Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

This case if from the 9th circuit of the Federal court. Reading through the remarks of the Justices at the end, most of them are going, we have a problem. I can see court cases going on around this for another 20 years. The tone that a court like this is setting on the matter provides some hope that reason will win in the end.

a reply to: chr0naut

Most of the people who died of COVID-19 did so due to a cytokine storm where an overstimulated immune system responds inappropriately, doing far too good a "fantastic job" that it begins attacking essential cells,

Do you appreciate just how much foreign mess these bodies have to put up with through out our life? All the different crap we eat, breath, touch and inject? The B and T cells are the two main branches that a new white blood cell takes. Build or Terminate. There are many different variations and over time each cell will specialize to a specific foreign function.

In the early days of this, lots of reports of a cytokine storm storm. The immune system can do a lot of damage as an autoimmune condition takes hold. With some conditions, antibodies will be made that also attack the body. There is a war on. Once the threat is over it will stop production and repair what is left, if anything.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

But immunizations (of any kind) aren't that great at preventing infections, because they prime the immune system to fight infections after the infection occurs. So a measure of how many infections are prevented isn't particularly relevant because that's just not how immunization works.

Breaking! COVID mRNA Jabs Are NOT Vaccines, Court Rules

COVID shots were claimed to "reduce symptoms" and prevent hospitalization… Those claims make it a TREATMENT.

I can only find that the judge has allowed the argument in appeal, not that the judge has ruled on its validity.

I suspect that this group (and other anti-vax groups like FLCCC), have not made any mention of the numerous cases they have already lost in the attempt to legitimize their ethos.

But they have a right to appeal, and this specific case is an appeal against a judgement they have previously lost.

It isn't a legal victory for anyone at the moment, but does speak to the fairness of current legal process.

It is no longer a covid vaccination, but now a covid treatment. You are right about the covid treatment not preventing infections. Immunizations where accepted is because they do prevent disease.

No, it is by legal, scientific, dictionary and medical definition still a 'vaccine'. I don't think a judge has the authority to change that.

But I would argue that the only true vaccine is one made from the vaccinia virus, namely, the smallpox vaccine.

Other immunizations made on the basis of other source organisms, source genomes, or chemically compounded, should all be more accurately described as immunizations or inoculations. But Murrica! The great plebian mass, educated by their shared ignorance and online radicalization, has spoken!

FLCCC

Getting the Andrew Wakefield treatment too?

Oh, absolutely! A fraud being exposed, just like all the other exposed fraudsters.

That's a very vague non-answer. I was hoping you had definite numerical values for things, and some sort of valid reason for those values.

Hard to get a clear number with the information war going on with new technology.


Funny, the FDA, academic research, pharma labs, bio-scientists and epidemiologists don't seem to be having any troubles getting consistent, repeatable, specific results?

and Looks like a good chunk dealing with recurrent covid and long covid are treatment damaged. If the concept of negative efficacy don't work for you, call it a detrimental rate.

Long COVID was observed prior to the immunizations. There is no reason to assume it is from the immunizations when you look at the cumulative numbers of cases and extrapolate that a small number of those cases are the genesis of long COVID.

Long COVID has only been observed after COVID-19 infection, I have not heard of it being observed post inoculation in people who have never had COVID-19.

Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations

Immunization seems to provide partial protection against long COVID with a reduced risk of between 15% to 41%.

I don't know anyone who avoided the jab not regretting it.

Some of them are dead or have ongoing issues such as long COVID, so there's that.

I do know lots who got it regretting it with more going that way over time. If I had to put a number on it, done a 100x bad than good when looking at the long term implications and other options available.

I and my wife are fully immunized and boosted and we don't regret it at all.

When I did get COVID-19, it was quite mild, despite the fact that I have several risk factors (my wife was initially hospitalized, but was released the next day and was fully recovered in three days. My recovery took 7 days).

When a second bout of COVID occurred in my direct family, I did not get it at all, and neither did my wife, despite very close contact.

In the last 12 months, several of my health indicators (such as serum HBA1C) have improved markedly. I have had one transient illness of gastric flu or a cold, but I recovered pretty quickly there, too.

