published the paper.

You can say what you want and you can say it as many times as you want but the simple truth is that its a review article and not a study or a research paper.

Call me or others names if you like but it won't change the fact that you are either misunderstanding the difference or wilfully trying to deceive people.

As far as opinions go it's not a bad one but that's what it is.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

a reply to: zosimov

This!

You can’t put a value on human life, people in here arguing over the numbers need to remember there’s a person with a family who have lost a loved one.

In my own personal experience I’ve seen little difference in outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated when it comes to infections, symptoms or outcomes. Nobody can deny there’s been underhand and ridiculous tactics employed by governments to scare people into submission and they’ve clearly inflated the nature and severity of the virus in order to implement a nefarious agenda. Wether that agenda is simply a wealth transfer, a deliberate collapse of our economies to bring in a new global system or an attempt to depopulate is open to debate. I will say the poor are the ones suffering while billionaires reap the rewards. The profiteering by the vaccine manufacturers is outrageous, name a corporation that wouldn’t lie for a cool $100 billion on the balance sheet.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
It's a legit peer reviewed study. The shills are strong in this thread and seem to all come out at the same time. What discord server are you guys coordinating on?

They haven't provided any evidence other then showing how detached their arguments are from reality. Claiming there is no paper initially and then keep upgrading their arguments to: it's not a peer reviewed paper: to its not proper research: to Dr Malhotra is biased.

Laughable and self defeating.