Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

a reply to: Xtrozero

Lots of trial and error in all this, who is to blame for that?

Those that suppressed the science. Been a lot of voices raising warning flags when this started. Those that suppressed basic treatment. Those that bound up the hands of doctors from doing their job when getting great results. Those that knew the harms of this technology, but still changed the definitions, legislation, corporate policy and pushed their way to own it all while no questions allowed.

originally posted by: kwaka

Those that suppressed the science. Been a lot of voices raising warning flags when this started. Those that suppressed basic treatment. Those that bound up the hands of doctors from doing their job when getting great results. Those that knew the harms of this technology, but still changed the definitions, legislation, corporate policy and pushed their way to own it all while no questions allowed.

I think there was more ignorance and opinions labeled as facts. Fauci pulled his facts out of his butt each day and Trump pushed back just to get ridiculed, let the expert talk...

What science and basic treatment was suppressed?

originally posted by: 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.

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

People want to say it is not a vaccine to put further negative labels on it, but it is a vaccine, and there are many others like it. Smallpox is what is called a pure vaccine and there are only been 3 variances in the last 30,000 years. The smallpox shot has all three.

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 comes from an extended period of having the virus active in the body. Normally it is a couple of days up to less than a week. As you go past that your body is still being pumped full of the spike protein that is causing havoc on your system. Women get it much worse than men too. When we look at the unvacced they tend to carry the illness much longer. I had crewmembers down for 3 weeks seriously ill from COVID-19, I was sick for less than 2 days, and I am 64, they were in their early 40s at most.

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: chr0naut
Uh oh, this video proves you wrong - Quoth Fauci, "When people get the vaccine, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected."

The quote above is at 36 seconds in.

That one should be banned from forums were we talk Vaccine and Politics. He always has amnesia. We have shown these facts over and over and over. Mods could step in and call him a hoax and let him get a new account with a new email. The truth will still win out when the clone tries to repeat past lies are not lies and get burned again and again.

originally posted by: MetalThunder
Funny in the End We All Die
Business willing to tell You Different

I Will leave this life without being Fooled

Even have a commercial and dance ready for you

YOU ?

FREEDOM OVER fear

WAKE the F UP

"I get on my knees and pray, we don't get fooled again. NO!! NO!!"

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: kwaka

Those that suppressed the science. Been a lot of voices raising warning flags when this started. Those that suppressed basic treatment. Those that bound up the hands of doctors from doing their job when getting great results. Those that knew the harms of this technology, but still changed the definitions, legislation, corporate policy and pushed their way to own it all while no questions allowed.

I think there was more ignorance and opinions labeled as facts. Fauci pulled his facts out of his butt each day and Trump pushed back just to get ridiculed, let the expert talk...

What science and basic treatment was suppressed?

Well, the treatment suppressed you know already. You must not be thinking about that big issue with Joe Rogan for one on Ivermectin. Or remembering the other products they told the Dr's they weren't allowed to use. So, instead of the age old practice of your Dr prescribing his plan for your healing, they were cracking down on them for not doing it the WHO's prescribed treatment. That wasn't working and some Dr's said F U to them and gave their patients life. Things that were previously approved methods for other illnesses that involved humans taking those meds for literally decades with no side affects ever became overnight unsafe when that was a flat out 100% lie in everyway possible. That part should ring a bell for you now I hope!

a reply to: Xtrozero

What science and basic treatment was suppressed?

c19early.org

This site stared in early 2020. HCQ was the first to show efficacy. Since then many others have been proven.

originally posted by: Justoneman

Well, the treatment suppressed you know already. You must not be thinking about that big issue with Joe Rogan for one on Ivermectin.

Do you think studies take a week? There were reports, but it took a long time to get actual scientific data one way or the other. The fact that the left attacked it is another story, but there was nothing to suggest it did anything good or bad for two years.

As of Apr 2024, the FDA still says it is unknown... So you tell me...

This is from March 2022 when actual scientific data started to flow out. Many more followed the same results as this study.

NEJM

CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.

METHODS
We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

Download a PDF of the Research Summary.
RESULTS
A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.)

originally posted by: kwaka

This site stared in early 2020. HCQ was the first to show efficacy. Since then many others have been proven.

