1971 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

ONS data drop from UK, mortality by vaccination status.  Many people discussing

 

 

https://usmortality....fficacy-against

 

https://twitter.com/...430049295597570

 

https://igorchudov.s...-among/comments

 

https://usmortality....e=twitter&sd=pf

 

What is the definition of an "Ever vaccinated population" in that first link?

[Gal220]

What is the definition of an "Ever vaccinated population" in that first link?

 

He must have corrected it, someone probably pointed it out in the comments at the bottom

[smithx]

In the more serious Reddit science discussions there are rules limiting the types of publications that can be cited, and claims with no citation are deleted.

 

People here keep posting links to Twitter and to various politically focused sites or sites that claim to have secret information that is being hidden.

 

To see the actual serious adverse effects noted in the Pfizer clinical trial, one only has to seek out the documentation. And here it is:

https://www.fda.gov/...144245/download

 

The actual table showing Serious Adverse Effects (SAE) and deaths is on page 34:

From Dose 1 through cutoff date (all-enrolled)        BNT162b2 n/N (%)                Placebo n/N (%)

Withdrawal due AEs                                    37/21621 (0.6)                  30/21631 (0.5)
SAE                                                  126/21621 (0.6)                 111/21631 (0.5)
Deaths                                                 2/21621 (0.0)                   4/21631 (0.0)

Yep, the difference was 0.1% more adverse effects compared to placebo, and LESS deaths.

 

I wish we could institute some rules requiring high quality references in this forum to avoid these sort of accidental misstatements about facts.
 

 

 

 

[smithx]

There were over 42,000 case reports during the Pfizer trial and over 1,200 of those people died. No one disputes this, except you, I think.

 

I cannot think of a single therapeutic in the past that had so many severe adverse events when over 1,200 people died during trial, that was ever approved. If anyone can find one, I would like to see it.

 

If that information that you linked is actually real, which seems somewhat questionable because it is found on a website dedicated only to providing information about how bad this particular vaccine supposedly is, you have nonetheless misinterpreted it.

 

The document you linked is a postmarketing summary of reported adverse effects across the entire world population of over 126 million doses. It is not a study of 42,086 people. That number is the number of postmarketing adverse effects that were reported across the entire world.

 

My previous post contained information from the actual clinical trial that showed the number of deaths was higher in the placebo group, but even without taking into account that in a set of 126 million doses, some people will die from unknown causes totally unrelated to the vaccine, let's do the calculation:

 

126,212,580 doses, 1223 deaths. What percent is that? It's 0.001%, or 1 in 100,000 chance of a death being associated with a vaccination. And based on the trial, probably 1/2 or more of those were not caused by the vaccination at all. So it's probably more like 1 in 200,000.

 

If we hope to retain any claim at all to being a science forum we must strive to be more diligent about vetting our sources and reading carefully.

 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: posts 933 and 934:

 

The dates for the information that Mind cites are cumulative through 2/28/2021:

 

(5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021)

 

Your citation refers to data from "April 29, 2020 (first participant, first visit) to November 14, 2020 (cutoff
date)"

 

The difference in days between the endpoints is about 106 (not including end date), or nearly 3 and 1/2 months.

 

You write: "That number is the number of postmarketing adverse effects that were reported across the entire world.".

 

Mind has made no claims to the contrary, and the document he cites clearly makes note that it concerns : "POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS".

 

Mind's citation includes the following sentence:

 

"It is estimated that approximately (b) (4) doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide
from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December
2020 through 28 February 2021."

 

For some reason an expected cardinal number, in the above, has been replaced by "(b) (4)". Mind should try to find a source in which the actual number is expressed.

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

I wish we could institute some rules requiring high quality references in this forum to avoid these sort of accidental misstatements about facts.
 

 

 

You're asking for some sort of informational gatekeeping which as far as I can tell has never been characteristic of Longecity.

 

You're not alone I suppose. Seems a lot of people want their social media (which after all is what Longecity is) run through some sort of fact checker. Not coincidentally I think most people making these proposals envision this fact checker removing a lot of material they disagree with.

 

The problem with this is that such gatekeeping tends to turn things into an echo chamber for the official position. We just saw this with the covid-19 debate. Social media was scrubbed by their fact checkers from suggestions that masks might not work as well as advertised, ditto for the vaccines, and whether the virus originated from a certain lab in Wuhan.

