Sudden Deaths More Than Double In Germany

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
Mr Andrew Bridgen MP speaks about it in parliament on the John Campbell video...... between the 5 minute mark to just after the 6 minute mark.

And as much as I unequivocally trust Tory MPs I would rather have a source for the number.

Maybe if I explain the issue.

Say seatbelts reduce the risk of death in high speed accident by 50%.

On any given day may chance of being in a high speed accident is low particularly today when it's really cold and I'm not planning on leaving the house.

However over my lifetime the chance is much higher, so wearing a seatbelt makes sense.


If the absolute risk of covid is based on a short period, particularly if it was during a period when cases are low generally then it doesn't tell you much about how effective the vaccines are.

That isnt to say absolute risk isn't important, if your lifetime risk of getting an infection uis small then that impacts the risk/benefit. However an absolute risk figure, quoted without context, is pretty meaningless.

The argument about seatbealts is a fallacy.
They (vaccines) would have been great if they had no serious adverse reactions and they could prevent transmission and infection.

But they do have serious adverse reactions. Seatbelts don't cause myocarditis, pericarditis, clots and auto-immune disorders among many other conditions and especially to young and healthy people who are miniscule chance of getting infected and die due to Covid.

It's ironic that you ask everyone else about sources when they provide nothing other than your false claims and you are constantly peddling the narrative which had collapsed long time ago.

I will provide sources to you when you do.

Otherwise there is, as I already said, no point in having a conversation as you continue to make false claims.

Everyone provides sources here. You provide the least ones and the most controversial. Earlier you linked Pfizer's website. Really?!
I see you are now engaging in further strawman arguments.

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 parts of the Phase3 clinical trials were successful completed?

Yet you still havent provided a source for your claim.

That's another strawman argument.

Do you know medium and long term effects?
How then can you claim that the vaccines are safe and effective or 'seatbelts'??

How absurd is this position.

I already know from previous threads that you don't know what a strawman argument is.

You don't need to remind me.

a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

Oh let me.
They reduce risk of infection by what factor?
They reduce the risk of disease by what factor? Is this the same as infection? Did u just need three things?
They have been tested on what the eight mice that all died? That is a fact. They approved a shot tested only on 8 mice and they all died.

Just for fun do you know the normal testing procedures?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

The don't prevent transmission or infection and they don't significantly reduce them. So again you are wrong as these are my arguments.

1)Show me where they have been tested and found to prevent transmission and infection.

2) Show me where they have been tested and significantly reduce transmission and infection.

To remind you they forgot to test for transmission. Prizer has admitted it. So you are making false claims.

You have no evidence at all and you are in a constant denial.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

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.

What are the medium and long term effects?
Do you know?

How can you claim they are safe and effective?
You have no evidence

a reply to: Asmodeus3

One of the rules for effective disinformation:

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Happening all over the world, but how does it killing off easily controlled people backfire? Who's left to see it all...

a reply to: ScepticScot

And as one other member said in another thread about someone else who was engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism

You are defending Pfizer by proxy. And you're stretching out towards infinity to deny that these experimental Covid drugs aren't the reason for massive debilitating side effects being reported on an unprecedented scale, which is also defending Pfizer and Moderna even if you didn't intend it that way, that is the bottom line.

I don't think sudden and unexpected deaths as well as excess deaths can be explained on the basis of climate change and the orbital speed of earth.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Asmodeus3

One of the rules for effective disinformation:

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Yeah! We have all noted this!
He is unwilling and unable to answer any questions posed. Asked if he knows the medium and long term effects he remains silent. The benefit to risk ratio for all age groups. He again remains silent.

One of his posts is Pfizer's website!!! As absurd as it gets. The company has been convicted repeatedly for fraud and other serious offences paying billions in criminal fines.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry, I don't understand what you meant when you wrote this:

If your are saying the absolute risk is from the initial vaccine studies then that is highly misleading as to your real of catching covid.

Can you say more please?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

The don't prevent transmission or infection and they don't significantly reduce them. So again you are wrong as these are my arguments.

1)Show me where they have been tested and found to prevent transmission and infection.

2) Show me where they have been tested and significantly reduce transmission and infection.

To remind you they forgot to test for transmission. Prizer has admitted it. So you are making false claims.

