Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

originally posted by: kwaka
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.

Your own link shows that it was.

8 infections v 160.

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.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

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

COVID VACCINE LESS THAN 1% EFFECTIVE?!

The presenter of this video wants us to include people who didn't get infected at all. Surely you can't show any effectiveness of the immunization if you are looking at people who just didn't get infected at all?

It's a no-brainer that people who have not been exposed to the virus and infected, will get no advantage from the immunization.

You need to measure the reduction in infections compared to those who did get infected - the relative risk.

Otherwise all you would be measuring is the relative number of participants in the studies, not the effectiveness of the immunization - the larger the study, the smaller the inferred absolute risk.

It is clear that the presenter of this video has not figured that out.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

Why in the paper linked was only the first dose showing any actual safety signals, but in later doses/boosters, there were no safety signals and everything was predominantly green on all different types of immunizations?

Keep a heads up on Protocol 7. well worth a watch on how these things work with questions like that. Don't worry as it is another Andrew Wakefield job so just ignore it as the memetic warfare kicks in.

Nope.

I'm not interested in some propaganda piece from someone who committed academic and medical fraud.

Andrew Wakefield - Wikipedia

My guess is that it will bomb at the box office (like other anti-vaxx films have) because the general public are suffering from alternate facts/fake news 'utter lies' burnout at the moment.

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.

Have you tried to search on the specific quoted text? How many hits do you get?

Why would the video be reduced to a tiny postage stamp size in the middle of a mostly empty screen? What camera or official news feed source does that?

And notice that the colour balance, audio, brightness and numerous edits seem fairly slick and well done. Why then is the image size so tiny?

This is obviously to hide the fact that the video clip has been deceptively edited.

You see, there has been a campaign of online lies by the anti-vax and plandemicist crowd, and they use technology.

When you see digital videos online and they are tiny, or have filters applied to look grainy, or 'crackly' like old super-8 film, or like they are old analogue TV images, it is a sure indicator that they have been manipulated, because even very basic smartphones produce fairly good quality videos, automatically.

You need to manipulate the video and apply digital filters to degrade the video and get that "Blair Witch Camcorder" screen effect, or thumbnail images. So you can't trust videos like that. They just aren't credible.

a reply to: chr0naut

Surely you can't show any effectiveness of the immunization if you are looking at people who just didn't get infected at all?

How do you know they did not get infected? By pretending natural immunity does not exist helped push the fear campaign. Since this first study came out, been a lot more studies since. It does look like there is some positive efficiency in the first 2-3 months, I would not call it 95%. Then it starts to go into negative efficiency and why there is now an endless booster campaign.

When adding in all the adverse side effects, perhaps it is a good thing you don't watch Protocol 7 as you are more concerned with the financial health of big pharma than the physical health of the population.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

Surely you can't show any effectiveness of the immunization if you are looking at people who just didn't get infected at all?

How do you know they did not get infected? By pretending natural immunity does not exist helped push the fear campaign. Since this first study came out, been a lot more studies since. It does look like there is some positive efficiency in the first 2-3 months, I would not call it 95%. Then it starts to go into negative efficiency and why there is now an endless booster campaign.

When adding in all the adverse side effects, perhaps it is a good thing you don't watch Protocol 7 as you are more concerned with the financial health of big pharma than the physical health of the population.

Wakefield hurt children performing unnecessary tests to cover up his fraud, and to continue to keep getting paid by the parents he was defrauding. If you want to imply moral indignation, you picked the wrong side.

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

a reply to: chr0naut

If you want to imply moral indignation, you picked the wrong side.

Tell that to all the autistic kids as the rates of it have gone up with the childhood vaccination schedule. Yet it is a topic you dismiss just like all the safe and effective treatments that do exist for some fraudulently forced medical experiment.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

Surely you can't show any effectiveness of the immunization if you are looking at people who just didn't get infected at all?

How do you know they did not get infected?

Honestly, you can't be sure if they're asymptomatic, or not, but you can be sure that those who are infected and have symptoms are infected. Seems like they would be a clear sub-group for comparison against, eh?

By pretending natural immunity does not exist helped push the fear campaign.

You don't seem to understand what a novel disease is. No-one has natural immunity against a disease that their immune system, and the immune systems of their ancestors, have never encountered before.

Since this first study came out, been a lot more studies since. It does look like there is some positive efficiency in the first 2-3 months, I would not call it 95%.

What would you call it? What definite measure could you apply, and explain your working and the clinical testing you have done, including sample size?

Then it starts to go into negative efficiency and why there is now an endless booster campaign.