 

Those were positions that were totally verboten on many platforms, but now they are allowed as scientific evidence (though still controversial) has slowly leaked through.

 

I see value in having all viewpoints on the table. Even those that might not make it through a refereed journal. People here are generally adults. They can make up their own minds what to believe and what to discard.

 

 

 

 

[geo12the]

You're asking for some sort of informational gatekeeping which as far as I can tell has never been characteristic of Longecity.

 

You're not alone I suppose. Seems a lot of people want their social media (which after all is what Longecity is) run through some sort of fact checker. Not coincidentally I think most people making these proposals envision this fact checker removing a lot of material they disagree with.

 

The problem with this is that such gatekeeping tends to turn things into an echo chamber for the official position. We just saw this with the covid-19 debate. Social media was scrubbed by their fact checkers from suggestions that masks might not work as well as advertised, ditto for the vaccines, and whether the virus originated from a certain lab in Wuhan.

 

Those were positions that were totally verboten on many platforms, but now they are allowed as scientific evidence (though still controversial) has slowly leaked through.

 

I see value in having all viewpoints on the table. Even those that might not make it through a refereed journal. People here are generally adults. They can make up their own minds what to believe and what to discard.

 

I get your point but for me it's not a matter of  "removing a lot of material they disagree with" or silencing free speech. It's about standing up for truth and reality and fighting against the Alex Jones Infowars and other conspiratorial nonsense mindset when it comes to COVID. Fact is that yes there is disagreement about things like masks, but the bigger problem is that you got folks, a "moderator" even,  here who consistently misrepresent facts, exaggerate, cherry pick data and misrepresent it to fit their conspiratorial narratives. " turn things into an echo chamber for the official position" The problem is that that Longecity is already an echo chamber of lies and misrepresentations.  When anyone calls it out, like Hip heavy handedly and not eloquently does, they are jumped on and attacked. Only the Mind side is given any free speech or benefit of the doubt and when people question him they are jumped on. 

Edited by geo12the, 24 February 2023 - 06:14 PM.

[Mind]

 

If that information that you linked is actually real, which seems somewhat questionable because it is found on a website dedicated only to providing information about how bad this particular vaccine supposedly is, you have nonetheless misinterpreted it.

 

The document you linked is a postmarketing summary of reported adverse effects across the entire world population of over 126 million doses. It is not a study of 42,086 people. That number is the number of postmarketing adverse effects that were reported across the entire world.

 

My previous post contained information from the actual clinical trial that showed the number of deaths was higher in the placebo group, but even without taking into account that in a set of 126 million doses, some people will die from unknown causes totally unrelated to the vaccine, let's do the calculation:

 

126,212,580 doses, 1223 deaths. What percent is that? It's 0.001%, or 1 in 100,000 chance of a death being associated with a vaccination. And based on the trial, probably 1/2 or more of those were not caused by the vaccination at all. So it's probably more like 1 in 200,000.

 

If we hope to retain any claim at all to being a science forum we must strive to be more diligent about vetting our sources and reading carefully.

 

 

 

There were over 42,000 case reports and over 1,200 of those died. No one disputes this.

 

The Pfizer trial documents came from an FOIA request. The documents have been shared across the Internet. No one disputes that they are real. I am unsure why people in this discussion keep saying the trial documents are fake.

 

Edited by Mind, 24 February 2023 - 08:49 PM.

[Gal220]

I get your point but for me it's not a matter of  "removing a lot of material they disagree with" or silencing free speech. It's about standing up for truth and reality and fighting against the Alex Jones Infowars and other conspiratorial nonsense mindset when it comes to COVID

 

You mean like the

-Vaccines are safe and effective yet the manufacturers cannot be sued?

