Global Death Rates Are Skyrocketing! Why?

[revelarts]

Global Death Rates Are Skyrocketing! Why?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mMtHlucxKos

[fj1200]

Is this surprising?

https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021

[Gunny]

Is this surprising?

https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021Could be the Ukraine-Russia war and/or resulting famine.

I'm thinking it's the Rapture, what with the World ending due to climate change :halo9:

I couldn't make it through 2 minutes of the video :rolleyes:

[icansayit]

The only reasons I see pragmatically for this is...TODAY, more people are able to pay more attention to what is taking place. NONE of us would have known about this if....WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INTERNET, and 24/7 TELEVISION NEWS COVERAGE AROUND THE WORLD...only seconds after anything happens.

Just like CLIMATE CHANGE. Before the Internet, and the WEATHER CHANNEL.
How many people knew a storm, hurricane, tornado, or flash flooding was coming?
THINK ABOUT IT.

[Gunny]

Could blame it on crime in NYC and Chicago ...

[revelarts]

Military Docs compare 2016-20 official medical records to 2021
significant increase is many medical problems in 18-49 year olds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GXvV6Pybns


But hey maybe it's crime... or Climate Change ... or Russia
or it's covid Covid but only call Gillian Barr disease or Bells Palsy, or heart disease or miscarriages or deformities or cancer... for fun.

we can't consider that it might be an experiemental vaccine that's crazy talk
I mean "it's safe and effective and side effects are rare... plus I'M OK... and dr Facui wouldn't steer me wrong... so..
Anything but the jabs."


https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-highlight-video.html

[Gunny]

Death is the one guarantee of life :smoke:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb1wYnHJMsE

[BoogyMan]

It is so apparent that even outlets like The Hill, an extremely leftist friendly propaganda outlet, reported on it back in January.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/588738-huge-huge-numbers-death-rates-up-40-percent-over-pre/


As the pandemic enters its second year running, the number of deaths the virus has caused is likely much greater than official numbers indicate, setting a historic record.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains that excess deaths are associated with COVID-19 directly or indirectly, typically defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths in specific time periods and the expected number of deaths in the same time periods.

Currently, since Feb. 1, 2020, the CDC estimates there have been 942,431 excess deaths in the U.S.

That’s a staggering amount, as J Scott Davison, CEO of insurance company OneAmerica, explained during a health care conference organized by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce this week. Davison said that his company is seeing the highest death rates now than he’s ever seen before since he started in the insurance business...

[BoogyMan]

There is also this…

https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/insurance-death-rates-working-age-people-up-40-percent


As COVID-19 deaths approach 19,000 in Indiana, the insurance industry has been processing claims at a record rate.Nationally, more than 824,000 people have died from the virus.

“We’re seeing right now the highest death rates we’ve ever seen in the history of this business,” said Scott Davison, the CEO of OneAmerica, a $100 billion life insurance and retirement company headquartered in Indianapolis.

“The data is consistent across every player in the business.”

Davison said death rates among working age people – those 18 to 64-years-old – are up 40 percent in the third and fourth quarter of 2021 over pre-pandemic levels.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three sigma or 200-year catastrophe would be a 10 percent increase over pre-pandemic levels,” Davison said. “So, 40 percent is just unheard of…”

[icansayit]

Think about this. Recently. The World Population hit over 8 Billion.

Which, in layman, and pragmatic terms means....The Higher the population of HUMAN BEINGS who are BORN...And later in their life...DIE.
Of course GLOBAL DEATH RATES ARE HIGHER...there are more PEOPLE who are gonna DIE eventually. RIGHT?
As Biden likes to say...."NO JOKE!"

Unless some of us have other plans. Guess what? You're not here forever.

[BoogyMan]

That makes perfect sense if you are looking at data in the longer term, not so much in the 1 to 2 year window we are discussing. A 40% jump in that short of a timeframe is shockworthy. I am an engineer and I follow specific principles of data examination to prevent process changes due to small numbers of anomalous results. This is not a situation where we are discussing small numbers, this is a situation where we are seeing shocking numbers with specific sets of variances from norms.


Think about this. Recently. The World Population hit over 8 Billion.

Which, in layman, and pragmatic terms means....The Higher the population of HUMAN BEINGS who are BORN...And later in their life...DIE.
Of course GLOBAL DEATH RATES ARE HIGHER...there are more PEOPLE who are gonna DIE eventually. RIGHT?
As Biden likes to say...."NO JOKE!"

Unless some of us have other plans. Guess what? You're not here forever.

[revelarts]

There is also this…

https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/insurance-death-rates-working-age-people-up-40-percent


thing is the 18 - 49s aren't dying with or from covid.
they are dying of OTHER causes.

causes that happen to be on the list of side effects from a certain medication.

[revelarts]

Silent crisis of soaring excess deaths gripping Britain is only tip of the iceberg


Britain is in the grip of a new silent health crisis.
For 14 of the past 15 weeks, England and Wales have averaged around 1,000 extra deaths each week, none of which are due to Covid.
If the current trajectory continues, the number of non-Covid excess deaths will soon outstrip deaths from the virus this year – and be even more deadly than the omicron wave.
So what is going on? Experts believe decisions taken by the Government in the earliest stages of the pandemic may now be coming back to bite.
Policies that kept people indoors, scared them away from hospitals and deprived them of treatment and primary care are finally taking their toll.

Prof Robert Dingwall, of Nottingham Trent University, a former government adviser during the pandemic, said: “The picture seems very consistent with what some of us were suggesting from the beginning.
“We are beginning to see the deaths that result from delay and deferment of treatment for other conditions, like cancer and heart disease, and from those associated with poverty and deprivation.
“These come through more slowly – if cancer is not treated promptly, patients don't die immediately but do die in greater numbers more quickly than would otherwise be the case.”

The Government has admitted that the majority of the excess deaths appear to be from circulatory issues and diabetes – long-term, chronic conditions that can be fatal without adequate care.
Such conditions were also likely to have been exacerbated by lockdowns and work-from-home edicts that increased sedentary lifestyles and alcohol intake at a time when Britain was already facing historic levels of obesity and heart disease.
Dr Charles Levison, the chief executive of Doctorcall, a private GP service, said: “People really, really struggled and so many did not get the help they needed. That has caused lasting damage.
“It is time that we had a proper national debate about this, with a full government investigation.”

The latest fallout could not be hitting the NHS at a worse time, when it is struggling to bring down the pandemic treatment backlog and failing to meet targets across the board.
Figures released last week showed that a record 29,317 patients were forced to endure 12-hour waits in accident and emergency in July, a rise of a third in a month.
The number of 12-hour A&E waits rose 33 per cent in July, with a record spike of 7,283 – up from 22,034 the previous month. Before the pandemic, the figure for the same month was just 450.
Latest figures show that heart attack or stroke patients in England waited more than half an hour longer for an ambulance to arrive in July, compared with before the pandemic – crucial minutes that could prove fatal.
Dr Charmaine Griffiths, the chief executive at the British Heart Foundation, said: “Right now, too many people with heart conditions are facing dangerously long waits for potentially life saving cardiac care.
“Cardiovascular disease is one of the nation’s biggest killers but getting seen on time can be the difference between life and death.”

There is growing frustration among health professionals that little is being done to highlight the excess death problems. When a similar number of people were dying from Covid each week, there was a clamour for greater restrictions.
Prof Carl Heneghan, the director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, said excess deaths began to increase noticeably from around the end of April. They have stayed high compared with the past seven years.
“The signals in the data suggest something is not quite right,” he said. “Sustained rises in deaths should trigger an investigation that may involve accessing the raw data on death certificates, a random sample of medical notes or analysing autopsies.
“I feel there is a lack of clear thinking at the moment and, when it comes to people’s health and wellbeing, you can’t wait – it’s unacceptable.”
...

[revelarts]

Do people under 30 die at above normal rates for weeks after mRNA injections? (https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hbGV4YmVyZW5zb24uc3Vic3RhY2suY2 9tL3AvZG8tcGVvcGxlLXVuZGVyLTMwLWRpZS1hdC1hYm92ZS1u b3JtYWw_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpvME1UWTJNVFUzTl N3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk5qZzVNelE1T1RRc0ltbGhkQ0k2TVRZ Mk1Ea3pNemMzTUN3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUTTJNekE0TUNJc0 luTjFZaUk2SW5CdmMzUXRjbVZoWTNScGIyNGlmUS5MMTlCbS1y enY1d3JMMG5TNmQwNnpZc1lXVWVVWGRYZ0c1eWJ6bUk5SUMwIi wicCI6Njg5MzQ5OTQsInMiOjM2MzA4MCwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6 NDE2NjE1NzUsImlhdCI6MTY2MDkzMzc3MCwiaXNzIjoicHViLT AiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.LLJtwh3ldCMWGxCZ H1aUT6HZjcrH8LKqhPRENrxS0DA?)

Comprehensive data from New Zealand suggest they do


National vaccine monitoring data from New Zealand show Pfizer’s mRNA Covid shot is associated with above-normal death rates in teenagers and young adults for weeks after they are jabbed.
The signal is subtle and does not prove the vaccines are behind the extra deaths. But they are another warning sign for the mRNA vaccines, which are already known to increase the risk of myocarditis in young men and have effectively no benefit for healthy young people in any case.
Yet colleges such as New York University continue to mandate booster shots for students.

[revelarts]

UK officials are "concerned" that the death rates MAY be up because of the lock-downs related issues and people not taking care of or checking other illness.
Have they proven the causes? Or mentioned looking at the vaccines AS part of the cause.
But 19 - 49 year olds aren't typically High on bad health list for heart disease & cancers.



http://1000words.fatcow.com/box8/vx%20-%20excess%20deaths%20telegraph%20clips.png

Lockdown effects feared to be killing more people than Covid
Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures ‘terrifying’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/lockdown-effects-feared-killing-people-covid/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/02/trusting-people-do-right-thing-saved-lives-covid-lockdowns/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pR_qkeHJaw

[revelarts]

nothing to see here

Mark Steyn, GBNews: Why Are Young Healthy People Dying Across The UK?

Sunfellow On COVID-19 Published August 29, 2022 985 Views
https://rumble.com/v1hu6r9-mark-steyn-gbnews-why-young-healthy-people-are-dying-across-the-uk.html

[revelarts]

Dr. Naomi Wolfe Talks with Steve about the Effects of mRNA Vaccines in Unborn Children



https://americasvoice.news/video/MpZvUOUQ6YVEmDn/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbpdMXwX0AMGjOC?format=png&name=small

abnormal "netting" growth around unborn babies of pregnant woman who took mRNA vaccines.
and miscarriages

[fj1200]

Global Death Rates Are Skyrocketing! Why?

Not enough bug protein.

[revelarts]

BTW Covid booster shots are available & recommend by our gov't officials again.
for your safety.

[icansayit]

With more then 8 Billion Human beings now on Earth, and the natural process of older people dying every day. Naturally it would seem to be skyrocketing because of the ability to REPORT Worldwide...in seconds. Unlike back in the 20th Century when the INTERNET and CABLE NETWORKS were just starting to inform those Billions.

WHY ELSE WOULD THE NEWSPAPERS (that are still around), Donate an ENTIRE PAGE of their paper to OBITUARIES?????

[revelarts]

OBGYN Health professional in Florida says in their practice they see that miscarriages are up 50%,
fertility is down 50%
and abnormal cervical smears/issues are up 25% in the area
since the vaccine rollout.
But nothing to see here folks.


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1586859673591881730/pu/vid/1280x720/DwqNGVJTC83FVfA3.mp4?tag=12

[fj1200]

^Any national stats?

A pandemic ‘baby bump’ is happening in the U.S., study finds (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/10/the-united-states-is-experiencing-a-pandemic-baby-bump/)

[revelarts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz6WwJDHeXo

Long COVID not main factor in long-term sickness increase

10 November 2022

Since the pandemic in the UK,

Number of people out of work because of long-term sickness has risen by around 363,000

The number of people on long-term sick

other health problems or disabilities,

between April and June 2022,

was 97,000 higher than the same period in 2019.