If immunity went into negative efficiency, all life would have been doomed to extinction long ago.

Immunization efficiency ranges from 0% to 100%.

When adding in all the adverse side effects, perhaps it is a good thing you don't watch Protocol 7 as you are more concerned with the financial health of big pharma than the physical health of the population.

No, Protocol 7 is the work of a fraudster. I know, without a doubt, that anything it alluded to would be bogus.

I choose not to swim in raw sewage, too.

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

I doubt that.

Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. - 1 Corinthians 15:51-52.

Even have a commercial and dance ready for you

YOU ?

FREEDOM OVER fear

WAKE the F UP

Can you explain how placing yourself at greater risk gives you more "freedom" than someone who takes wise and relatively simple precautions?

The suggestion that people will be 'more free' if they don't take reasonable precautions against a disease, is deception.

Freedom over fear is possible with a little prudence.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

If you want to imply moral indignation, you picked the wrong side.

Tell that to all the autistic kids as the rates of it have gone up with the childhood vaccination schedule. Yet it is a topic you dismiss just like all the safe and effective treatments that do exist for some fraudulently forced medical experiment.

The MMR Vaccine and Autism

May have?!

Try Did.

Vaccines were not vaccinations of traditional definition.
They're mRNA bio weapons, that were lied about.

Honestly now, naysayers are probably the people still wearing masks. Not because they even work, but because it's a political statement. One of mindless obeying ignorance.

Sheeple bleeting like fools for the mentally blind leaders.

Jesus Christ is King, he's our leader, seek him not them.

Don't respond to me if you're a masktard, you're the problem.

originally posted by: PrivateAngel
I hope this is the beginning of something many of us have been waiting for. I already posted this in my topic Excess Deaths Persist, but it also deserves a topic of its own.

It deserves it own forum. Called "Bioweapon/vaccine injured".

Stop trusting the Globalists, they're not saving people.

originally posted by: ADVISOR
May have?!

Try Did.

Vaccines were not vaccinations of traditional definition.

Yeah, new technology, you figured it out.

They're mRNA bio weapons, that were lied about.

Of course they were lied about, you just lied about them.

Clearly they aren't bio weapons. Look at the current statistics, the mRNA immunizations aren't particularly dangerous. Safer than table salt used as a condiment.

Honestly now, naysayers are probably the people still wearing masks. Not because they even work, but because it's a political statement. One of mindless obeying ignorance.

Like all them doctors, surgeons, and other medical staff?

Sheeple bleeting like fools for the mentally blind leaders.

Jesus Christ is King, he's our leader, seek him not them.

“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." - Matthew 7:22-23.

Don't respond to me if you're a masktard, you're the problem.

Umm, look at your avatar, you little 'masktard', you!

a reply to: chr0naut

Honestly, you can't be sure if they're asymptomatic, or not, but you can be sure that those who are infected and have symptoms are infected. Seems like they would be a clear sub-group for comparison against, eh?

Number Needed Yo Vaccinate is a good metric. In this case you need to inject 138 people to save one symptomatic case. With something like ivermectin, need to give it to 2 people to save one symptomatic case. A low Vitamin D level is one big outlier with the more critical cases.

You don't seem to understand what a novel disease is. No-one has natural immunity against a disease that their immune system, and the immune systems of their ancestors, have never encountered before.

The flu season changes every season, lot of local variations as well. Nature is always changing and adapting, all kinds of wierd bugs and toxins around. The B cells do a fantastic job at identifying any foreign material and coming up with a plan for the T cells to sort out or other tricks in getting rid of it. A lot of work and organization goes on in the lymph nodes with the lymphocytes. It is amazing how it all works, like a different kind of sentience.

When getting nano lipid particles injected, this is a whole new breach of the immune system that our ancestors have never seen before.

What would you call it? What definite measure could you apply, and explain your working and the clinical testing you have done, including sample size?

A works in progress with lots going on. With the studies I have seen, the rates of antibodies do go up for a while, then back down, it is not a consistent level. This is going to affect just how effective any immune response is from this treatment.

If immunity went into negative efficiency, all life would have been doomed to extinction long ago.

A negative efficiency means that the treatment is doing more harm than good. At -100% efficiency all patients are dead from the treatment.

No, Protocol 7

Fine. Don't watch it. Stay away. It sounds too challenging for you anyway.

a reply to: kwaka

That absolute reduction and NNT only applies to the period of time studied (2 months)

In this case that period also overlapped a host of other mitigation measures for covid.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: chr0naut

Honestly, you can't be sure if they're asymptomatic, or not, but you can be sure that those who are infected and have symptoms are infected. Seems like they would be a clear sub-group for comparison against, eh?