-So safe J&J and AZ are no longer recommended

-So safe Moderna is restricted in many countries

-nearly 50% of women experience menstrual irregularities, but was covered up and denied by the CDC, now they walk it back

-Vaccinated cannot spread the disease, get seriously ill, or die(resulting in job loss and mandates)

-Natural immunity is no longer real per Fauci and the CDC cherry picked study(resulting in thousands losing their jobs)

-The obvious bogus HCQ study the Lancet published by a fake company

-Masking prevents spread

-Myocarditis is more severe in the virus

-Mild myocarditis is no big deal, even though it can result in a fatal arrhythmia

 

 

Australia senators have some pointy questions

-excess deaths

-bio-distribution

-lack of studies for persistence

-enhanced toxicity

-why the vaccine could never stop spread

Edited by Gal220, 24 February 2023 - 09:32 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I get your point but for me it's not a matter of  "removing a lot of material they disagree with" or silencing free speech. It's about standing up for truth and reality and fighting against the Alex Jones Infowars and other conspiratorial nonsense mindset when it comes to COVID. Fact is that yes there is disagreement about things like masks, but the bigger problem is that you got folks, a "moderator" even,  here who consistently misrepresent facts, exaggerate, cherry pick data and misrepresent it to fit their conspiratorial narratives. " turn things into an echo chamber for the official position" The problem is that that Longecity is already an echo chamber of lies and misrepresentations.  When anyone calls it out, like Hip heavy handedly and not eloquently does, they are jumped on and attacked. Only the Mind side is given any free speech or benefit of the doubt and when people question him they are jumped on.

 

By all means stand up and fight against whatever purveyors of disinformation you like and call out whatever information you believe is incorrect. The anecdote for bad information is good information - not censorship. But don't fall into the trap of constantly insulting those that you disagree with as some have.
 
You say there are people here "who consistently misrepresent facts, exaggerate, cherry pick data and misrepresent it to fit their conspiratorial narratives". A lot of that is in the eye of the beholder and I see cherry picking on both sides of most arguments.  As to the conspiratorial narratives - go re-read Nicholas Wade's excellent articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. These conspiracy theorists have this annoying habit of occasionally being right unfortunately. The public was lied to about the potential for the virus to have originated in at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Public officials have over played the effectiveness of masking and the vaccines. There has been a lack of transparency on numerous fronts on the origin of the virus and the effectiveness of some of the government responses. That doesn't mean every conspiracy theory is true, but it does mean that this skepticism of the government and it's response isn't entirely illogical.  

 

I'll promise you this - you are free to vigorously disagree with anyone on the forum including myself and other moderators. There will be no repercussions so long as everyone manages to keep everything civil. Now, that doesn't mean people will immediately see the light and change the error of their ways and their opinions will immediately fall in line behind your own. 

 

 

[smithx]

You write: "That number is the number of postmarketing adverse effects that were reported across the entire world.".

 

Mind has made no claims to the contrary, and the document he cites clearly makes note that it concerns : "POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS".

 

 

What he said was, and I quoted:

 

There were over 42,000 case reports during the Pfizer trial and over 1,200 of those people died.

 

That implies that out of 42,000 people, 1200 died, which is almost 3%.

 

But the 42,000 represent the number of people who reported ANY adverse event out of all the doses from the 126,000,000 doses that were shipped. This is 0.001%, which I hope everyone agrees is quite a different story than 3%.

 

By failing to mention that it was 1200 out of 126 million, the strong impression given is that the drug is 3000 times more dangerous than it is.

 

 

 

Edited by smithx, 25 February 2023 - 02:28 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #941:

 

It seems that you are still failing to comprehend that the statistic which Mind quotes, is correct. Your assessment that Mind's statistic means, or implies, something other than what it overtly states is not relevant to the veracity of the statistic--it is a manifestation of your opinion. And, opinion holds no weight in the establishment of the rectitude of a fact. 

 

One key phrase one must keep aware of is: "reported to VARES". Of the number of people represented by the approximately 126 million doses, it is unknown how many adverse events (deaths, e.g.) weren't reported to VARES. Mind's approx. 3% stat is, once again, deaths as reported to VARES. The statistic speaks for itself, and contains no ancillary claim or implication.

 

You write:

 

"By failing to mention that it was 1200 out of 126 million, the strong impression given is that the drug is 3000 times more dangerous than it is."

 

Mind's source claims 1,200 deaths reported to VARES. If it is your contention that 1,200 is the totality of deaths among the number of people represented by the 126 million vaccine doses administered, then you need to cite a source that substantiates such a claim.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 25 February 2023 - 04:57 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The USA's CDC reports  the following:
 

"Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. More than 670 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through February 15, 2023. During this time, VAERS received 19,319 preliminary reports of death (0.0029%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records. Continued monitoring has identified nine deaths causally associated with J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. CDC and FDA continue to review reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination and update information as it becomes available."