In the end not really... Go ahead and take all you want, I don't care... Even if it did, we are talking a couple of years to get out of the fringe (a clinic in India had great results) events and start to see real scientific data. It really doesn't hold up in the end either, but if you think it works have at it. The actual point was you don't just start taking things because somewhere you read it worked.

2023

Nature

William Makis MD and the suppressed Lancet study which has now been peer ŕeviewed



73.9% of deaths can be contributed to the covid vaccine www.thegatewaypundit.com...

The Lancet removed the original paper within 24 hours

Hands down the biggest blunder with the mrna shots was people lining up for first phase human trials, with no payment...
That's an awesome amount of money saved...

It's just such a shame rats can't consent, because as of now labrats are more expensive tham humans...

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Let me see if I understood it right.

They "searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023. All autopsy and necropsy studies that included COVID-19 vaccination as an antecedent exposure were included".

Does that mean that they analysed only death cases that were already possibly related to CoViD-19 vaccination? I suppose that's the case, as they have a table with the title:
"Characteristics of Included Autopsy and Necropsy Studies Examining Potential COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Deaths"

About the findings, they say:

Among the 240 deaths that have been adjudicated as being significantly linked to COVID-19 vaccination, most received a Sinovac vaccine (46.3%), followed by Pfizer (30.1%), AstraZeneca (14.6%), Moderna (7.5%), Johnson & Johnson (1.3%), and Sinopharm (0.8%)

Seeing that they also have this information about the 326 cases they studied:

Most received a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (41%), followed by Sinovac (37%), AstraZeneca (13%), Moderna (7%), Johnson & Johnson (1%), and Sinopharm (1%).

I suppose we can say that the most dangerous vaccine was Sinovac (inactivated virus), followed by Pfizer/BioNTech (mRNA) and AstraZeneca (viral vector), so it looks like the method of vaccination wasn't really the reason for the death, as the top three used three different methods.

Edited to add that the study is here.

a reply to: ArMaP

A study in Japan and south Korea of the over 65 age group who received 2 injections and the onset of dementia being up over 20 %
rumble.com... campaign=The%20People%27s%20Voice

Sorry for the late reply.

Those treatments were proven in a week. Yes they were.


Within a week or two some people I recall reported here did have no symptoms of their COVID. Yes.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Justoneman

Well, the treatment suppressed you know already. You must not be thinking about that big issue with Joe Rogan for one on Ivermectin.

Do you think studies take a week? There were reports, but it took a long time to get actual scientific data one way or the other. The fact that the left attacked it is another story, but there was nothing to suggest it did anything good or bad for two years.

As of Apr 2024, the FDA still says it is unknown... So you tell me...

This is from March 2022 when actual scientific data started to flow out. Many more followed the same results as this study.

NEJM

CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.

METHODS
We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

Download a PDF of the Research Summary.
RESULTS
A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.)

originally posted by: Justoneman
Sorry for the late reply.

Those treatments were proven in a week. Yes they were.

Within a week or two some people I recall reported here did have no symptoms of their COVID. Yes.

OK, not a real study so this would have a vast amount of confounding variables for many different reasons. The biggest problem was information bias, as in people only posted what they saw as a success based only on what some people said. As we moved into really scientific testing there ended up being nothing to support those initial posted reactions.

Real data results are very hard to achieve even doing it all with a real scientific study.

Now as to why the liberals went all crazy against all of it, who the hell knows? I think they used the vaccine and masks to virtue signal they were liberal.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

It's a video.

I don't watch videos.

originally posted by: Justoneman
Within a week or two some people I recall reported here did have no symptoms of their COVID. Yes.

When I got CoViD-19 I did nothing and stopped having symptoms after 3 days.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: stonerwilliam

It's a video.

I don't watch videos.

The video points out the doctors etc in Japan are not beholden to big pharma like in the west and are free to research and report what they see without fear of reprisal.

When they analysed the data by age and number of injections they discovered that those with 2 injections over the age of 65 were 20% more likely to develop dementia

a reply to: andy06shake

35 MILLION People have Died World Wide from the Adverse Effects of these FAKE " Vaccines " more Correctly described as mrna Gene Therapy's . SPIN That........

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Thanks.