You have no evidence at all and you are in a constant denial.

They didn't forget. Unless you can provide a source fthen for that claim then you are lying (again)

Also you do understand there is a difference between not being studied prior to the approval and not being studied at all?

www.bmj.com...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry, I don't understand what you meant when you wrote this:

If your are saying the absolute risk is from the initial vaccine studies then that is highly misleading as to your real of catching covid.

Can you say more please?

Sure.

The studies where undertaken over a set time period when there were restrictions to prevent the spread of covid.

The reduction in absolute risk is the chance of getting covid during that time period. It doesn't tell you what the benefit or not being vaccinated is over time, especially when most or all restrictions don't apply.

That is why vaccine efficency is a measure of relative risk.

Absolute risk is still important to know. We might develop a 100% effective risk for ebola but, given the very low risk of ever coming into contact with it in most countries, the benefit might not be there.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

so if you get the shot, and you get covid, you will be less sick, than if you didn't get the shot, and got covid, is that what you are saying here?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

The don't prevent transmission or infection and they don't significantly reduce them. So again you are wrong as these are my arguments.

1)Show me where they have been tested and found to prevent transmission and infection.

2) Show me where they have been tested and significantly reduce transmission and infection.

To remind you they forgot to test for transmission. Prizer has admitted it. So you are making false claims.

You have no evidence at all and you are in a constant denial.

They didn't forget. Unless you can provide a source fthen for that claim then you are lying (again)

Also you do understand there is a difference between not being studied prior to the approval and not being studied at all?

www.bmj.com...

They couldn't test for transmission as they were moving at the speed of 'science'

Great!!! The speed of science is too fast for anything to happen. If you are moving at the speed of 'science' you don't need to check for transmission or for anything else.

'Chris Stokel-Walker, freelance journalist...
This is the author of your BMJ letter to the editor. And a graduate with a degree in Arts!
What does he know about transmission and infection? Or about anything else? Comedy gold!

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

Oh let me.
They reduce risk of infection by what factor?
They reduce the risk of disease by what factor? Is this the same as infection? Did u just need three things?
They have been tested on what the eight mice that all died? That is a fact. They approved a shot tested only on 8 mice and they all died.

Just for fun do you know the normal testing procedures?

Source for your claim that it was tested only on 8 mice.

Spoiler alert. You don't have one as that isn't true.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Down the bottom you will see sources.

Still no links for your claim? Why is that I wonder?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

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 the phase3 trial was successfully completed.

Look up on the 'prevention" part. Do they prevent transmission and infection? No.
Do they prevent disease? No.
Have they been tested? No

They reduce risk of infection.
They reduce risk of disease.
They have been tested.

More false claims from you.

so if you get the shot, and you get covid, you will be less sick, than if you didn't get the shot, and got covid, is that what you are saying here?

On average less likely to catch it.

On average less likely to be seriously ill if you do.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry, I don't understand what you meant when you wrote this:

If your are saying the absolute risk is from the initial vaccine studies then that is highly misleading as to your real of catching covid.

Can you say more please?

Sure.

The studies where undertaken over a set time period when there were restrictions to prevent the spread of covid.

The reduction in absolute risk is the chance of getting covid during that time period. It doesn't tell you what the benefit or not being vaccinated is over time, especially when most or all restrictions don't apply.

That is why vaccine efficency is a measure of relative risk.

Absolute risk is still important to know. We might develop a 100% effective risk for ebola but, given the very low risk of ever coming into contact with it in most countries, the benefit might not be there.

It is misleading to talk about relevant risk only. And this is what most do. The absolute risk is equally important if not most important as a number.

I still have doubts whether you can distinguish between relevant and absolute risk.

It seems like the German guy doing the research didn't had a clue what he was doing (or he did in which case he was misleading on purpose..)

The apparent increase is “a logical consequence of the data selection and methodologically known as the cohort effect,” says von Stillfried. The AfD member of the Bundestag Martin Sichert requested billing data from the KBV for certain groups of insured persons – according to the following selection criterion: insured persons who visited a doctor in 2021.

In previous years, these insured persons could not provide diagnosis codes for accounting for a death. For a very simple reason: you were still alive – and only just visited a doctor in 2021, who billed the health insurance company for this.

germany.detailzero.com...