 

The geniuses at the CDC state preliminary VARES reports of death as being 0.0029%.  Divide 19,319 by 670,000,000 and you get 0.0000288343283582 or 0.000029 rounded, or 0.0029 expressed as a percentage. That gives deaths per dose, you CDC dolts, not deaths per vaccinated (or "injected" as Mind would say) person, which is the relevant metric to use, as well as stating in addition to the overall rate, the separate rates for 1, 2, 3, or more doses Duh.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 25 February 2023 - 05:58 AM.

[Mind]

What he said was, and I quoted:

 

 

That implies that out of 42,000 people, 1200 died, which is almost 3%.

 

But the 42,000 represent the number of people who reported ANY adverse event out of all the doses from the 126,000,000 doses that were shipped. This is 0.001%, which I hope everyone agrees is quite a different story than 3%.

 

By failing to mention that it was 1200 out of 126 million, the strong impression given is that the drug is 3000 times more dangerous than it is.

 

You are the one implying something. You are reading into the statistic something that was NOT said. You are misrepresenting what was written.

 

You have also cast aspersions to the validity of the trial data. The data was released due to a FOIA request. It is real, although it does likely contain errors as the trial was sloppy and fraudulent at times, as documented by the British Medical Journal.

 

This whole "follow-what-public-health-bureaucrats-say-no-matter-what" is dangerous. That is what got us decades of smoking related cancers, carb-related diabetes, vioxx-related heart problems, cipro-related disability, opioid-related addiction-disease-suicides. It is good to question. It is good to debate. When the FDA and CDC are fighting in court to NOT release health data and trial data, people should be suspicious.

[Mind]

There is a theory floating around that the COVID injections are bioweapons. Here is some detailed information from a lawyer who is involved in the Brook Jackson whistleblower case. He says the DOD/Pfizer connection is not as nefarious as some are making it out to be. He says the DOD was only involved to expedite the rollout of the vaccine.

_________________________

 

Another study indicating that natural immunity was superior to protection from the COVID injections during the Delts and Omicron phases. We now have multiple peer-reviewed studies indicating the superior nature of natural immunity dating back two years already, yet the elitist "follow-the-science" crowd continues to reject the notion of natural immunity playing any meaningful role in the course of the COVID situation. One can argue that it is still good to get the COVID injection for its potential short-term benefits without going ballistic on anyone who says natural immunity exists. More and more academics are coming forward to acknowledge that natural immunity is important to consider in the COVID response.

_______________________

 

More case reports/autopsies detailing how the COVID injections are causing disease and death in a few people. Here. Here.

 

Perhaps some of the problems and deaths associated with the COVID injections are due to the mRNA not being cleared from the body. A Danish study found that the mRNA from the COVID injections can circulate in the blood for at least 28 days post injection.

 

 

 

 

[geo12the]

 

_________________________

 

Another study indicating that natural immunity was superior to protection from the COVID injections during the Delts and Omicron phases. 

 

In case you did not read them here are the conclusions of that study:

 

COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.

[Gal220]

Medicare data on vaccine and mortality

 

Discussion comments at the bottom

https://stevekirsch....ws-the/comments

 

 

 

As pointed out in the article and the comments, the CDC has all the data, they could release it if they wanted to...

Edited by Gal220, 27 February 2023 - 12:17 AM.

[healthmysteries31]

In case you did not read them here are the conclusions of that study:

 

COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.

 

i don't think that contradicts what he said. From my understanding they found that previous infection was more effective than previous vaccination against severe disease.

Edited by healthmysteries31, 27 February 2023 - 07:43 AM.

[Mind]

In case you did not read them here are the conclusions of that study:

 

COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection.

 

I think you missed the part where I said

 

"One can argue that it is still good to get the COVID injection for its potential short-term benefits"

[smithx]

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/36813704/

Reporting Rates for VAERS Death Reports Following COVID-19 Vaccination, December 14, 2020-November 17, 2021

 

Results: 9,201 death events were reported for COVID-19 vaccine recipients aged five years and older (or age unknown). Reporting rates for death events increased with increasing age, and males generally had higher reporting rates than females. For death events within seven days and 42 days of vaccination, respectively, observed reporting rates were lower than the expected all-cause death rates. Reporting rates for Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were generally higher than for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but still lower than the expected all-cause death rates. Limitations of VAERS data include potential reporting bias, missing or inaccurate information, lack of a control group, and reported diagnoses, including deaths, are not causally verified diagnoses.

