Sudden Deaths More Than Double In Germany

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Does it stop people catching it?

It reduces the likelihood of catching it.

By how much? Everyone seems to be transmitting easily and getting infected easily. Which studies show that it reduces transmission and Infection significantly?

Why you just diregard them anyway.

I understand you don't have much to support your arguments other than attempts to defend Pfizer and the others Pharmaceutical companies. There is no need to waste your time here. This is s lost cause for you.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your source said there were no major safety concerns......

Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Does it stop people catching it?

It reduces the likelihood of catching it.

By how much? Everyone seems to be transmitting easily and getting infected easily. Which studies show that it reduces transmission and Infection significantly?

Why you just diregard them anyway.

I understand you don't have much to support your arguments other than attempts to defend Pfizer and the others Pharmaceutical companies. There is no need to waste your time here. This is s lost cause for you.

I will happily provide a link as soon as you do for your claim on onward transmission.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your source said there were no major safety concerns......

Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

Because those things are so rare they don't show up in testing.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Does it stop people catching it?

It reduces the likelihood of catching it.

By how much? Everyone seems to be transmitting easily and getting infected easily. Which studies show that it reduces transmission and Infection significantly?

Why you just diregard them anyway.

I understand you don't have much to support your arguments other than attempts to defend Pfizer and the others Pharmaceutical companies. There is no need to waste your time here. This is s lost cause for you.

I will happily provide a link as soon as you do for your claim on onward transmission.

You provided this link which is more than enough.

Data demonstrate vaccine was well tolerated across all populations with over 43,000 participants enrolled; no serious safety concerns observed; the only Grade 3 adverse event greater than 2% in frequency was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0%

No serious safety concerns observed. Really?!


Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

So either there was no real phase 3 clinical trial or they have made fraudulent claims or both.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your source said there were no major safety concerns......

Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

Because those things are so rare they don't show up in testing.

Really?!

What about them not being able to have phase3 clinical trials due to the lack of time.

What about the medium and long term effects? How do they know but yet still release the vaccine into the general population. What about the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Does it stop people catching it?

It reduces the likelihood of catching it.

By how much? Everyone seems to be transmitting easily and getting infected easily. Which studies show that it reduces transmission and Infection significantly?

Why you just diregard them anyway.

I understand you don't have much to support your arguments other than attempts to defend Pfizer and the others Pharmaceutical companies. There is no need to waste your time here. This is s lost cause for you.

I will happily provide a link as soon as you do for your claim on onward transmission.

You provided this link which is more than enough.

Data demonstrate vaccine was well tolerated across all populations with over 43,000 participants enrolled; no serious safety concerns observed; the only Grade 3 adverse event greater than 2% in frequency was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0%

No serious safety concerns observed. Really?!


Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

So either there was no real phase 3 clinical trial or they have made fraudulent claims or both.

Still no link for your claim.

We can confidently disregard it then as something you made up (again).

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your source said there were no major safety concerns......

Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

Because those things are so rare they don't show up in testing.

Really?!

What about them not being able to have phase3 clinical trials due to the lack of time.

What about the medium and long term effects? How do they know but yet still release the vaccine into the general population. What about the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?

More false claims.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your source said there were no major safety concerns......

Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

Because those things are so rare they don't show up in testing.

Really?!

What about them not being able to have phase3 clinical trials due to the lack of time.

What about the medium and long term effects? How do they know but yet still release the vaccine into the general population. What about the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?

More false claims.

The false claims came from the pharmaceuticals that presented their products as safe and effective.

Do you know the medium and long term effects?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your source said there were no major safety concerns......

Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

Because those things are so rare they don't show up in testing.

Really?!

What about them not being able to have phase3 clinical trials due to the lack of time.

What about the medium and long term effects? How do they know but yet still release the vaccine into the general population. What about the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?

More false claims.

The false claims cane from the pharmaceuticals that presented their products as safe and effective.

Do you know the medium and long term effects?

Sorry I see no point having a further discussion with someone who makes unsupported claims.