A 41% increase

UK covid deaths, week ending 28 October 2022

717 deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) registered in the UK

Previous week, 737

Excess deaths in the UK, ending 28 October 2022

Deaths registered in the UK, 12,861

12.5% above the five-year average

(1,430 excess deaths).

Deaths involving COVID-19 accounted for 5.6% of all UK deaths

UK official data
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnXlcbUXkAEE4Lr?format=jpg&name=small

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqpVjJVaEAM2m0h?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

And now a word from the globalist shills.


KEY POINTS

[*=left]Australia recorded nearly 20,000 more deaths than expected in 2022.
[*=left]The excess mortality is largely due to the coronavirus pandemic.
[*=left]The impact of COVID-19 extends beyond the number of people who have died from the virus, experts say.


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-recorded-20-000-more-deaths-than-expected-last-year-this-is-why/wle0tyz07


New Zealand has recorded the largest increase in the number of registered deaths since the 1918 influenza pandemic, new data from Stats NZ shows.The births and deaths figures, for the year ending December 2022, show there were 38,574 deaths in 2022, 10.4 per cent (3642) more than in 2021.
This increase - attributed to Covid-19 and an ageing population - is the biggest year-on-year jump since the 55.4 per cent (5835) spike in deaths following the 1918 flu pandemic.
Most of the increase in deaths occurred in older age groups where Covid-19 poses an increased mortality risk.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new-zealand-records-biggest-increase-in-registered-deaths-in-100-years/BQERSTKIANCKRNNA7IL42RD52U/

[Kathianne]

And now a word from the globalist shills.


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-recorded-20-000-more-deaths-than-expected-last-year-this-is-why/wle0tyz07


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/new-zealand-records-biggest-increase-in-registered-deaths-in-100-years/BQERSTKIANCKRNNA7IL42RD52U/

I am pretty certain that NZ reacted with draconian actions beyond near any country with exception of China, much later.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrsLLJwXoAAInh9?format=png&name=small

Top Insurance Analyst Finds a 7% Increase In Aggregate Mortality for Each C19 Dose Received

Josh Stirling:
"The more doses ... you have in a [US] region ... the bigger increase in mortality ..."
"If you're over the age of 50, and you took all 5 doses, that'd be a 35% increase."

video clip:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1637440522166976520/pu/vid/1280x720/xFzo0rA7dxtxazF3.mp4?tag=12

[revelarts]

the previous post was from insurance analysis studies

this study is from
"Western Norway University of Applied Sciences"

Excess deaths, correlation study
"We primarily study a possible link between 2021 COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe, and monthly 2022 excess all-cause mortality, (i.e., mortality higher than before the pandemic)

Analyses of 31 countries, Jan to September, 2022 31 EU member states, plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland

All-cause mortality, increased more the higher the 2021 vaccination uptake Countries with more covid vaccines in 2021 had higher excess mortality in first 9 months of 2022

Positive correlation between vaccination in 2021 and excess deaths in 2022
A one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake, was associated with a monthly mortality increase in 2022 by 0.105% (95% CI, 0.075-0.134).

When controlling for alternative explanations...."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyo2UNQcdpQ




to me it seems that the correlation here is hard to explain away ("a slam dunk").
But the percentage, at 1st glance, seems thankfully small.
But if I'm understanding the numbers the study says for each 1% rise in vxcine there's a 0.1x% in mortality.
But that's not small for a "safe" drug.

[revelarts]

^Any national stats?

A pandemic ‘baby bump’ is happening in the U.S., study finds (https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/10/the-united-states-is-experiencing-a-pandemic-baby-bump/)



COVID led to the biggest drop in births in 50 years. But not in every state.
Adrianna Rodriguez
USA TODAY
april 23

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/04/17/us-birth-during-covid-varied/11639988002/


But it was "Covid" that did it ...not anything else...-cough-

[fj1200]

COVID led to the biggest drop in births in 50 years. But not in every state.
Adrianna Rodriguez
USA TODAY
april 23

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2023/04/17/us-birth-during-covid-varied/11639988002/


But it was "Covid" that did it ...not anything else...-cough-

Did you actually read your link?



They discovered fluctuating fertility rates in some states were more strongly linked to demographic, economic and political factors rather than COVID-19 cases, suggesting family planning could have been partly stunted by consequences of the pandemic rather than the disease itself.

U.S. births had been declining for more than a decade (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/05/24/us-child-births-rose-2021-covid-19/9907196002/) since before COVID-19, but they dropped 4% from 2019 to 2020, according to the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention. Births increased by 1% from 2020 to 2021 but haven't recovered to pre-pandemic rates.

For example, politically liberal places like New York and Washington, D.C., had the highest social distancing indexes and the lowest fertility rates, while conservative states like Idaho and Montana had the lowest social distancing indexes and the highest fertility rates.

Fertility rates have historically followed economic factors, but the study’s findings suggested that may have been exacerbated during the pandemic.
Researchers found states with greater income inequality, higher percentage of college-degree earners, and larger drops in employment at the start of the pandemic saw the biggest changes in fertility rates.


But yes, lazy headlines; par for the course.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwQpds9WcAACc_h?format=jpg&name=small

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2366565-cancer-mystery-as-cases-rise-among-younger-people-around-the-world/

[Black Diamond]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwQpds9WcAACc_h?format=jpg&name=small

This stuff makes the "Bill Gates is the antichrist" theory soar.

[icansayit]

In today's World of instant, second by second news from around the globe.
More people are being informed about the death rates that have been taking place
for centuries.
NEWSFLASH: The day we are all put on this planet, is the first day we lose of being alive.
The final outcome is, and always has been DEATH. Unless somebody knows another reason.

With about 8 Billion human beings now living on Earth. Most of the deaths are YES...Caused by Cancer, and other diseases.
While the rest of the deaths...probably also huge in numbers. Are, in reality. Nothing more than the Outcome of
BEING BORN, and time expiring for ALL OF US.
That's the way I see life today in my 76th year. I know I am closer to becoming another obituary number, than to my birthday.

[Gunny]

In today's World of instant, second by second news from around the globe.
More people are being informed about the death rates that have been taking place
for centuries.
NEWSFLASH: The day we are all put on this planet, is the first day we lose of being alive.
The final outcome is, and always has been DEATH. Unless somebody knows another reason.

With about 8 Billion human beings now living on Earth. Most of the deaths are YES...Caused by Cancer, and other diseases.
While the rest of the deaths...probably also huge in numbers. Are, in reality. Nothing more than the Outcome of
BEING BORN, and time expiring for ALL OF US.
That's the way I see life today in my 76th year. I know I am closer to becoming another obituary number, than to my birthday.
Agreed.

My opinion is more people die of cancer as the means by which people died in the past are eliminated. Before penicillin, people died from bacterial infections we take for granted today. People in 3rd World countries STILL die from stuff we can't even fathom because it's so far beneath our arrogant, pampered asses.

Like you say, in the end, we're all gonna die :)

[revelarts]

BoogyMan addressed the ..."people die"..."more people".... "more older people"
excuses earlier in the thread



That makes perfect sense if you are looking at data in the longer term, not so much in the 1 to 2 year window we are discussing. A 40% jump in that short of a timeframe is shockworthy. I am an engineer and I follow specific principles of data examination to prevent process changes due to small numbers of anomalous results. This is not a situation where we are discussing small numbers, this is a situation where we are seeing shocking numbers with specific sets of variances from norms.

It's not the normal rate of death, cancers, heart attacks, or strokes.
especially for people under 50.

Professionals from the medical field, the insurance field and even accountants who work for major hedge funds who count on trends all agree that the death numbers are WAY off... AFTER the vax roll outs.

but maybe if Dr Fauci, the CDC, the WHO or whatever "real" authority say it, folks will think it's happening.

no worries.

not sure how many canaries have to die in the coal mine before folks take it seriously.
I'm thinking the lawyers might end up turning out to be heroes here if they can pry more info from gov't & big pharma hands.

--if you've been injuries or had a loved one die prematurely after receiving 'emergency use' vaccines, you might be entitled to compensation---

[revelarts]

Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines *INCREASE* your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

"In my whole career, looking at all of the drugs and knowing about many different prescribed medications, I've never seen something that when you look at the data has such poor effectiveness and unprecedented harms. In the summer of last year, in the journal Vaccine, the highest-impact medical journal for vaccines, they published a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna's original double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

This is the highest quality of scientific evidence. Joseph Fraiman is an ER doctor and clinical data scientist from Louisiana. Associate editor of the BMJ, Dr. Peter Doshi. Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford. Some real eminence of integrity published this reanalysis, and what they found was this. In the trials that led to the approval of regulators worldwide, you were more likely to suffer a severe adverse event from taking the vaccine, hospitalization, disability, or life-changing event than you were to be hospitalized with COVID.

This mRNA vaccine should likely have never been approved for a single human in the first place, and that rate of serious adverse events is at least 1 in 800... 1 in 800 is a very, very high figure. We've pulled other vaccines for much less. The 1976 Swine Flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a debilitating neurological condition called Guillan-Barre syndrome in about 1 in 100,000 people. The Rotavirus vaccine was suspended in 1999 because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in kids in 1 of 10,000. This is at least 1 in 800. It's a no-brainer. So the question is, why have we not paused it?"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/

General over prescriptions and lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDT74BjzGpM

[Gunny]

Excuse me if I missed something earlier in the thread, but THAT is what this is about? The COVID vaccine? So yesterday. The lengths people will go sometimes attempting to justify their personal decisions:rolleyes:

Should try keeping up with current events. The federal government/bureaucracy that's slowly tightening the noose around all our necks is going to kill us long before any vaccine. But they do appreciate you keeping up with the program distracting yourself chasing rabbits down holes.

People die. Sometimes more, sometimes less. The machine is not going to kill off it's slave pool. Just the parts that squeak.

[Black Diamond]

Excuse me if I missed something earlier in the thread, but THAT is what this is about? The COVID vaccine? So yesterday. The lengths people will go sometimes attempting to justify their personal decisions:rolleyes:

Should try keeping up with current events. The federal government/bureaucracy that's slowly tightening the noose around all our necks is going to kill us long before any vaccine. But they do appreciate you keeping up with the program distracting yourself chasing rabbits down holes.

People die. Sometimes more, sometimes less. The machine is not going to kill off it's slave pool. Just the parts that squeak.

Is revelarts assuming the pharm companies and govt *knew* the vaccines would kill people?

[revelarts]

Is @revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760) assuming the pharm companies and govt *knew* the vaccines would kill people?

The pharm companies and govt where the only ones that saw the full un-redacted test results before the 'vaccines' were promoted to the public.

BTW
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-fiercest-vaccine-advocates-are
The fiercest vaccine advocates are starting to admit the truth about the mRNAs

[Gunny]

Is @revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760) assuming the pharm companies and govt *knew* the vaccines would kill people?


The pharm companies and govt where the only ones that saw the full un-redacted test results before the 'vaccines' were promoted to the public.

BTW
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-fiercest-vaccine-advocates-are
The fiercest vaccine advocates are starting to admit the truth about the mRNAs

I can even agree with rev's response, as far as his personal statement. Although, I don't find it peculiar that the pharm companies and government see the results first. That's kind of how it works. The panicked, embarrassing public cries to the government and the government goes shopping. In this case, needing a vaccine, to the people that make vaccines.

Sure it got rushed. So did the "Patriot Act". In response to the sheeple crying to the government to save us. In the case of the latter, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Anything foreign introduced into the human body comes with inherent risk, and affects a .00X number of people.

The whole topic is driven by nothing but fear. Fear of COVID. Fear of dying. Fear of the COVID vaccine. Fear of dying. Lest we forget, lots of people were dying. From the virus.