Conclusions: Reporting rates for death events were lower than the all-cause death rates expected in the general population. Trends in reporting rates reflected known trends in background death rates. These findings do not suggest an association between vaccination and overall increased mortality.

 

 

[Mind]

Just a round-up of some recent data and studies.

 

Here someone shares data out of Singapore, indicating that Singapore now has the highest number of overall deaths and perinatal deaths in over 20 years. Due to population growth, aging, and increasing disease states, the percentage increase in deaths year over year has generally been a couple percentage points, but in the last two years it has jumped 10%. Of course, there are some that would argue it is because of the COVID injections, seeing that Singapore is one of the highest injected nations in the world. Similar jumps in excess mortality have been seen in many other countries very soon after widespread injection campaigns. The New Zealand Herald reports that registered deaths in New Zealand have recently jumped by more than at any time in the last 100 years. One counter argument is that this is to be expected after the media-created COVID panic ruined normal health care efforts, in addition to modern industrial societies becoming more obese and sedentary - so maybe the increased deaths are to be expected and the temporal correlation with the COVID injection campaigns is just coincidence.

 

A study out of Thailand shows about 44% percent of people getting the COVID injections suffered systemic side effects and 1% suffered severe complications. I am unsure of any other therapeutic that has ever been approved with such a high percentage of severe side effects.

 

Another Thai study (pre-print) showing 29% of adolescents receiving the COVID injections suffered a cardiac problem.

 

Speaking of cardiac problems another study finds and association between cardiac events and the COVID injections. 

Edited by Mind, 02 March 2023 - 10:23 PM.

[Gal220]

More excess mortality in Australia, I don't think it can be explained away.  Its likely over down under

https://twitter.com/...src=typed_query

[Mind]

In regards to the Singapore data on stillbirths (the most ever in the past year), after some research, it appears that they changed the method of recording stillbirths and that could be the cause of the higher number of stillbirths, so perhaps not as robustly linked to the rollout of the COVID injections.

[Mind]

The CDC has admitted to lying about COVID vaccine safety monitoring/other data. This has been well documented and not up for dispute. They (along with the FDA) had to be sued on multiple occasions to release safety and effectiveness data - information that is normally freely available - BY LAW - to the public.

 

Now some analysts are wondering if the CDC is once again lying about COVID injection effectiveness and safety.

 

One consequence of the CDC and FDA lying and hiding data is that increasing numbers of people do not believe anything they say and are questioning the vaccine/big pharma industry. Some might remember this peer-reviewed research from 2011 showing that infant mortality increases with the number of vaccines they get. It is getting more attention now.

Edited by Mind, 05 March 2023 - 01:24 PM.

[Mind]

Edward Dowd continues to monitor the increases in excess mortality in the U.S. and around the world - using insurance actuarial data. If excess mortality continues to increase and young healthy people continue to drop dead from heart issues, I can't see how the CDC can continue to ignore it. I suspect (like the lab leak theory) we will see the major news outlets, US/UK "health" bureaucrats, and a lot of online commentators suddenly start to say "of course we always knew the side effects were there", while claiming they were very rational about it and never called people COVIDIOTS or anti-science conspiracy nuts.

 

This review paper has been available for a few months now, noting how non-COVID mortality is higher among people who took the COVID injections.

 

Here TrialSite comments on a recent review of case studies/autopsies out of Saudi Arabia linking severe side effects with the COVID injections. Notice how almost all of the research on side effects is coming out of non-US/UK sources.

 

I know it seems unlikely that excess mortality could continue to climb or that it could be associated with the COVID injections, but if we rely upon peer-reviewed evidence, it cannot be ruled out. Recall that ALL of the animal studies with mRNA injections failed. A lot of the animals died due to side effects or from ADE when they encountered virus variants in the future. There was not even one successful RCT trial in humans before the "warp-speed" push to get them approved. Also remember that Pfizer/FDA blew up the controls within a couple months of the sloppy rushed trials, so we don't have RCT data on mortality.

[Mind]

I am unsure why anyone believes anything the US government, FDA, CDC, is saying nowadays.