Let me know when you either provide a link to your claim about onward transmission or admit you made it up.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction was found to be 0.84%.........119 people had to be injected to prevent 1 infection.
It was sold to the people as 95%
relative risk reduction.

Because 95 sounds a whole lot better than 0.84, doesn't it?

I am listening to John Campbells latest video where he shows Mr Andrew Bridgen MP speaking in Parliament....and I have only got to the 6 minute mark...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction was found to be 0.84%.........119 people had to be injected to prevent 1 person from catching it.
It was sold to the people as 95%
relative risk reduction.

Because 95 sounds a whole lot better than 0.84, doesn't it?

I am listening to John Campbells latest video where he shows Mr Andrew Bridgen MP speaking in Parliament.

Absolute risk over what period?

a reply to: ScepticScot
Watch the John Campbell video with Norman Fenton......or the Mr Andrew Bridgen MP one, if you really want to know more.......so you can completely understand.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Watch the John Campbell video with Norman Fenton......or the Mr Andrew Bridgen MP one, if you really want to know more.......so you can completely understand.

I rarely watch videos.

I assume he sources the numbers, what's the source for the absolute risk number?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your source said there were no major safety concerns......

Yes....apart from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, autoimmune disorders, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, strokes, heart attacks, sudden deaths, etc.

Because those things are so rare they don't show up in testing.

Really?!

What about them not being able to have phase3 clinical trials due to the lack of time.

What about the medium and long term effects? How do they know but yet still release the vaccine into the general population. What about the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?

More false claims.

The false claims cane from the pharmaceuticals that presented their products as safe and effective.

Do you know the medium and long term effects?

Sorry I see no point having a further discussion with someone who makes unsupported claims.

Let me know when you either provide a link to your claim about onward transmission or admit you made it up.

You see no further point when your arguments have been refuted. In reality toy cannot support anything that you say and creating strawman arguments here and there.

The unsupported claims have come entire from the pharmaceuticals, the state, and their cronies.

Remember the campaign to save granny? How can you save granny when these products don't prevent transmission and Infection and don't even reduce them at least at a significant level. What an absurd campaign!!

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

Phase3 never happened.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Norman Fenton explains what absolute and relative risk actually mean......shows diagrams and everything.

If you want to understand then watch and learn from him.

Or you can continue to assume.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Watch the John Campbell video with Norman Fenton......or the Mr Andrew Bridgen MP one, if you really want to know more.......so you can completely understand.

I rarely watch videos.

I assume he sources the numbers, what's the source for the absolute risk number?

You don't watch it read anything as it seems. But you only engage in vaccine apologetics and defending the pharmaceuticals.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

Which part of this phase was successful?
Testing for transmission and infection? Establishing the short, medium, and long term effects? Establishing the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups?

Nothing happened as we all know.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Norman Fenton explains what absolute and relative risk actually mean......shows diagrams and everything.

If you want to understand then watch and learn from him.

Or you can continue to assume.

I already understand what they mean.

Thats why I am asking for the time period.

It seems reasonable request to provide a source for a specific number.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Absolute risk reduction was found to be 0.84%.........119 people had to be injected to prevent 1 person from catching it.
It was sold to the people as 95%
relative risk reduction.

Because 95 sounds a whole lot better than 0.84, doesn't it?

I am listening to John Campbells latest video where he shows Mr Andrew Bridgen MP speaking in Parliament.

Absolute risk over what period?

I am sure you can make the distinction between absolute and relative risk.

Do you know the medium and long term effects? You should do if you claim that the vaccines are safe and effective.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Norman Fenton explains what absolute and relative risk actually mean......shows diagrams and everything.

If you want to understand then watch and learn from him.

Or you can continue to assume.

I already understand what they mean.

Thats why I am asking for the time period.

It seems reasonable request to provide a source for a specific number.

I doubt that it do understand what relative and absolute risk means.

You are struggling to understand what prevention of diseases means when it comes to vaccines