Not to be forgotten also is the current Western mindset of refusing to acknowledge one could be wrong, to the point of making outlandish arguments based on cherry picked numbers, half-truths and/or outright lies.

IMO, the worst damage done to this Nation, and most of the rest of the World for that matter, was done by neither virus nor vaccine. It's what government and people did to themselves in their own minds.

[revelarts]

I can even agree with rev's response, as far as his personal statement. Although, I don't find it peculiar that the pharm companies and government see the results first. That's kind of how it works. The panicked, embarrassing public cries to the government and the government goes shopping. In this case, needing a vaccine, to the people that make vaccines.

Sure it got rushed. So did the "Patriot Act". In response to the sheeple crying to the government to save us. In the case of the latter, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Anything foreign introduced into the human body comes with inherent risk, and affects a .00X number of people.

The whole topic is driven by nothing but fear. Fear of COVID. Fear of dying. Fear of the COVID vaccine. Fear of dying. Lest we forget, lots of people were dying. From the virus.

Not to be forgotten also is the current Western mindset of refusing to acknowledge one could be wrong, to the point of making outlandish arguments based on cherry picked numbers, half-truths and/or outright lies.

IMO, the worst damage done to this Nation, and most of the rest of the World for that matter, was done by neither virus nor vaccine. It's what government and people did to themselves in their own minds.

here's the thing to me.

at this point FEW to NONE of the people (including many gov't world wide and even the WHO) are recommending ANY of the measures that they DEMANDED the world to do earlier.
And the Fear you mentioned was pumped up by the Gov't, big pharma, media, Dr Bill Gates etc about Covid.
There are now records and confessions from Canadian, UK and various Gov't players in the U.S. how they used military PSY-OPs tactics to push the fear into the public to try and get everyone on board with the gov'ts preferred "solutions".

"solutions" Which they are now begrudgingly admitting were largely ineffective, counter productive or outright dangerous.

You keep saying that the 'Both sides' pushed fears in equivalently negative ways.
But somehow you leave out that only ONE side (based in THEIR fears) used EVERY form of economic, political and social coercion, pressure tactic, verbal abuse & censorship to try to get EVERY man, woman & child who disagreed to comply with their CULT level belief in their BS.
To the tune of loss of biz, careers, educations, pensions, contact with family, parks, medical treatments, public access, speech, travel...etc.

While the other side simply wanted to look more closely at the data, (since when has believing the govt blindly been a good thing gunny?)
to be left the H3ll alone to deal with Covid in our own ways,
to look at & use alternatives to deal with the problem.
NOT using Cult like 'solutions' or coercion to get others to.

And as far as fear of the vaccines are concerned personally, well hey, I RARELY take any medications. period, full stop.
Even those that have been around for 30+ years. So to my thinking it's Crazy to take any vaccine which is based on a brand new virus like pfizers and others.
Even worse to take one based on a brand new medical technique never tested on humans successfully.
In my mind, the ONLY reason for ME or anyone in my family to take any completely brand new experimental drugs is if they are dying and there are ABSOLUTELY NO other options.
But this pandemic, even when the numbers/percentages were inflated, NEVER was a real threat to generally healthy people under 60.

And natural immunity was ALWAYS a better than all the options promoted.
The folks that caused the problem were the Gov'ts, media big pharma and those that got caught up in the fear they ginned up over COVID.
AND all the LIES they told about it. (Not from China, not from lab, asymptomatic infections, vaccines will stop the spread, mask work, kids in danger, pandemic of the unvaccinated, 'winter of death' etc etc )

Thank God some people resisted the BS and maybe helped slow the crazy.
One lesson we should all take away is the OLD one of -the 1st rules in any emergency, DON'T PANIC!-
When people panic MORE folks are harmed.
Also, don't trust people who are trying to spook the herd.

But Gunny judging by yours and others continued reaction i think the the old saying applies.
"the one thing we learn from history, is that no one learns from history."​


And as far as fear of the vaccines are concerned GENERALLY , does it make sense to do DEEP reviews of the medical track record of the drugs given to more people in the history of modern medicine?
or should we just assume the best?

[Gunny]

here's the thing to me.

at this point FEW to NONE of the people (including many gov't world wide and even the WHO) are recommending ANY of the measures that they DEMANDED the world to do earlier.
And the Fear you mentioned was pumped up by the Gov't, big pharma, media, Dr Bill Gates etc about Covid.
There are now records and confessions from Canadian, UK and various Gov't players in the U.S. how they used military PSY-OPs tactics to push the fear into the public to try and get everyone on board with the gov'ts preferred "solutions".

"solutions" Which they are now begrudgingly admitting were largely ineffective, counter productive or outright dangerous.

You keep saying that the 'Both sides' pushed fears in equivalently negative ways.
But somehow you leave out that only ONE side (based in THEIR fears) used EVERY form of economic, political and social coercion, pressure tactic, verbal abuse & censorship to try to get EVERY man, woman & child who disagreed to comply with their CULT level belief in their BS.
To the tune of loss of biz, careers, educations, pensions, contact with family, parks, medical treatments, public access, speech, travel...etc.

While the other side simply wanted to look more closely at the data, (since when has believing the govt blindly been a good thing gunny?)
to be left the H3ll alone to deal with Covid in our own ways,
to look at & use alternatives to deal with the problem.
NOT using Cult like 'solutions' or coercion to get others to.

And as far as fear of the vaccines are concerned personally, well hey, I RARELY take any medications. period, full stop.
Even those that have been around for 30+ years. So to my thinking it's Crazy to take any vaccine which is based on a brand new virus like pfizers and others.
Even worse to take one based on a brand new medical technique never tested on humans successfully.
In my mind, the ONLY reason for ME or anyone in my family to take any completely brand new experimental drugs is if they are dying and there are ABSOLUTELY NO other options.
But this pandemic, even when the numbers/percentages were inflated, NEVER was a real threat to generally healthy people under 60.

And natural immunity was ALWAYS a better than all the options promoted.
The folks that caused the problem were the Gov'ts, media big pharma and those that got caught up in the fear they ginned up over COVID.
AND all the LIES they told about it. (Not from China, not from lab, asymptomatic infections, vaccines will stop the spread, mask work, kids in danger, pandemic of the unvaccinated, 'winter of death' etc etc )

Thank God some people resisted the BS and maybe helped slow the crazy.
One lesson we should all take away is the OLD one of -the 1st rules in any emergency, DON'T PANIC!-
When people panic MORE folks are harmed.
Also, don't trust people who are trying to spook the herd.

But Gunny judging by yours and others continued reaction i think the the old saying applies.
"the one thing we learn from history, is that no one learns from history."​


And as far as fear of the vaccines are concerned GENERALLY , does it make sense to do DEEP reviews of the medical track record of the drugs given to more people in the history of modern medicine?
or should we just assume the best?

Nobody slowed anything.


One lesson we should all take away is the OLD one of -the 1st rules in any emergency, DON'T PANIC!-
When people panic MORE folks are harmed.
Also, don't trust people who are trying to spook the herd.

Your own words apply to you as much as anyone freaking out and demanding others get vaccinated. You've been and are still trying to prove your unprovable case, and spook whoever you could. It has been hard to distinguish between the for and against extremist intertwining their misinformation/lies with the facts educated people need to make a correct decision based on individual circumstance.

Man does not learn from history. We just repeat it with better weapons.

[revelarts]

Even the W.H.O. beginning to admit it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2r4xZkXQAEKOC2?format=webp&name=small

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVX-jK90HCM




359,699 views Aug 2, 2023
Global excess deaths associated with COVID-19, January 2020 - December 2021New hope children centrehttps://www.newhopeuplands.org (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqa1hOWnpXYS11YUNtZ1RlbktoS3ViVW VSbHg4UXxBQ3Jtc0ttb0UwaG05ZDctUzhUSWZPVFd3c19CbDBG TDdLTW9GOWVxcWNoSWdGVnF0d043STZtMkNUbnNJakNkMVM1UD BDVkJQVVRjclRKQmxiVWZKcDJFbWtaS3UtdVZEOGVmc2F1TlNV Q0xOVF80b014Tk81NA&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newhopeuplands.org%2F&v=hVX-jK90HCM)If you would like to support the work in Africa, donations are welcome using the PayPal link below. 100% of funds go directly to Africa. Thank you. https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbFc1blJ1NVRHcHBtbkFWak5pcVVfUz dmYzdYZ3xBQ3Jtc0trSks4VGlPbnpRc1JMdy1KaWt6Z09qb3dr MTZvTHR4aHZkY2d1YnFYckJkUzhXdWtjbVR4aVBRRXF4VjM3Z1 9QNGVLSUZhV25JeXVuNFFhbHpsaHdOdnZiMjFHQTJzV1BfWXl0 ZHlVQTBVNmhualpPTQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.paypal.com%2Fdonate%2F%3Fhoste d_button_id%3DXS59XPZ527YFL&v=hVX-jK90HCM)A comprehensive view of global deaths directly and indirectly associated the COVID-19 pandemic.https://www.who.int/data/stories/glob... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbUpDM016WlJvRzNfZGgzYmtqbWZsYX VBdmx3UXxBQ3Jtc0ttYUppNkxmclBkTFNtQVBlLWEyUUYwWVRf NzNhMjZ2OFV2OGNZd3FSb1JwWXd5dmRQTGtrRm5mQktkQXZMRE 55WFdYYUdWTEppVW9hR2xxU0U4dUUtZVlJMld0eGpMdUJ3cHo0 TjNUQndyZG5iVnpwaw&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fdata%2Fstories%2Fglo bal-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-january-2020-december-2021&v=hVX-jK90HCM)The World Health Organization (WHO) is tracking global excess mortality as the pandemic evolves over time to reveal a picture of its full impact and burden on countries, health systems and individuals.'Excess mortality' is defined as the difference between the total number of deaths that have occurred and the number of deaths that would have been expected in the absence of the pandemic i.e. a no-COVID-19 scenario.Understanding the excess mortality:Excess mortality includes deaths attributable directly to COVID-19,includes deaths attributable directly to COVID-19 that were not counted or reported,includes deaths indirectly associated with COVID-19, due to other causes and diseases, resulting from the wider impact of the pandemic on health systems and society.It is minus any deaths that would have occurred under normal circumstances but were averted due to pandemic-related changes in social conditions and personal behaviors,e.g. less traffic deaths or influenza deaths due to local lockdowns and less travel.No mention ofAdverse effects of lockdowns, social, economic, psychological, psychiatricAdverse events of medical interventions (iatrogenesis)https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbjJjTjJvVmpwSFNzU3hUMWxLTkJGdE xtN3ZVZ3xBQ3Jtc0ttSzVyYkFFSmJrQnAyYkpYdzdpY3d6TEhQ WnRBWnZhMnlwcWJDSXRFMV9Ga3M3RXU0cjZPaVRmSTl2RTNZRE xTWUJQLU54MkRab2lxa3BZWS1VSVNTTi1fcUNHQ1VtZTFuWDV1 aGV6NTJ4NktGNmZ5TQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fhamil ton%2Fcovid-mcmaster-fall-booster-shots-1.6923295&v=hVX-jK90HCM)https://www.canada.ca/en/public-healt... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbVByWUw3MXZCTTRfTk9tWWY5SG4wdz JULS10d3xBQ3Jtc0trcVp1MzBoS0gwR3ZwZGRUaDFjUjljZjV0 RkZzSmN6QmM5ajg5VlJxNTFrYTZOVmhYUFNGQVRzbEJPXzlJdT NNNW1wdjJUSlVmZXc1QmlvRDVhMGZsVmQtMUVqYmFlX2FHaksw OFQtTXpjSFNRYTVZYw&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canada.ca%2Fen%2Fpublic-health%2Fservices%2Fpublications%2Fvaccines-immunization%2Fnational-advisory-committee-immunization-guidance-use-covid-19-vaccines-fall-2023.html&v=hVX-jK90HCM)Vaccination of individuals who are pregnantStudies continue to support vaccination during pregnancy. Safety of Omicron-containing bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccinesThe safety profile of the bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters is comparable to that of original mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters No evidence on VE against infant outcomes is available for vaccination with bivalent mRNA vaccines in persons who are pregnant.In Western Australiahttps://www.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbjhBbU9qMW9mb2hpNFZBYXcyZ2h0QX JJSzdQZ3xBQ3Jtc0tuTVh5T2JmR1FBRFhNaWRkUzQtTG1MTzFD UnRxemJSLVQ3WFF2Y01SbmNUNFo5YjJuTEZaWGVyRll4LWVZRz N1dDRTRkxhVEVJd3VSVV9QOFhjTXliaXJ2T2l4N1ZqMmdSak56 cmZ5N1lTcjNMLW1Taw&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.health.wa.gov.au%2F%7E%2Fmedia %2FCorp%2FDocuments%2FHealth-for%2FImmunisation%2FWestern-Australia-Vaccine-Safety-Surveillance-Annual-Report-2021.pdf&v=hVX-jK90HCM)Total AEFI rate following a COVID-19 vaccine was 264.1 per 100,000 doses. 26.41 per 10 thousand 2.641 per thousand0.241%One in 414 dosesOf these AEFI, (adverse events following immunisation)10,428 (97%) occurred after a COVID-19 vaccine21 times more common than ‘conventional’ vaccinesMyocardial Injury after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/e... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbWgwRmxMeHVmNjdyMndVcDBDV1Jud1 dORmptUXxBQ3Jtc0ttTFhnT3Q1WkkxS19zWC14S2FRaDFpU0lY T3lHYzQ5NUtEdVM5TERrS2dkU005aU9DZjlaOXhGVlJ4T21pbW 8ycE1ySWZVWHQxYXpLc1JhdUpfZjdYbWZIazNLYmxKSUFocnV3 enlPajl4QW14c2FYMA&q=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2Fep df%2F10.1002%2Fejhf.2978&v=hVX-jK90HCM)One in 35 recipients (2.8%) had vaccine-associated myocardial injury