Number Needed Yo Vaccinate is a good metric. In this case you need to inject 138 people to save one symptomatic case.

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.

With something like ivermectin, need to give it to 2 people to save one symptomatic case.

Sub-toxic doses of ivermectin have no effect on reducing COVID-19 infection, its duration, or its severity.

In vitro, in very high doses it looked promising, but in practice it proved to be useless, as was demonstrated in Brazil and India where it was initially recommended by government authorities, and was distributed to the general public at no cost, and within a few weeks when it was proven to have no measurable effect on COVID-19, was withdrawn from recommendation and also from use.

Why HCQ and Ivermectin were removed from India’s Covid-19 treatment protocol

The regrettable story of the “Covid Kit” and the “Early Treatment of Covid-19” in Brazil

A low Vitamin D level is one big outlier with the more critical cases.

I take vitamin D and vitamin C supplements regularly. They haven't prevented me from getting COVID-19, or colds, or flu. They may have reduced the duration or severity, but people who take them still get flu and colds from similar coronaviruses.

And my observations with colds, flu, and vitamins are that megadoses are useless in alleviating symptoms, reducing duration, or reducing severity of colds. I imagine it is much the same situation for COVID-19. I have seen papers but none showed any clear determination on efficacy.

I do recall also that one of the FLCCC papers promoting vitamin supplement regimes for all sorts of ailments was withdrawn because it was fraudulent. The same group also withdrew a paper recommending ivermectin as part of their MATH+ protocol because they used fraudulent mortality figures to make it appear that the protocol was effective. Since then, two of the principals of the FLCCC have had their board certifications revoked, as well.

Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

You don't seem to understand what a novel disease is. No-one has natural immunity against a disease that their immune system, and the immune systems of their ancestors, have never encountered before.

The flu season changes every season, lot of local variations as well. Nature is always changing and adapting, all kinds of wierd bugs and toxins around.

Mutation in viral strains (and recombinance) happens randomly, so the larger the population incubating the pathogen becomes, the more likely it becomes that a new strain will arise.

Because, in many countries, attempts to slow or stop the spread of vial diseases was itself thwarted by mismanagement and public responses to misinformation, it creates great pools of incubating hosts and pushes the generation of new strains to near its maximum possible rate. This is true for most viral diseases.

The B cells do a fantastic job at identifying any foreign material and coming up with a plan for the T cells to sort out or other tricks in getting rid of it. A lot of work and organization goes on in the lymph nodes with the lymphocytes. It is amazing how it all works, like a different kind of sentience.

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, in its attempt to fight back against a high viral burden that has taken hold while the B cells were still trying to identify the virus as foreign.

This is why it is so helpful if the immune system has been prepared and already has in place a workable immune response before infection begins. That is how immunization works.

When getting nano lipid particles injected, this is a whole new breach of the immune system that our ancestors have never seen before.

... Nope: Exosomes─Nature’s Lipid Nanoparticles, a Rising Star in Drug Delivery and Diagnostics

What would you call it? What definite measure could you apply, and explain your working and the clinical testing you have done, including sample size?

A works in progress with lots going on. With the studies I have seen, the rates of antibodies do go up for a while, then back down, it is not a consistent level. This is going to affect just how effective any immune response is from this treatment.

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.

If immunity went into negative efficiency, all life would have been doomed to extinction long ago.

A negative efficiency means that the treatment is doing more harm than good. At -100% efficiency all patients are dead from the treatment.

No, at 0% efficacy, an immunization does nothing to protect the immunized. At 100% efficacy, the immunized person is protected perfectly.

Efficacy measures are not measures of toxicity or harm.

No, Protocol 7

Fine. Don't watch it. Stay away. It sounds too challenging for you anyway.

Thanks, I won't. I believe I would find it more boring than challenging.

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.

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.

FLCCC

Getting the Andrew Wakefield treatment too?

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. 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.

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

a reply to: kwaka

Info wars is , perhaps unsurprisingly, lying to you about what the court ruled.

They did not rule that it was not a vaccine, they ruled that the lower court could not dismis the case without hearing the arguments as the arguments were different from the precedent.

We note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do
not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record,
Plaintiffs’ allegations will prove true. But “[w]hether an
action ‘can be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what
the pleadings say.’” Marshall Naify Revocable Tr. v. United
States, 672 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Weisbuch
v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir.
1997)). Because we thus must accept them as true, Plaintiffs
have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not
effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19. Thus,
Jacobson does not apply, and so we vacate the district
court’s order of dismissal and remand.