Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

originally posted by: G1111B1234
a reply to: chr0naut

lol lol lol you getting your statistics from Pfizer lol

Pfizer don't manufacture or sell masks.

I also didn't get any of my statistical data from Pfizer.

The masks were pointless and didn’t prevent anything lol, even with those masks the cough from someone would still travel all around the room you was in, they were completely useless.

Before the immunizations were available, there were three separate outbreaks of COVID-19 in New Zealand, that each time were brought to an end, totally eliminating the virus among the general public.

The only tools we had to achieve that were masks, hand sanitizer, and the social distancing of lockdowns. So they actually work - if everyone uses them properly.

I liked one thing about Covid , if there was ever a cue , I would cough and suddenly everyone would move lol.

So the people around you weren't social distancing and isolating, and you wonder why things weren't effective there? LOL. Were you even wearing a mask at the time?

It’s very strange having conflicting data from the governments and independent sources, it’s strange that other countries are having same problems.

The directives from health authorities were very clear and consistent. Even now they are saying the same thing. And this is true for countries around the world.

The reporting, reinterpretation and misinformation, primarily on the Internet, and very much predicated on political grounds, was what was conflicting.

Funny how they were saying how safe the vaccines were but mostly people who were vaccinated were in hospital and dying.

Unimmunized people are 19 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than immunized people.

As of May 11, 2024, the current coverage of up-to-date COVID-19 immunization in the USA is only 22.5%. So, basically the USA is, and always has been, mostly unimmunized against COVID-19: Weekly COVID-19 Vaccination Dashboard

The above two facts explain the death toll of COVID-19 in the USA, which currently stands at 1,168,021. (that's more than the number of Americans that died of the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, which is often used as a comparison).

It’s strange how now there’s so many young people having heart issues etc

Heart disease, even among young people, has been the primary cause of death in America for 100 years and, since 2009, has been reducing at a fairly steady rate, up until the pandemic caused a rise in cardiac disease (which started before the COVID-19 immunizations were available).

, it’s strange how they had to con people , bribe people , threaten people to take the shot , no offence but if you need those tactics then there’s something very wrong.

I totally agree. When people ignore the consensus opinion of dedicated credentialled professionals, academics and scientists, and instead place greater trust in semi-anonymous pundits of dubious credential on the Internet, because they have a general distrust of authority, then something is drastically wrong. Especially when they avoid life preserving advice in the face of great risk.

It's strange that people choose dangerous risks, based upon Internet doom-porn, that simply looking at the people around them IRL would completely disprove.

I’m sorry but the truth is slowly coming out and I’m so happy I was on the right side of history!!!
I do wonder why you’re even on this site to be honest.

As I have demonstrated with links to credible source data, the truth has always been out.

But with the burgeoning misinformation on the Internet (in line with a particular political campaign in 2016), people's manufactured distrust of authority has led to a situation where some cannot tell the difference between the credible truth with hard objective data, and a totally unfounded and unevidenced allegation.

I am on this site to communicate. I joined well before there was a pandemic, and well before the peak of the 2016 BS flood.

originally posted by: G1111B1234
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually most countries at the beginning had lower statistics over dearth’s etc accept some but they were using the wrong medications etc
As soon as the vaccines rolled out , boom

At the beginning, we had no medications at all, anywhere in the world, with any level of proven effect against COVID-19.

a reply to: chr0naut

At the beginning, we had no medications at all, anywhere in the world, with any level of proven effect against COVID-19.

You might not of had any medications as you put your trust in waiting for the vax. For those more interested in the science than big pharma agendas, this site started early 2020. Since then the evidence has only gotten stronger.

c19early.org

a reply to: chr0naut

You’re a fool, check the end of life policies were they were using inappropriate medications to treat covid

a reply to: chr0naut

I think you’ve for your head up your arse.
The masks on the WHO website show that the masks that were worn were not useful as they cannot prevent dust particles which are much bigger than the Covid particles .
I could say the same about taking the shot and trusting it.
I think you need to stop listening to right governments like a good person lol

originally posted by: G1111B1234
a reply to: chr0naut

You’re a fool, check the end of life policies were they were using inappropriate medications to treat covid

You mean inappropriate medications like HQC, bleach and Ivermectin?

Can you post a link to the specifics of what you alleged?

originally posted by: G1111B1234
a reply to: chr0naut

I think you’ve for your head up your arse.
The masks on the WHO website show that the masks that were worn were not useful as they cannot prevent dust particles which are much bigger than the Covid particles .
I could say the same about taking the shot and trusting it.
I think you need to stop listening to right governments like a good person lol

I cannot seem to find what you are talking about:

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: When and how to use masks - WHO

Can you please post a specific link that supports what you have alleged?