[icansayit]

I no longer care what excuses ANYONE comes up with.

I just know...as I get closer to the end.

Talking about death rates, and asking Why...is just plain simple.

"The second, minute, hour, and day we are all born is:

One second, minute, hour, and day closer to our Last Heartbeat.

Nothing any of us say will change what the inevitable brings".
(icansayit Aug 4, 2023)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did you actually read your link?



But yes, lazy headlines; par for the course.

BULLLSHAT.. How does political affect fertility factor? Talk about bullshat..... -----Tyr


They discovered fluctuating fertility rates in some states were more strongly linked to demographic, economic and political factors

[AHZ]

I can even agree with rev's response, as far as his personal statement. Although, I don't find it peculiar that the pharm companies and government see the results first. That's kind of how it works. The panicked, embarrassing public cries to the government and the government goes shopping. In this case, needing a vaccine, to the people that make vaccines.

Sure it got rushed. So did the "Patriot Act". In response to the sheeple crying to the government to save us. In the case of the latter, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Anything foreign introduced into the human body comes with inherent risk, and affects a .00X number of people.

The whole topic is driven by nothing but fear. Fear of COVID. Fear of dying. Fear of the COVID vaccine. Fear of dying. Lest we forget, lots of people were dying. From the virus.

Not to be forgotten also is the current Western mindset of refusing to acknowledge one could be wrong, to the point of making outlandish arguments based on cherry picked numbers, half-truths and/or outright lies.

IMO, the worst damage done to this Nation, and most of the rest of the World for that matter, was done by neither virus nor vaccine. It's what government and people did to themselves in their own minds.

No.

we're not ALL TO BLAME.

the openly eugenicist/ soft kill powers that be are, including but not limited to big pharma, the w.h.o. and their oligarch front men.

[AHZ]

In today's World of instant, second by second news from around the globe.
More people are being informed about the death rates that have been taking place
for centuries.
NEWSFLASH: The day we are all put on this planet, is the first day we lose of being alive.
The final outcome is, and always has been DEATH. Unless somebody knows another reason.

With about 8 Billion human beings now living on Earth. Most of the deaths are YES...Caused by Cancer, and other diseases.
While the rest of the deaths...probably also huge in numbers. Are, in reality. Nothing more than the Outcome of
BEING BORN, and time expiring for ALL OF US.
That's the way I see life today in my 76th year. I know I am closer to becoming another obituary number, than to my birthday.


but yet, big pharma and their oligarchs murdering people is still newsworthy.

it's not "spoiled brat" alarmism.

"back in my day we took our poison and we were thankful" lol.

I mean ultimately, science is for fags, amirite?

[fj1200]

BULLLSHAT.. How does political affect fertility factor? Talk about bullshat..... -----Tyr

Ummm, it was two paragraphs down.


For example, politically liberal places like New York and Washington, D.C., had the highest social distancing indexes and the lowest fertility rates, while conservative states like Idaho and Montana had the lowest social distancing indexes and the highest fertility rates.

[AHZ]

Ummm, it was two paragraphs down.


that's not a HOW. correlation is not causation.

[fj1200]

that's not a HOW. correlation is not causation.

Being distanced when attempting fertilization is pretty causative. But make of it as you will as the study was trying to determine factors.

[AHZ]

Being distanced when attempting fertilization is pretty causative. But make of it as you will as the study was trying to determine factors.


socially distancing is generally suspended within couples bedrooms, so I would discount that explanation, but I permit you to believe otherwise.

[fj1200]

socially distancing is generally suspended within couples bedrooms, so I would discount that explanation, but I permit you to believe otherwise.

You should broaden your mind.

[AHZ]

You should broaden your mind.


so you think social distancing also affected back alley conception?

[fj1200]

so you think social distancing also affected back alley conception?

Less datin', less matin', less marryin', less carryin'. Not sure how you think it happens typically. But what you clearly don't understand is the flow of the thread, how it was conceived, how it's growing up, how it's becoming an adult thread based on what's alleged and what is supporting said allegation; You should start at the beginning.

[AHZ]

Less datin', less matin', less marryin', less carryin'. Not sure how you think it happens typically. But what you clearly don't understand is the flow of the thread, how it was conceived, how it's growing up, how it's becoming an adult thread based on what's alleged and what is supporting said allegation; You should start at the beginning.


god said, "let there be dipshits"?

[revelarts]

"'Definite Causal Link’ Between COVID Vaccine Rollouts and Peaks in All-Cause Mortality, New Study Finds"
Researchers estimated the COVID-19 vaccines led to approximately 17 million deaths worldwide, with the most deaths occuring among the elderly.

But hey this study is not from the gov't so it can be ignored.
I mean the gov't has no stake in not letting people know after paying billion for the drugs & after encouraging millions to take a drug.
Plus they love taxpayers! they don't want them dying. PHFFFt.

So please, can someone nit pick and poo-poo this 'misinformation'... until the MAYO clinic confirms it 3, 5 or 10 years from now.
A new study of 17 countries found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the rapid rollouts of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.
Researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest found more than half of the countries analyzed had no detectable rise in all-cause mortality after the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020 — until after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

They also found that all 17 countries, which make up 10.3% of the global population, had an unprecedented rise in all-cause mortality that corresponded directly to vaccine and booster rollouts.
Through a statistical analysis of mortality data, the authors calculated the fatal toxicity risk-per-injection increased significantly with age, but averaged 1 death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.
By that calculation, with 13.5 billion injections given up to Sept. 2, 2023, the researchers estimated there were 17 million COVID-19 vaccination deaths (± 500,000) globally following the vaccine roll-out.
“This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed 0.213 (± 0.006) % of the world population and did not measurably prevent any deaths,” the authors wrote.

This number, they noted, is 1,000 times higher than previously reported in data from clinical trials, adverse event monitoring and cause-of-death statistics gleaned from death certificates.
In other words, “The COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents,” they wrote.

The shots were the most toxic for the most elderly across all 17 countries analyzed.
The authors concluded governments should “immediately end the baseless public health policy of prioritizing elderly residents for injection with COVID-19 vaccines, until valid risk-benefit analyses are made.”...

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-rollouts-all-cause-mortality/


Look at that. It's from that ANTI-VAXXER group run by RFK jr.
That's ALL anyone needs to know!
No need to review "the DATA" or his source. it's a waste of time.
Just read what the CDC says, they've got your back.

[Kathianne]

"'Definite Causal Link’ Between COVID Vaccine Rollouts and Peaks in All-Cause Mortality, New Study Finds"
Researchers estimated the COVID-19 vaccines led to approximately 17 million deaths worldwide, with the most deaths occuring among the elderly.

But hey this study is not from the gov't so it can be ignored.
I mean the gov't has no stake in not letting people know after paying billion for the drugs & after encouraging millions to take a drug.
Plus they love taxpayers! they don't want them dying. PHFFFt.

So please, can someone nit pick and poo-poo this 'misinformation'... until the MAYO clinic confirms it 3, 5 or 10 years from now.
A new study of 17 countries found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the rapid rollouts of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.
Researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest found more than half of the countries analyzed had no detectable rise in all-cause mortality after the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020 — until after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

They also found that all 17 countries, which make up 10.3% of the global population, had an unprecedented rise in all-cause mortality that corresponded directly to vaccine and booster rollouts.
Through a statistical analysis of mortality data, the authors calculated the fatal toxicity risk-per-injection increased significantly with age, but averaged 1 death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.
By that calculation, with 13.5 billion injections given up to Sept. 2, 2023, the researchers estimated there were 17 million COVID-19 vaccination deaths (± 500,000) globally following the vaccine roll-out.
“This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed 0.213 (± 0.006) % of the world population and did not measurably prevent any deaths,” the authors wrote.

This number, they noted, is 1,000 times higher than previously reported in data from clinical trials, adverse event monitoring and cause-of-death statistics gleaned from death certificates.
In other words, “The COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents,” they wrote.

The shots were the most toxic for the most elderly across all 17 countries analyzed.
The authors concluded governments should “immediately end the baseless public health policy of prioritizing elderly residents for injection with COVID-19 vaccines, until valid risk-benefit analyses are made.”...

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-rollouts-all-cause-mortality/


Look at that. It's from that ANTI-VAXXER group run by RFK jr.
That's ALL anyone needs to know!
No need to review "the DATA" or his source. it's a waste of time.
Just read what the CDC says, they've got your back.


Actually, I don't feel that way at all. What I do think is that the numbers of young people with heart abnormalities since covid have risen. I want studies, this one too for that matter. We need to find the patterns and we need replication.

I'll not forget what anti-vaxxers did with autism lies in Lancet. Likewise the nonsense of CDC and administration regarding at minimum inane statements on natural immunity.

To a large degree I can allow your condescension and sarcasm roll off, as your charges are not true. My responses or non-response over the past years have been for the above reasons for the most part. WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE TYPES OF RESEARCH/STUDIES YOU AND SassyLady HAVE BEEN POSTING ABOUT FOR THOSE YEARS. M

My jobs have never been in medicine or science. I don't try and do my own research for the most part, which doesn't mean I'm willfully ignorant, I use my limited knowledge to evaluate what I do read. Thus my statement regarding natural immunity.

Yes, I noticed the easy availability and encouragement to vaccinate and basically outlawing long approved meds that some felt, (later proved) were effective.

Good on those that find such issues worth pursuing nearly as a full-time calling.

[revelarts]

My sarcasm is not directed at you Kath, But someone who's name I will not say.
but the letters to his name are F & J.

[AHZ]

Actually, I don't feel that way at all. What I do think is that the numbers of young people with heart abnormalities since covid have risen. I want studies, this one too for that matter. We need to find the patterns and we need replication.