In the period after the immunization, I have felt healthier than I have been for years, but that could have been due to lifestyle changes where I was walking in excess of 6,000 steps per day.

edit on 2024-06-10T17:52:31-05:0005Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:52:31 -050006pm00000030 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

a reply to: PrivateAngel

" Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths "


Ah , in Retrospect Now after 4 Years of LIES by TPTB , and All the Real Data showing Severe Impacks on the Heart Valvues of those who Received Multiple Vaccinations , Ya Think ?

a reply to: chr0naut

No, it is by legal, scientific, dictionary and medical definition still a 'vaccine'. I don't think a judge has the authority to change that.

A judge, like many other people can look at how the definition of a vaccination was changed prior to the mRNA treatment rollout so it could use the legislative benefits by calling its self a vaccination.

The test of time has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that immunity is not present with mRNA treatment. With the current definition of a vaccination, Ivermectin and Vitamin D are also classified as vaccines as they also provide a benefit and limit symptoms. What a sticky situation to throw some word salad around.

Oh, absolutely! A fraud being expose

You want to turn your back on the doctors getting great results during a difficult time, good luck with that.

Some of them are dead or have ongoing issues such as long COVID, so there's that.

COVID-19 HUMANITY BETRAYAL MEMORY PROJECT

The Australia Senate does have an inquiry going on into excess mortality,
link

Terms of Reference

Excess Mortality with particular reference to:

(a) Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing excess deaths in recent years, with particular reference to:

(i) all-cause provisional mortality data reported by the states and territories to the ABS, and

(ii) the difference between all-cause provisional mortality data for 2021, 2022 and 2023 and the preceding years of 2015 to 2020 (inclusive);

(b) factors contributing to excess mortality in 2021, 2022 and 2023;

(c) recommendations on how to address any identified preventable drivers of excess mortality; and

(d) any other related matter.

The next public meeting is a couple of days, 13 Jun 2024 in Canberra.

originally posted by: kwaka
The Australia Senate does have an inquiry going on into excess mortality,
link

Terms of Reference

Excess Mortality with particular reference to:

(a) Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing excess deaths in recent years, with particular reference to:

(i) all-cause provisional mortality data reported by the states and territories to the ABS, and

(ii) the difference between all-cause provisional mortality data for 2021, 2022 and 2023 and the preceding years of 2015 to 2020 (inclusive);

(b) factors contributing to excess mortality in 2021, 2022 and 2023;

(c) recommendations on how to address any identified preventable drivers of excess mortality; and

(d) any other related matter.

The next public meeting is a couple of days, 13 Jun 2024 in Canberra.

I think they will probably consider these statistics:

Measuring Australia's excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic until the first quarter 2023.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, absolutely! A fraud being exposed

From another recent court ruling from the 5th circuit:

Ho expressed concern about the allegations of a government-led censorship campaign, noting that the issues at the heart of the case, such as COVID-19 policies and abortion, are “far from scientifically settled as Defendants claim” and “should remain the subject of open and rigorous discussion — not self-censorship and cancellation.”

In Win Against Censorship, Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Doctors Who Allege Medical Boards Violated First Amendment

I do agree that the fraud is being exposed.

originally posted by: kwaka
With the current definition of a vaccination, Ivermectin and Vitamin D are also classified as vaccines as they also provide a benefit and limit symptoms.

What is the current definition of a vaccination?

a reply to: ArMaP

What is the current definition of a vaccination?

The current definition on a CDC web page last updated in September 2021 reads: “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

The latest CDC definition is absent the word “immunity” and just focuses on the stimulation of the body’s immune response.

Source

There where some threads here on it at the time.

a reply to: chr0naut

How about you read other posts or research it as you bore me with how little you know

a reply to: kwaka

Thanks.

originally posted by: G1111B1234
a reply to: chr0naut

How about you read other posts or research it as you bore me with how little you know

Well clearly from my posting history in response to others, I do read quite a few other posts. So your assertion that I haven't read other posts is not well reasoned.

Just like your assertion that I got my data from Pfizer (when I have clearly linked my data sources most times).

And I think that you are misunderstanding medicines and procedures that are medical 'last resorts'.