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

At the beginning, we had no medications at all, anywhere in the world, with any level of proven effect against COVID-19.

You might not of had any medications as you put your trust in waiting for the vax. For those more interested in the science than big pharma agendas, this site started early 2020. Since then the evidence has only gotten stronger.

c19early.org

The alleged effectiveness listed are all way below that of any of the immunizations.

I also thought that the anti-vaxxers reject the immunizations on the basis that they are not 100% effective? Nothing on the list gets even close to 75% efficacy.

a reply to: chr0naut

I believe someone did a post about it on here as well

a reply to: chr0naut

The alleged effectiveness listed are all way below that of any of the immunizations.

So you still buy the 95% relative effectiveness when the vax came out. Your body, your choice.

originally posted by: G1111B1234
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe someone did a post about it on here as well

Did they furnish a link in support of what they posted? There is a search facility on the site.

So, you should be able to source the the origin of what you seem to believe is true - perhaps you should try a web search for those specific words? That may also find the post here on ATS, too.

But my guess is that you or someone else made it up entirely, and you have never seen anything on an official WHO website that said that masks are ineffective, and that is why you cannot furnish a link to it.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

The alleged effectiveness listed are all way below that of any of the immunizations.

So you still buy the 95% relative effectiveness when the vax came out. Your body, your choice.

Yes. The efficacy in regard to the Alpha strain of SARS-CoV-2 was measured in a lab numerous times and the value was accurate in the peak efficacy period after immunization, however both immunized and natural immunity in regard to the SARS-Cov-2 virus wanes over a period of three to 12 months.

Also, it has become necessary to re-factor the mRNA, which has been done a couple of times already, to match changes in subsequent strains, as was expected (this is similar to what happens with influenza).

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes. The efficacy in regard to the Alpha strain of SARS-CoV-2 was measured in a lab numerous times and the value was accurate in the peak efficacy period after immunization

Yes. It was discussed on these boards at the time. The study for this 95% had a few hundred participants, Is was about 30 unvaccinated that got covid and 15 vaccinated that got it. To use a relative efficacy of 95% rather than the usual absolute efficacy of 1-2% was one of many sneaky adverting tricks used.

Nothing on the list gets even close to 75% efficacy.

It is a lot better than the 1-2% efficacy of the vaccination. A lot of these drugs have also been proven safe over time rather than the pages of side effects that Pfizer tried to suppress for 75 years.

a reply to: chr0naut

The alleged effectiveness listed are all way below that of any of the immunizations.

COVID VACCINE LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVE?!

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes. The efficacy in regard to the Alpha strain of SARS-CoV-2 was measured in a lab numerous times and the value was accurate in the peak efficacy period after immunization

Yes. It was discussed on these boards at the time. The study for this 95% had a few hundred participants, Is was about 30 unvaccinated that got covid and 15 vaccinated that got it. To use a relative efficacy of 95% rather than the usual absolute efficacy of 1-2% was one of many sneaky adverting tricks used.

Nothing on the list gets even close to 75% efficacy.

It is a lot better than the 1-2% efficacy of the vaccination. A lot of these drugs have also been proven safe over time rather than the pages of side effects that Pfizer tried to suppress for 75 years.

Relative risk was used as its the correct and appropriate measure in the circumstances.

Not as 'sneaky adverting'

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Not as 'sneaky adverting'

It has fooled chr0naut to use an relative efficiency for the vax when comparing to an absolute efficiency for the other treatments. Or is he just being sneaky too?

It is only appropriate to do such things when wanting to exploit the trust and push misleading information. How would the vax campaign go with headlines of vax 1% effective and only for a few months. Got that sneaky 'Safe' message too. It is only appropriate if you are a psychopathic, genocidal maniac.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Not as 'sneaky adverting'

It has fooled chr0naut to use an relative efficiency for the vax when comparing to an absolute efficiency for the other treatments. Or is he just being sneaky too?

It is only appropriate to do such things when wanting to exploit the trust and push misleading information. How would the vax campaign go with headlines of vax 1% effective and only for a few months. Got that sneaky 'Safe' message too. It is only appropriate if you are a psychopathic, genocidal maniac.

Advertising as 1% effective would be completely misleading.

ETA: I realised writing misleading above is itself misleading. The correct word is wrong.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Advertising as 1% effective would be completely misleading.

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Advertising as 1% effective would be completely misleading.

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

So 20 times the number of people who weren't vaccinated got infected. 95% effective, not 1%.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

So 20 times the number of people who weren't vaccinated got infected. 95% effective, not 1%.

In a pool over 40K participants, the vax was not effective in 95% of cases. Blatant lie. The more time goes on, the stronger the evidence grows that it is not safe either. Another blatant lie that was known at the start.