I'll not forget what anti-vaxxers did with autism lies in Lancet. Likewise the nonsense of CDC and administration regarding at minimum inane statements on natural immunity.

To a large degree I can allow your condescension and sarcasm roll off, as your charges are not true. My responses or non-response over the past years have been for the above reasons for the most part. WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE TYPES OF RESEARCH/STUDIES YOU AND @SassyLady (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=83) HAVE BEEN POSTING ABOUT FOR THOSE YEARS. M

My jobs have never been in medicine or science. I don't try and do my own research for the most part, which doesn't mean I'm willfully ignorant, I use my limited knowledge to evaluate what I do read. Thus my statement regarding natural immunity.

Yes, I noticed the easy availability and encouragement to vaccinate and basically outlawing long approved meds that some felt, (later proved) were effective.

Good on those that find such issues worth pursuing nearly as a full-time calling.


you demand more scientific rigor to disprove vaccine use (in spite of admittedly correlational findings) than to prove people should take it in the first place.

even with their billions you people are saying its expedient to go live with new drugs and test on the overall population.

you people are sick.

[Kathianne]

My sarcasm is not directed at you Kath, But someone's who name I will not say.
but the letters to his name are F & J.
I think he's alot like you in getting heated about what he feels very strongly about.

Now, I do think when he was discussing admitting what is in common between those like you-largely committed to the government/big pharma intentionally or close to it, hurting the citizenry; and me, who is not putting anything past the government, but doesn't go down the same road. I think there were wrongs done and still happening because of a decision to go full bore on this virus. Two administrations-one bureaucracy.

[revelarts]

BTW,
2010 - CBS news

"The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one.
CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.

In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months.

Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries.

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism "test cases" have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

more studies need to be done here as well.
If you check the children defense fund site you'll find a lot of info on this. including the lancet.

[AHZ]

BTW,
2010 - CBS news
"The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one.
CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.

In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months.

Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries.

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism "test cases" have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

more studies need to be done here as well.
If you check the children defense fund site you'll find a lot of info on this. including the lancet.

yes.

big pharma is literally eugenics-nazis; people who facilitate their agenda are prussian-adjacent.

[Kathianne]

BTW,
2010 - CBS news
"The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one.
CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.

In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months.

Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries.

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism "test cases" have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

more studies need to be done here as well.
If you check the children defense fund site you'll find a lot of info on this. including the lancet.


I get vaccines have side effects. I get that some will have very adverse reactions, including death. The standard always has to be, without the vaccine how many will have permanent disabilities or die? With it? IMO, without doubt, when the vaccine problems are significant in reducing the disease being protected against, patients need to think long and hard, especially for their children.

With something like MMR, polio, there is a government interest in protecting those that cannot be vaccinated against those parents that want their children to benefit by herd immunity and protected from any vaccine risks.

[AHZ]

I get vaccines have side effects. I get that some will have very adverse reactions, including death. The standard always has to be, without the vaccine how many will have permanent disabilities or die? With it? IMO, without doubt, when the vaccine problems are significant in reducing the disease being protected against, patients need to think long and hard, especially for their children.

With something like MMR, polio, there is a government interest in protecting those that cannot be vaccinated against those parents that want their children to benefit by herd immunity and protected from any vaccine risks.

god dammit no kathianne.

you're on the wrong side.

government interests in protecting children from their anti-vaxx parents......?

you're still with satan.

[revelarts]

I get vaccines have side effects. I get that some will have very adverse reactions, including death. The standard always has to be, without the vaccine how many will have permanent disabilities or die? With it? IMO, without doubt, when the vaccine problems are significant in reducing the disease being protected against, patients need to think long and hard, especially for their children.

With something like MMR, polio, there is a government interest in protecting those that cannot be vaccinated against those parents that want their children to benefit by herd immunity and protected from any vaccine risks.
Well, there's a lot that could go into that but without going into a deep dive,
how many Amish have died form all the diseases the vaccines ONLY are supposed to prevent?
Seems they would nearly wiped out by now. Herd in close contact for sure. sharing communion cups no less.
And many of the diseases that the recommended vaccines are for are not even deadly, especially if caught in time.
Measles used to be thought of as pretty mild, for the majority of people.

[AHZ]

Well, there's a lot that could go into that but without going into a deep dive,
how many Amish have died form all the diseases the vaccines ONLY are supposed to prevent?

Seems they would nearly wiped out by now. Herd in close contact for sure. sharing communion cups no less.
And many of the diseases that the recommended vaccines are for are not even deadly, especially if caught in time.
Measles used to be thought of as pretty mild, for the majority of people.
communions might be papistry im not sure.....

[revelarts]

communions might be papistry im not sure.....

Many Amish share communion cups at their churches as well

[Kathianne]

Well, there's a lot that could go into that but without going into a deep dive,
how many Amish have died form all the diseases the vaccines ONLY are supposed to prevent?

Seems they would nearly wiped out by now. Herd in close contact for sure. sharing communion cups no less.
And many of the diseases that the recommended vaccines are for are not even deadly, especially if caught in time.
Measles used to be thought of as pretty mild, for the majority of people.
How many Amish are integrated into public schools or society in general? Homeschoolers aren't mandated, though when at movies or zoo or grocery they put others at risk.

Which of the common childhood diseases are not deadly or permanently life changing-like polio to many children? How do you 'catch' polio or measles early? I'm not doing the deep dive, but I'm pretty sure they've been done. What's the death and permanent life changing rate for unvaccinated v vaccinated? Again, those that piggyback on the herd immunity of the responsible should be liable financially if their special darling spreads disease and kills.

[AHZ]

Many Amish share communion cups at their churches as well


i think they have it all figured out.

do your chores. don't murder even if the state says so.......

the amish are killing it right now.

there's power in never being distracted by satan's baubles.

[Kathianne]

Many Amish share communion cups at their churches as well
within their own homogeneous community. Of course, if some virile form was brought into the community, could be total wipeout-having zero antibodies, which is not true of most of greater community.

[revelarts]

within their own homogeneous community. Of course, if some virile form was brought into the community, could be total wipeout-having zero antibodies, which is not true of most of greater community.

Many got covid, very few died.
the Amish communities were among the 1st (only?) to be declared to truly have "herd immunity"

[AHZ]

within their own homogeneous community. Of course, if some virile form was brought into the community, could be total wipeout-having zero antibodies, which is not true of most of greater community.


nor is it true of the amish.

I don't know if you remember kat, but the latest round of pushed vaxxes made people more susceptibel to disease.

Are we allowed to mention these facts?

[AHZ]

Many got covid, very few died.
the Amish communities were among the 1st (only?) to be declared to truly have "herd immunity"

we all have it.


they rely on it more, it's safe to say.

compulsive cleanliness and not letting children get dirty degrades it's strength, as does formulas instead of breastfeeding.

[revelarts]

Miscarriages

https://openvaers.com/covid-data/reproductive-health

VAERS COVID Vaccine
Reproductive Health Related ReportsThrough September 15, 2023

[fj1200]

My sarcasm is not directed at you Kath, But someone's who name I will not say.
but the letters to his name are F & J.

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.

[Kathianne]

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.


GGRrrrr at bolded. If real scientists had balked then, maybe we wouldn't be where we are today. Actually was my first time being convinced the MSM was twisting truth and protecting the liars.

[Kathianne]

Many got covid, very few died.
the Amish communities were among the 1st (only?) to be declared to truly have "herd immunity"
That was true of most that didn't get the vaccine, with exception of elderly and prior health issues, no?

If we only have 100 people that we interact with, herd immunity can be in place quite quickly.

[fj1200]

Many got covid, very few died.
the Amish communities were among the 1st (only?) to be declared to truly have "herd immunity"

It's not about how many, it's about how many per population.

https://wvutoday.wvu.edu/stories/2021/06/22/death-and-religion-excess-deaths-sweep-through-amish-and-mennonite-communities-during-covid-19-pandemic

[AHZ]

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.


no. you always side with big government and or big business, where their malign interests intersect, and perverting thought to preserve these fascist notions.

[revelarts]

It's the age-old question isn't it? Causation vs. correlation. That and repeatability of results, lack of bias, corroborating studies, etc. But you've got your narrative so it's a win today eh? Maybe that "definite causal link" coincides with a year of lockdowns, lack of doctor visits, isolation of the elderly, etc.?

You don't seem to understand this but I'm not locked into a particular position, I'm locked in to critical thought and not accepting things because I saw a headline that I agree with. Kind of crazy I know. What do you think about Mann's Hockey Stick? It was science.

FJ if you were really open or simply looking at and for the truth, you'd have rejected headlines of the gov't rather than running behind post like mine here. and RANDOMLY tossing up BS about "causation vs. correlation" when the study i posted ruled out all of the items you mentioned.
Why would you ASSUMED the items you mentioned are a cause? seems like bias. you haven't done a study.

Why would you assume the vax is NOT the cause? unless you do have preferred bias. Your own narrative.

I can't read your mind but based on your post, the best i can say is the difference between you an I here is that I'm aware of my bias and try to check myself against it. While you seem to assume that you have none.
And, you casually look past the headlines, but not to the content, but to the person who posted it and assume that it's must be lacking somehow then toss out inapplicable logical-fallacies and non-sequiturs trying to make them stick.

When you're ready to engage the content directly let me know.

[fj1200]

no. you always side with big government and or big business, where their malign interests intersect, and perverting thought to preserve these fascist notions.

You're fun.


FJ if you were really open or simply looking at and for the truth, you'd have rejected headlines of the gov't rather than running behind post like mine here. and RANDOMLY tossing up BS about "causation vs. correlation" when the study i posted ruled out all of the items you mentioned And HAVE ASSUMED are a cause.

Why would you assume the opposite? unless you do have preferred bias. Your own narrative.

I can't read your mind but based on your post, the best i can say is the difference between you an I here is that I'm aware of my bias and try to check myself against it. While you seem to assume that you have none.
And, you casually look past the headlines, but not to the content, but to the person who posted it and assume that it's must be lacking somehow then toss out inapplicable logical-fallacies and non-sequiturs trying to make them stick.

When you're ready to engage the content directly let me know.

I don't randomly toss up anything. Any study can attempt to rule things out, and should anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they did it successfully. There are a million gun studies in the world and they mostly suck because people look for the conclusion that they want and/or it's virtually impossible to account for the millions of interactions that they can't control for. If you call BS on causation vs correlation then you should probably think through things a little more closely.

I have bias, you have bias, the study authors have bias, the author of the article has bias. Besides I don't recall that many folks tossing up government studies that I have to run behind but if they are biased then they should be called out. FTR, I read the article. ;)

I believe I've engaged the content.

[revelarts]

GGRrrrr at bolded. If real scientists had balked then, maybe we wouldn't be where we are today. Actually was my first time being convinced the MSM was twisting truth and protecting the liars.
Some real scientist did balk. but they were censored and shouted down.
And assumed to be lying for various reasons. paid off by 'big oil'. And supposedly had a different narrative they wanted to promote.

And many people didn't even want to think that mainstream, 'consensus science' could be lying or wrong.
The outsiders were wrong SIMPLY because the were outsiders.

[revelarts]

I don't randomly toss up anything. Any study can attempt to rule things out, and should anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they did it successfully.
So If it's not a random toss up, where the flaw in THIS study FJ?




There are a million gun studies in the world and they mostly suck because people look for the conclusion that they want and/or it's virtually impossible to account for the millions of interactions that they can't control for.
umm, FJ, This is not a gun study.
where the flaw in THIS study FJ?
there are Studies that DO rule out other factors why don't you ASSUME they've done it here, if you're "not locked into a particular position"?



If you call BS on causation vs correlation then you should probably think through things a little more closely.

When you toss it up randomly Assuming that they have not ruled out the rando items you mentioned .