 

Similar to how the CDC lied multiple times about COVID data and vaccine safety, and how the FDA has to be sued to release publicly-owned data from the COVID vaccine trials, the EPA had to be sued to release its report on the toxic effects of fluoride. As has been known for a long time, fluoride is a neurotoxin and reduces IQ - even when it is highly diluted into the public water supply.

 

Many countries around the world are investigating and finding severe side effects (and deaths) from the COVID injections. I am unsure if there is a country in the world that gives the COVID injections to toddlers - EXCEPT THE US!! Most countries do not even recommend the injections for people under 50. Not the U.S. (probably because the current federal government is wildly incompetent). The US just approved a fourth injection for toddlers.

 

Even the health minister of Germany admits that there are severe side effects from the COVID injections. The CDC and the FDA can't be bothered to investigate the millions of side effects and deaths from the injections in the US - basically saying "nothing to see here...keep taking the injections."

 

One good thing coming out of the realization that the leadership of the CDC and FDA are corrupt and incompetent is that people are scrutinizing vaccine studies a lot more, like this one (peer-reviewed) that found vaccinated children in Africa had a higher mortality rate than the unvaccinated.

[smithx]

One good thing coming out of the realization that the leadership of the CDC and FDA are corrupt and incompetent is that people are scrutinizing vaccine studies a lot more, like this one (peer-reviewed) that found vaccinated children in Africa had a higher mortality rate than the unvaccinated.

That paper was from 2018 and is talking about an entirely different vaccine:

https://www.frontier...2018.00079/full

 

As for the link to the German news site, I don't know what that article says and don't believe you do either. It shows a couple of paragraphs and then wants you to pay 4 Euro to read the rest.

[Dorian Grey]

Hot off the press (pre-print) study on all cause mortality increases in the EU.  

 

 

Interesting, they say the dramatic increase happened in 2022 and not so much 2021 during the vaccine roll-out.  

 

We know spike, from either the vaccine or infection rips up vascular endothelium, so apparently the cumulative effect of initial vaccine roll-out, boosters, & infection (which occurs despite vaccination) is taking its toll.  A perfect recipe for reduction in elderly population, which China has an enormous problem with due to their one child policy from 1980 to 2016.  

 

Cumulative vascular damage over time from multiple vaccinations and infections results in life expectancy declining slowly but surely, until expensive retired/geriatric population is under control.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 22 March 2023 - 03:23 AM.

[Mind]

The Brook Jackson case against Pfizer has produced some interesting legal discussions. It appears that Pfizer is trying to shift the blame of vax injuries and death to the FDA and US government.

 

Many autopsies and case studies of deaths from the COVID injections have been posted here, someone has taken the time to list them all in one spot. I know one could make an argument that the COVID injections saved more lives than they have destroyed, but it is important to at least acknowledge the fact the there are deadly side effects. Ignoring the side effects and deaths will only lead to no improvement in future versions.

 

Germany has also finally released data on side effects and deaths from the injections, showing over 34,000 serious side effects! I know there are some who think all the reports of deaths and serious side effects from the COVID injection are fake or generated by anti-science conspiracy nuts. This is not the case. There is plenty of data now.

 

Edward Dowd continues to monitor various data sources for signals of death and injuries from the COVID injections. He claims the recent major uptick in missed work time is tightly correlated with the rollout of the COVID injections.

 

 

[smithx]

Germany has also finally released data on side effects and deaths from the injections, showing over 34,000 serious side effects! I know there are some who think all the reports of deaths and serious side effects from the COVID injection are fake or generated by anti-science conspiracy nuts. This is not the case. There is plenty of data now.

 

 

 

When people quote sources they really ought to read them carefully. Or at least read the abstracts. The report mentioned is available here:

 

https://www.pei.de/S...icationFile&v=4

 

In the abstract it says:
 

 

The reporting rate for suspected cases of adverse reactions or vaccine complications after the bivalent COVID19 vaccines was 0.23 per 1,000 vaccinations and for suspected cases of serious adverse reactions 0.03 per 1,000 vaccinations.

 

 

So according to the report being cited as damning proof of horrible adverse effects, the actual serious adverse reaction rate is 3 in 100,000.

 

This sort of quoting of 2nd hand sources, like politically motivated bloggers and conspiracy theory tweets, is why I think we need a rule that primary sources only are allowed, and that they need to be scientific studies, not someone's opinion.

Edited by smithx, 25 March 2023 - 07:31 PM.