When a doctor doesn't have any workable and reliable treatments, and their patient is already dying, they can try things that have a high degree of risk, if the patient, or someone with their power of attorney, gives consent.

The consent part is important, because the doctors and hospitals don't want to get a malpractice suit against them.

Anti-vax and plandemicists never make any mention of the informed consent in such cases, because it demolished their BS accusations that the care givers are not applying their utmost efforts to achieve the best outcome for the patient, within the limits of their capability.

That people would accuse compassionate and caring medical staff of trying to do things to hurt or kill their patients, and then to ruin their lives with untrue online smear campaigns, is obscenely evil.

a reply to: chr0naut

That people would accuse compassionate and caring medical staff of trying to do things to hurt or kill their patients, and then to ruin their lives with untrue online smear campaigns, is obscenely evil.

That is what happened to the American Frontline Doctors, FLCCC and others.

The financial conflicts of interest with the Remdesiver and Ventilator protocol while restricting a lot of common treatments for respiration conditions was a travesty.

In this cohort study of pediatric enrollees in 3 commercial health insurance databases, we detected a statistical signal for myocarditis or pericarditis in older children, which is consistent with existing literature, and a new statistical signal for seizure in young children, which is being further evaluated in a more robust study.

Safety of Ancestral Monovalent BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 Vaccines in US Children Aged 6 Months to 17 Years

a reply to: chr0naut

How was it consensual ? When they’re bribing or threatening or not giving all information.
You’re a fool in believing the government , but what ever makes you happy , mug.

EXCESS MORTALITY Senate Community Affairs References Committee Parliament of Australia 13 June 2024 LIVE Stream 10:15-4:15 AEST

Facebook Link

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is getting a hard time for doing a rubbish job. They acknowledge 16 people dying from the vaccination. With all the rest they are considering died with or from covid side effects. Despite having all the data on the vaccination register, they have not looked at it.

I expect the Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly don't want to look at the data the way Barry Young from New Zealand looked at it either. For now the government is still in go slow mode, dragging its feet and wanting to protect all the new investment in mRNA.

On the economic side, maybe there is a big saving by no longer having big, complex drug production facilities. Turn people into their own drug production facility with one method and a bit of software, make whatever drug you want all at the same low cost.

With the cost of 10% excess mortality maybe it is more about depopulation as the interest compounds? How a novel technology is assumed to be safe and effective to such an extent has evil working that ignorance as hard as it can.

originally posted by: andy06shake

John is a retired nurse educator and not a proper medical Doctor, so there is that.

He is really good at stringing correlations together, but then his assumption is they are always causation too. He already has an end state decided before he starts, and it always leads to the vaccine and nothing else as that is his plan.

The spike protein in the vaccine is nothing compared to the actual virus, so we could say the vaccine is not good if it is mandated for all since so many didn't need it in the first place, and they didn't need any extra risks, but outside of that it was good for many high-risk people. The real virus spike protein and long COVID is no joke.

So yes, mistakes were made, a good many... Fauci was an idiot from day one, and the left went all totalitarian on us, but to suggest years later any excessive deaths still from the vaccine years ago they better bring a lot to the table to prove that.

originally posted by: kwaka

That is what happened to the American Frontline Doctors, FLCCC and others.

The financial conflicts of interest with the Remdesiver and Ventilator protocol while restricting a lot of common treatments for respiration conditions was a travesty.

They were learning in real-time. The ventilators were a good example in once a person got on one it was basically a death sentence, and over time, they learned that people in extreme conditions did much better if they were put on their stomachs instead. Lots of trial and error in all this, who is to blame for that?

a reply to: Xtrozero

The spike protein in the vaccine is nothing compared to the actual virus

I disagree. Some of the genetic engineering that went on with its lab origin was around the spike. The spike is part that interacts with the ACE2 and other cell receptor sites. Being smaller than the virus it can also go deeper into other cellular processes causing interference. If someone with lots of spikes floating around gets covid, there are more spikes available to build more virus quicker.

It does look like the immune system is doing a good job in killing any cells that do go off the reservation and start making toxins like spike proteins. Part of why so many boosters are needed. This does cause problems when too many heart cells get reset with the young and other athletes having heart attacks. Other conditions with other cells.