I have bias, you have bias, the study authors have bias, the author of the article has bias. Besides I don't recall that many folks tossing up government studies that I have to run behind but if they are biased then they should be called out.
You have to SHOW the bias before you call it out FJ.
You don't ASSUME the bias and ask others to prove the negative.
You know, like with the hockey stick study.

[Kathianne]

Some real scientist did balk. but they were censored and shouted down.
And assumed to be lying for various reasons. paid off by 'big oil'. And supposedly had a different narrative they wanted to promote.

And many people didn't even want to think that mainstream, 'consensus science' could be lying or wrong.
The outsiders were wrong SIMPLY because the were outsiders.

Indeed, thus my MSM comment.

[AHZ]

I believe I've engaged the content...


poorly.

[fj1200]

So If it's not a random toss up, where the flaw in THIS study FJ?

umm, FJ, This is not a gun study.
where the flaw in THIS study FJ?
there are Studies that DO rule out other factors why don't you ASSUME they've done it here, if you're "not locked into a particular position"?

When you toss it up randomly Assuming that they have not ruled out the rando items you mentioned .

You have to SHOW the bias before you call it out FJ.
You don't ASSUME the bias and ask others to prove the negative.
You know, like with the hockey stick study.

Studies are studies. Bad studies have the same inherent problems.


https://youtu.be/PgiQ-LmJGMY?si=N1io8duuLVG1DLAn

I don't assume anything. I know that they attempted to rule out other causes and think that they've presented a valid study with valid conclusions. All I did was ask the question. Hopefully they've found your holy grail as proof and they will be quickly validated with repetition and corroboration. Did you know that each of those countries did not rely on the same vaccine? Did you know in the Philippines the mortality spike preceded the vaccination spike? Did you know in Peru that there were two mortality spikes preceding the vaccine spike? In New Zealand the vaccine spike preceded the mortality spike? In Malaysia they exactly coincided? In South Africa 3 mortality spikes preceded the vaccine spike? Do you know what you posted?

[AHZ]

Studies are studies. Bad studies have the same inherent problems.


https://youtu.be/PgiQ-LmJGMY?si=N1io8duuLVG1DLAn

I don't assume anything. I know that they attempted to rule out other causes and think that they've presented a valid study with valid conclusions. All I did was ask the question. Hopefully they've found your holy grail as proof and they will be quickly validated with repetition and corroboration. Did you know that each of those countries did not rely on the same vaccine? Did you know in the Philippines the mortality spike preceded the vaccination spike? Did you know in Peru that there were two mortality spikes preceding the vaccine spike? In New Zealand the vaccine spike preceded the mortality spike? In Malaysia they exactly coincided? In South Africa 3 mortality spikes preceded the vaccine spike? Do you know what you posted?


and yet you ignore nearly all adverse reaction stories.

everybody can pick cherries.

you refuse to acknowledge the eugenicist agenda of these nazi companies and the oligarch class in general.

that's what makes you consistently evil.

you're with the population reduction agenda.

[fj1200]

and yet you ignore nearly all adverse reaction stories.

everybody can pick cherries.

you refuse to acknowledge the eugenicist agenda of these nazi companies and the oligarch class in general.

that's what makes you consistently evil.

you're with the population reduction agenda.

And you say I've engaged the content "poorly." You have no idea what the content is.

[revelarts]

Studies are studies. Bad studies have the same inherent problems.


I don't assume anything. I know that they attempted to rule out other causes and think that they've presented a valid study with valid conclusions. All I did was ask the question. Hopefully they've found your holy grail as proof and they will be quickly validated with repetition and corroboration. Did you know that each of those countries did not rely on the same vaccine? Did you know in the Philippines the mortality spike preceded the vaccination spike? Did you know in Peru that there were two mortality spikes preceding the vaccine spike? In New Zealand the vaccine spike preceded the mortality spike? In Malaysia they exactly coincided? In South Africa 3 mortality spikes preceded the vaccine spike? Do you know what you posted?

Some Men beat their wives
I noticed you have a wife.
Do you beat your wife?
Many men say they don't. hopefully you don't.
Hopefully you're the holy grial of none wife beating men.

All i'm doing is asking a question.
I'm not assuming anything.

:rolleyes:

BTW i don't watch videos, they can hide things i've been told

[fj1200]

Some Men beat their wives
I noticed a you have a wife.
Do you beat your wife?
Many men say they don't. hopefully you don't.

All i'm doing is asking a question.
I'm not assuming anything.

:rolleyes:

Did you know those things that I discovered? Was I wrong? Did you critically think through the studies that agree with you just as much as you overread a one-sentence blurb in something you don't?

It's not merely asking questions, it's asking pertinent questions.

[revelarts]

Did you know those things that I discovered? Was I wrong? Did you critically think through the studies that agree with you just as much as you overread a one-sentence blurb in something you don't?

It's not merely asking questions, it's asking pertinent questions.
gaslighting again?
What did you discover FJ?
All I've seen you present is a bunch of negative speculation about the what you assume the studies did not account for.

when you have info, like the scientist who refuted the 'hockey stick charts' who pointed to the specific facts that it did not account for certain years. And that the formula used was flawed so that nearly any numbers plugged in would create a 'hockey stick'.
Then get back to me.
Not with rando negative assumptions and wondering if it's a "bad study" LIKE THIS OTHER BAD STUDY over here.

[fj1200]

gaslighting again?
What did you discover FJ?
All I've seen you present is a bunch of negative speculation about the what you assume the studies did not account for.

when you have info, like the scientist who refuted the 'hockey stick charts' who pointed to the specific facts that it did not account for certain years. And that the formula used was flawed so that nearly any numbers plugged in would create a 'hockey stick'.
Then get back to me.
Not with rando negative assumptions and wondering if it's a "bad study" LIKE THIS OTHER BAD STUDY over here.

No, you're not sure what you posted would be a shorter answer. There is no amount of accounting that can be made for something to be causative if used after the "correlated" event. Please, point out where I'm off base. All I did was do exactly what you wanted me to do.

[revelarts]

No, you're not sure what you posted would be a shorter answer. There is no amount of accounting that can be made for something to be causative if used after the "correlated" event. Please, point out where I'm off base. All I did was do exactly what you wanted me to do.

so by you're standard we can NEVER know.
so you assume it's false.

By that standard we can NEVER know if the vaccine EVER worked. ANY vaccine.
"There is no amount of accounting that can be made for something to be causative if used after the "correlated" event."

[fj1200]

so by you're standard we can NEVER know.
so you assume it's false.

By that standard we can NEVER know if the vaccine EVER worked. ANY vaccine.
"There is no amount of accounting that can be made for something to be causative if used after the "correlated" event."


No. That would be a different study. If rates are lower after the vaccine then that would indicate the vaccine has some effectiveness. It, by definition, can't cause something if it happened after the claimed event. What do you think about the Peru graph on the top of page 90?

You asked why? I answered.

[revelarts]

No. That would be a different study. If rates are lower after the vaccine then that would indicate the vaccine has some effectiveness. It, by definition, can't cause something if it happened after the claimed event. What do you think about the Peru graph on the top of page 90?

You asked why? I answered.
"If rates are lower after the vaccine then that would indicate the vaccine has some effectiveness. "
"There is no amount of accounting that can be made for something to be causative if used after the "correlated" event."

why couldn't have been lockdowns? or mask? or hand washing? or prayer, or ozone, or the election of Biden & harris ?
I'm just asking a question.

[fj1200]

"If rates are lower after the vaccine then that would indicate the vaccine has some effectiveness. "
"There is no amount of accounting that can be made for something to be causative if used after the "correlated" event."

why couldn't have been lockdowns? or mask? or hand washing? or prayer, or ozone, or the election of Biden & harris ?
I'm just asking a question.

You cannot be serious. /johnmcenroe

We're talking about two different things. It isn't a study about vaccine effectiveness beyond the vaccine. It's claiming that the vaccine caused excess mortality; it seems that there are some problems with that. If you're trying to decide whether the vaccine is effective after it's administered then look to see if there are mortality spikes after the doses are given; if there are spikes then it seems that it's not effective, if there aren't spikes it suggests that they are effective. I don't recall any spikes after the vaccine was delivered. But hey, you could look and find out. You'd have to click to the actual study though; the article you posted was kind of a puff piece.

[revelarts]

You cannot be serious. /johnmcenroe

We're talking about two different things. It isn't a study about vaccine effectiveness beyond the vaccine. It's claiming that the vaccine caused excess mortality; it seems that there are some problems with that. If you're trying to decide whether the vaccine is effective after it's administered then look to see if there are mortality spikes after the doses are given; if there are spikes then it seems that it's not effective, if there aren't spikes it suggests that they are effective. I don't recall any spikes after the vaccine was delivered. But hey, you could look and find out. You'd have to click to the actual study though; the article you posted was kind of a puff piece.

....It's claiming that the vaccine caused excess mortality;
If you're trying to decide whether the vaccine caused excess mortality after it's administered then look to see if there are mortality spikes after the doses are given; if there are spikes then it seems that it's caused excess mortality, if there aren't spikes it suggests that did not cause excess mortality.
I do recall spikes after the vaccine was delivered.

But hey, you could look and find out. You'd have to click to the actual study though.

[fj1200]

....It's claiming that the vaccine caused excess mortality; If you're trying to decide whether the vaccine caused excess mortality after it's administered then look to see if there are mortality spikes after the doses are given; if there are spikes then it seems that it's caused excess mortality, if there aren't spikes it suggests that did not cause excess mortality. I do recall spikes after the vaccine was delivered. But hey, you could look and find out. You'd have to click to the actual study though.

I did. That's how I know the study looks like an exercise in a predetermined outcome.

[AHZ]

I did. That's how I know the study looks like an exercise in a predetermined outcome.


you = discredited.

[fj1200]

you = discredited.

You didn't understand the words being used did you? If you claim that vaccines cause death then the death spike would be after the vaccine spike; in many cases it didn't. The same data would also suggest that if death spikes did not occur after the vaccine spike then vaccines may be effective.

[revelarts]

Excess deaths in 2023 confirmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xBiyidQ9g
link to data (https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=104676)

Excess deaths debate in parliament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ23vr1Gs3w

[revelarts]

FDA Finds 'Signal' For Seizures Among COVID-19 Vaccinated Toddlers

BY TYLER DURDEN

WEDNESDAY, OCT 18, 2023 - 08:00 PM
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/fda-finds-safety-signal-for-covid-19-vaccination-among-toddlers-5511516?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge) (emphasis ours),
A safety signal of seizures for young children following COVID-19 vaccination has been detected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image%28464%29.jpg?itok=ksVq1LWbThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in White Oak, Md., on June 5, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)Seizures/convulsions "met the statistical threshold for a signal" in children aged 2 to 4 following receipt of a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and children aged 2 to 5 following receipt of a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, researchers with the FDA and three large healthcare companies said in a new preprint study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.13.23296903v1.full.pdf).
A safety signal is a sign that a health condition may be caused by vaccination, but further research is required to verify a link.
The data came from three health claims databases run by Optum, Carelon Research, and CVS Health, supplemented with vaccination information from state and local systems. The health claims databases are part of the FDA's Biologics Effectiveness and Safety System, a drug safety monitoring system.
Researchers looked at 15 health conditions following vaccination entered in the commercial databases and compared rates among children aged 6 months old to 17 years old to background rates from 2019, 2020, or both.
Overall, 72 cases of seizures/convulsions were recorded within seven days of a shot among toddlers and other young children. Most happened within three days of a shot.
When stratifying the data by dose, the researchers found signals for dose one and dose two for Pfizer's shot in two of the three databases in children aged 2 to 4. They also found a signal following dose two of Moderna's shot in children aged two to five....

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fda-finds-safety-signal-covid-19-vaccination-among-toddlers?ref=biztoc.com

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGtznK4bIAAGvNi?format=jpg&name=small

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGzq9HEXEAEfYUw?format=jpg&name=small

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG1X3uOWoAEbuFM?format=png&name=small

Link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10810638/

though it may be taken down "for your safety"

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GO5tZGZXIAAVC9o?format=png&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GOzqmnuWoAEypmg?format=jpg&name=small


many died or got sick right after the shot and within the 2 week window.


not a new study but...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_sugg est_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status _and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination


https://slaynews.com/news/vaxxed-deaths-recorded-unvaxxed-make-covid-shots-appear-safe-official-data/

[revelarts]

Mainstream media dipping it's toe in the water.
UK Telegraph
Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths
Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates
(not sure how they are going edit this over time)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/04/covid-vaccines-may-have-helped-fuel-rise-in-excess-deaths/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-vaccines-may-helped-fuel-051100916.html


peer reviewed study
Study: High excess death rates in the West for 3 years running since start of pandemic despite containment and vaccines
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-high-excess-death-west-years.html

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPRV-7-bcAATChQ?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPTxeNLXsAAePXk?format=jpg&name=small

[SassyLady]

Mainstream media dipping it's toe in the water.
UK Telegraph
Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths
Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates
(not sure how they are going edit this over time)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/04/covid-vaccines-may-have-helped-fuel-rise-in-excess-deaths/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-vaccines-may-helped-fuel-051100916.html


peer reviewed study
Study: High excess death rates in the West for 3 years running since start of pandemic despite containment and vaccines
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-high-excess-death-west-years.html

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPRV-7-bcAATChQ?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPTxeNLXsAAePXk?format=jpg&name=small

Rev ... you know that because the headline says "may be" that fj will totally discount this info. Some silly dismissive quip like "that doesn't say what you think it does". Or ... "The Telegraph"? Who believes that rag?

Why people want to continue denying the reality that the covid vaccine is more dangerous than helpful still baffles me.

[fj1200]

Rev ... you know that because the headline says "may be" that fj will totally discount this info. Some silly dismissive quip like "that doesn't say what you think it does". Or ... "The Telegraph"? Who believes that rag?

Why people want to continue denying the reality that the covid vaccine is more dangerous than helpful still baffles me.

I see that you've completely missed the point of my posts.

[fj1200]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPRV-7-bcAATChQ?format=jpg&name=900x900



Rev ...

Read the last 3 paragraphs and tell what you see.

[Black Diamond]

Read the last 3 paragraphs and tell what you see.

Happens in way too many articles on all sides. The truth lies in the last 3 paragraphs.

[SassyLady]

Yeah, there's always some type of disclaimer.

[revelarts]

Read the last 3 paragraphs and tell what you see.
Read the text of my post and what do you see?
Anything that contradicts the "3 paragraphs"? Are you reading INTO my post?


As I said. the MSM DIPING their TOES into the waters.


I already have enough evidence from elsewhere. this article is for folks like yourself, (but not you) who seem to want to dismiss the concept of EXCESS DEATHS, And EXCESS DEATHS via "Vaccines" out of hand.
Because "SOURCE!" or "Studies don't show anything!"


Concerning the 3 paragraphs, that's a dr that commented. I'm sure there are a LOT of dr's that will say the same after seeing the study. especially those that gave or encouraged people to take the "Vaccines".

But are you saying that you take the comments of cancer Dr's seriously now? I posted prestigious cancer dr that said pretty much outright that the vaccines were the cause of the new cancer increases he's seen.

I'll post it again for you.
So you can read it and tell me what you see.


A newly published Japanese study confirms UK Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London Angus Dalgleish’s concerns about mRNA injections causing cancer:


"A paper was published out of Japan and it was the Japan's Office of National Statistics, which don't hide, meddle, fiddle...But it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program. They've correlated it absolutely beautifully. I'm alarmed by it because they've done it on deaths...but they've picked it up within 2 years. It's highly significant increase of the cancers and everybody else is starting to see this now...And I was just delighted that so many people from around the world all over the world have published data showing how boosters in particular can suppress your immune response and actually drive cancers that you have but didn't know you had, as it were."

Angus Dalgleish's comments from 2023 I believe.

"At the end of last year I reported that I was seeing melanoma patients who had been stable for years relapse after their first booster (their third injection). I was told it was merely a coincidence and to keep quiet about it, but it became impossible to do so. The number of my patients affected has been rising ever since. I saw two more cases of cancer relapse post booster vaccination in my patients just this last week.

Other oncologists have contacted me from all over the world including from Australia and the US. The consensus is that it is no longer confined to melanoma but that increased incidence of lymphomas, leukaemias and kidney cancers is being seen after booster injections. Additionally my colorectal cancer colleagues report an epidemic of explosive cancers (those presenting with multiple metastatic spread in the liver and elsewhere). All these cancers are occurring (with very few exceptions) in patients who have been forced to have a Covid booster whether they were keen or not, for many so they could travel.

So why are these cancers occurring?
T cell suppression was my first likely explanation given that immunotherapy is so effective in these cancers. However we must also now consider DNA plasmid and SV40 integration in promoting cancer development, a feature made even more concerning by reports that mRNA spike protein binds p53 and other cancer suppressor genes. It is very clear and very frightening that these vaccines have several elements to cause a perfect storm in cancer development in those patients lucky enough to have avoided heart attacks, clots, strokes, autoimmune diseases and other common adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines.

To advise booster vaccines, as is the current case, is no more and no less than medical incompetence; to continue to do so with the above information is medical negligence which can carry a custodial sentence.
No ifs or buts any longer. All mRNA vaccines must be halted and banned now."

Angus Dalgleish
FRCP FRCPath FMedSci is a professor of oncology at St George's, University of London,
best known for his contributions to HIV/AIDS research.

[fj1200]

Happens in way too many articles on all sides. The truth lies in the last 3 paragraphs.

They didn't hide the truth in the headline. "... may be..."


Yeah, there's always some type of disclaimer.

It's not really a disclaimer, it's an acknowledgement of the limitations of the statistical analysis.

[fj1200]

Read the text of my post and what do you see?
Anything that contradicts the "3 paragraphs"? Are you reading INTO my post?


As I said. the MSM DIPING their TOES into the waters.


I already have enough evidence from elsewhere. this article is for folks like yourself, (but not you) who seem to want to dismiss the concept of EXCESS DEATHS, And EXCESS DEATHS via "Vaccines" out of hand.
Because "SOURCE!" or "Studies don't show anything!"


Concerning the 3 paragraphs, that's a dr that commented. I'm sure there are a LOT of dr's that will say the same after seeing the study. especially those that gave or encouraged people to take the "Vaccines".

But are you saying that you take the comments of cancer Dr's seriously now? I posted prestigious cancer dr that said pretty much outright that the vaccines were the cause of the new cancer increases he's seen.

I'll post it again for you.
So you can read it and tell me what you see.

A newly published Japanese study confirms UK Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London Angus Dalgleish’s concerns about mRNA injections causing cancer:

"A paper was published out of Japan and it was the Japan's Office of National Statistics, which don't hide, meddle, fiddle...But it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program. They've correlated it absolutely beautifully. I'm alarmed by it because they've done it on deaths...but they've picked it up within 2 years. It's highly significant increase of the cancers and everybody else is starting to see this now...And I was just delighted that so many people from around the world all over the world have published data showing how boosters in particular can suppress your immune response and actually drive cancers that you have but didn't know you had, as it were."

Angus Dalgleish's comments from 2023 I believe.
"At the end of last year I reported that I was seeing melanoma patients who had been stable for years relapse after their first booster (their third injection). I was told it was merely a coincidence and to keep quiet about it, but it became impossible to do so. The number of my patients affected has been rising ever since. I saw two more cases of cancer relapse post booster vaccination in my patients just this last week.

Other oncologists have contacted me from all over the world including from Australia and the US. The consensus is that it is no longer confined to melanoma but that increased incidence of lymphomas, leukaemias and kidney cancers is being seen after booster injections. Additionally my colorectal cancer colleagues report an epidemic of explosive cancers (those presenting with multiple metastatic spread in the liver and elsewhere). All these cancers are occurring (with very few exceptions) in patients who have been forced to have a Covid booster whether they were keen or not, for many so they could travel.

So why are these cancers occurring?
T cell suppression was my first likely explanation given that immunotherapy is so effective in these cancers. However we must also now consider DNA plasmid and SV40 integration in promoting cancer development, a feature made even more concerning by reports that mRNA spike protein binds p53 and other cancer suppressor genes. It is very clear and very frightening that these vaccines have several elements to cause a perfect storm in cancer development in those patients lucky enough to have avoided heart attacks, clots, strokes, autoimmune diseases and other common adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines.

To advise booster vaccines, as is the current case, is no more and no less than medical incompetence; to continue to do so with the above information is medical negligence which can carry a custodial sentence.
No ifs or buts any longer. All mRNA vaccines must be halted and banned now."

Angus Dalgleish
FRCP FRCPath FMedSci is a professor of oncology at St George's, University of London,
best known for his contributions to HIV/AIDS research.


What have I dismissed?

[revelarts]

What have I dismissed?
From the start of this thread you've posted every other possible option to vaccines as being the more likely cause

The most recent is "read last 3 paragraphs".
But, OK, maybe "dismiss" is too much... deny, deflect, avoid,
Maybe just failing to acknowledge the likelihood.
Denying that studies are studies if they point towards what professor Angus Dalgleish has concluded.
"...it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program. They've correlated it absolutely beautifully. I'm alarmed by it because they've done it on deaths...but they've picked it up within 2 years. It's highly significant increase of the cancers and everybody else is starting to see this now...And I was just delighted that so many people from around the world all over the world have published data showing how boosters in particular can suppress your immune response and actually drive cancers that you have but didn't know you had..."

Can you show me where you've acknowledge these type of conclusions on this issue as valid.
Or haven't push the option off into the future of "further study"?
Or haven't proposed other reasons as MORE/MOST likely?

[fj1200]

From the start of this thread you've posted every other possible option to vaccines as being the more likely cause

The most recent is "read last 3 paragraphs".
But, OK, maybe "dismiss" is too much... deny, deflect, avoid,
Maybe just failing to acknowledge the likelihood.
Denying that studies are studies if they point towards what professor Angus Dalgleish has concluded.
"...it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program. They've correlated it absolutely beautifully. I'm alarmed by it because they've done it on deaths...but they've picked it up within 2 years. It's highly significant increase of the cancers and everybody else is starting to see this now...And I was just delighted that so many people from around the world all over the world have published data showing how boosters in particular can suppress your immune response and actually drive cancers that you have but didn't know you had..."

Can you show me where you've acknowledge these type of conclusions on this issue as valid.
Or haven't push the option off into the future of "further study"?
Or haven't proposed other reasons as MORE/MOST likely?

No I haven't. I've acknowledged, exactly as the "studies" have acknowledged, that there are other possible factors, including vaccines, as causing cancer incidences to go up. Dalgleish is wrong that he correlates it specifically to the vaccine program. Whatever you want to call these particular "studies" or "statistical analyses" they only acknowledge that cancer incidences have gone up and can only speculate as to the cause.

IIRC you previously posted favorably about Dr. Bhattacharya et al and the Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/) which speculated that lockdown policies would lead to what we're seeing today. Specifically mentioning fewer cancer screenings. If you haven't commented on the GBD then I'd like your thoughts on it.


Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

To specifically tie increases in cancer incidence to the vaccine rollout ignores countless other factors which had at least as direct an influence on health outcomes as the potential influence that vaccines have. It would be incredibly convenient to tie vaccines to cancer incidence when covid had at least a one-year head start on impacting future health outcomes without even taking into account the disastrous government mandates that also had a huge impact.

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto yet another notch against vaccines that you will accept any evidence against the vaccines as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are as of yet not proven. You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.

[revelarts]

No I haven't. I've acknowledged, exactly as the "studies" have acknowledged, that there are other possible factors, including vaccines, as causing cancer incidences to go up. Dalgleish is wrong that he correlates it specifically to the vaccine program. Whatever you want to call these particular "studies" or "statistical analyses" they only acknowledge that cancer incidences have gone up and can only speculate as to the cause.

IIRC you previously posted favorably about Dr. Bhattacharya et al and the Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/) which speculated that lockdown policies would lead to what we're seeing today. Specifically mentioning fewer cancer screenings. If you haven't commented on the GBD then I'd like your thoughts on it.



To specifically tie increases in cancer incidence to the vaccine rollout ignores countless other factors which had at least as direct an influence on health outcomes as the potential influence that vaccines have. It would be incredibly convenient to tie vaccines to cancer incidence when covid had at least a one-year head start on impacting future health outcomes without even taking into account the disastrous government mandates that also had a huge impact.

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto yet another notch against vaccines that you will accept any evidence against the vaccines as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are as of yet not proven. You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.

How do you know he's wrong FJ?

[fj1200]

How do you know he's wrong FJ?

If you read the rest of my post, and understood it, you'd have your answer.

[revelarts]

If you read the rest of my post, and understood it, you'd have your answer.
No one has said the vaccines were the ONLY cause of excess deaths.
But when people present to physicians shortly after vaccines with cancers LONG in remission. When they have strokes, blood clots, nerve issues or die within 2 weeks -30 days of the shots. When young people with NO pre-existing conditions who are in good health suddenly get specific heart conditions, ONLY after vaccines, (not after covid) it's more than reasonable to conclude that the shots are the PRIMARY cause of excess death.

If you understood what the professor said and what the studies point toward, you'd reconsider.

[fj1200]

No one has said the vaccines were the ONLY cause of excess deaths.
But when people present to physicians shortly after vaccines with cancers LONG in remission. When they have strokes, blood clots, nerve issues or die within 2 weeks -30 days of the shots. When young people with NO pre-existing conditions who are in good health suddenly get specific heart conditions, ONLY after vaccines, (not after covid) it's more than reasonable to conclude that the shots are the PRIMARY cause of excess death.

If you understood what the professor said and what the studies point toward, you'd reconsider.

Your professor said exactly that. And he's incorrect. I know that because I know what he said.


it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program.

I can't restate any more clearly than 4 posts up. Try addressing those points rather than rehashing your copy/paste list.

[SassyLady]

Another study

https://slaynews.com/news/study-finds-countrys-unprecedented-deaths-caused-covid-shots/

Here's the last 3 paragraphs

Many researchers have identified links between the toxicity of vaccine batches and adverse events, they noted.

Rancourt and his team have linked the vaccine rollouts to unprecedented peaks in all-cause mortality in a study of 17 countries.

They are currently completing a study of 125 countries which will be concluded and published soon.

[fj1200]

^What was their control group?

[revelarts]

Another study

https://slaynews.com/news/study-finds-countrys-unprecedented-deaths-caused-covid-shots/

Here's the last 3 paragraphs

Many researchers have identified links between the toxicity of vaccine batches and adverse events, they noted.

Rancourt and his team have linked the vaccine rollouts to unprecedented peaks in all-cause mortality in a study of 17 countries.

They are currently completing a study of 125 countries which will be concluded and published soon.


For some people there will be no amount of evidence.
In 20 years "official" reports will confirm that the primary cause of excess deaths was/is the "vaccines".
But right now it's like telling some people in the 1950-60s the fact that Butter is better for you than Margarine & Smoking causes Cancer.
Some folks will insist on using margarine and smoking because the gov't, popular health advocates, the experts & doctors said it was A-OK, and the "studies" that said they were bad weren't really "conclusive". They thought that the dangers were overhyped by some uneducated people & fringe experts. The majority of major reports and the smart people don't think so.
Didn't matter that the neighbor died of lung & throat cancer after a 15 year, 5 pack a day habit. That's antidotal!. Plus My auntie smoked 2 packs a day & chewed tobacco and lived to be 90 with no problem! Plus "they say" that other things are the real major cause of lung & throat cancers.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPducRNbYAA9Ccv?format=jpg&name=small

[fj1200]

For some people there will be no amount of evidence.

Please tell me. Did you understand any of this...


No I haven't. I've acknowledged, exactly as the "studies" have acknowledged, that there are other possible factors, including vaccines, as causing cancer incidences to go up. Dalgleish is wrong that he correlates it specifically to the vaccine program. Whatever you want to call these particular "studies" or "statistical analyses" they only acknowledge that cancer incidences have gone up and can only speculate as to the cause.

IIRC you previously posted favorably about Dr. Bhattacharya et al and the Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/) which speculated that lockdown policies would lead to what we're seeing today. Specifically mentioning fewer cancer screenings. If you haven't commented on the GBD then I'd like your thoughts on it.



To specifically tie increases in cancer incidence to the vaccine rollout ignores countless other factors which had at least as direct an influence on health outcomes as the potential influence that vaccines have. It would be incredibly convenient to tie vaccines to cancer incidence when covid had at least a one-year head start on impacting future health outcomes without even taking into account the disastrous government mandates that also had a huge impact.

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto yet another notch against vaccines that you will accept any evidence against the vaccines as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are as of yet not proven. You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.

I need a baseline to know what you understand and don't understand.

[revelarts]

You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.
I'm long Familiar with Dr Bhattacharya and the GBD.
And other doctors statements to the health cost of lockdowns and lack of medical diagnostics. I posted 2 of the 1st drs who mentioned the long termed effects of lockdowns would have. 2 dr in California who were banned from youtube/everywhere. for saying so, & for saying that mask were crap, and that most people did not need vaccines.
But maybe i was jumping at bad science?
well no, seems they were right.
so , It seems I'm jumping at GOOD science.
i didn't take the vaccine because of the drs and studies i looked at from both sides.
it seems by some wild accident i jumped at the GOOD science.

so It seems I AM better than the other side, since my choices were correct.
If were speaking practically.
Maybe my assessment of the info at hand at the time made sense.
maybe it's still pretty good. God willing.
please don't hate me for being correct for once in my life.

Please tell me. Did you understand any of this...



I need a baseline to know what you understand and don't understand.

as i said
I'm long Familiar with Dr Bhattacharya and the GBD.
And other doctors statements to the health cost of lockdowns and lack of early/regular medical diagnostics... and long term effects of covid itself.

But the primary effects of lockdowns on health were NOT predicted to be the list of events Dalgleish and others are pointing too.
the GBD did NOT expect the level excess deaths in 2 weeks to 1 year from lockdowns.
I think this is the point you're missing.
the GBD and Dr Bhattacharya did not predict Bells palsy, neurological diseases, NEW types of blood clots, myocarditis and pericarditis in young healthy people, miscarriages, and the other issues from lockdowns.
Their prediction were talking about a rise in the normal course of medical issues in the typical age groups.
Also the GBD and others predicted an increase expected over decades. While whats been seen are cancers & deaths rising 30 days to 2.5 years after vaccines, especially shortly after boosters.
Cancers decade+ in remission coming back aggressively after vaccines.
Are you factoring in these details into your baseline?

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto any idea that vaccines are NOT the primary cause.
That you will accept any OPTIONS against the vaccines as cause as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are, as of yet, not proven.

[fj1200]

I'm long Familiar with Dr Bhattacharya and the GBD.
And other doctors statements to the health cost of lockdowns and lack of medical diagnostics.
...
I think this is the point you're missing.
...
You appear to be so desperate to grab onto any idea that vaccines are NOT the primary cause.

I'm not interested in another of your laundry lists. I'll just tell you that you're wrong and any desperation you sense... you might look in a mirror. In the future comment on what I post and not what you think I post.

[SassyLady]

I'm not interested in another of your laundry lists. I'll just tell you that you're wrong and any desperation you sense... you might look in a mirror. In the future comment on what I post and not what you think I post.
I have the same impression fj. That you will refute any and all evidence that the vaccine was/is not what it was touted to be.

[fj1200]

I have the same impression fj. That you will refute any and all evidence that the vaccine was/is not what it was touted to be.

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to ask the same question because I haven't refuted anything.


Please tell me. Did you understand any of this...


No I haven't. I've acknowledged, exactly as the "studies" have acknowledged, that there are other possible factors, including vaccines, as causing cancer incidences to go up. Dalgleish is wrong that he correlates it specifically to the vaccine program. Whatever you want to call these particular "studies" or "statistical analyses" they only acknowledge that cancer incidences have gone up and can only speculate as to the cause.

IIRC you previously posted favorably about Dr. Bhattacharya et al and the Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/) which speculated that lockdown policies would lead to what we're seeing today. Specifically mentioning fewer cancer screenings. If you haven't commented on the GBD then I'd like your thoughts on it.


Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

To specifically tie increases in cancer incidence to the vaccine rollout ignores countless other factors which had at least as direct an influence on health outcomes as the potential influence that vaccines have. It would be incredibly convenient to tie vaccines to cancer incidence when covid had at least a one-year head start on impacting future health outcomes without even taking into account the disastrous government mandates that also had a huge impact.

You appear to be so desperate to grab onto yet another notch against vaccines that you will accept any evidence against the vaccines as gospel even so far as to jump to conclusions that are as of yet not proven. You're no better than the other side in jumping on bad science to counter what you perceive to be as bad science.

I need a baseline to know what you understand and don't understand.

And are you going to say the same thing which would get the same response from me?


I'm not interested in another of your laundry lists. I'll just tell you that you're wrong and any desperation you sense... you might look in a mirror. In the future comment on what I post and not what you think I post.

Inquiring minds...

[Kathianne]

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to ask the same question because I haven't refuted anything.



And are you going to say the same thing which would get the same response from me?



Inquiring minds...

You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser.

[fj1200]

You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser.

It amuses me that I hadn't commented on that particular article until I got trolled. ;) But there are so many questions that can come out of that and so much more that can be investigated and so many caveats on everything related to covid that it's hard to accept when conclusions are automatically derived from a headline and then to ignore what the headline actually said.

I believe this is the actual study.

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

Why excess deaths may still be occurring is concerning and exactly why is important.

[Black Diamond]

It amuses me that I hadn't commented on that particular article until I got trolled. ;) But there are so many questions that can come out of that and so much more that can be investigated and so many caveats on everything related to covid that it's hard to accept when conclusions are automatically derived from a headline and then to ignore what the headline actually said.

I believe this is the actual study.

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

Why excess deaths may still be occurring is concerning and exactly why is important.

Climate change

[Kathianne]

It amuses me that I hadn't commented on that particular article until I got trolled. ;) But there are so many questions that can come out of that and so much more that can be investigated and so many caveats on everything related to covid that it's hard to accept when conclusions are automatically derived from a headline and then to ignore what the headline actually said.

I believe this is the actual study.

https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282

Why excess deaths may still be occurring is concerning and exactly why is important.

Just skimmed beginning, but my reaction to it and the like, "Very interesting, needs follow-up. Lots here to look into, I don't trust government either." It's a starting point, not an end.

[revelarts]

You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser.

Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

He's not being honest.
If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
that's all.
He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
not Short term rise in Strokes.
not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
not Crippling Neurological diseases
etc etc etc

He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
Sorry.

Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
and leave it there.

[revelarts]

Just skimmed beginning, but my reaction to it and the like, "Very interesting, needs follow-up. Lots here to look into, I don't trust government either." It's a starting point, not an end.

If this were the 1st study that pointed this way, i'd agree. but it's not.
If other experts and docs on the ground had not already been reporting and officially labeling deaths as being caused by the shots. then i'd agree.
It's not a start. Other studies & experts have already worked it out to their satisfaction.
It's already out there, this is just the start of it coming above water for many people.

Again very Similar to the smoking causes cancer situation. Many studies had proven it well enough and many doctors knew it LONG before many "official" studies started to confirm the reality for the public and most of the medical community.
We have to remember Big Tobacco funded counter studies for decades, making the links to cancer seem Inconclusive. (free market collision)
("But somebody would have talked!" some did but they weren't believed for decades)
Today Big Pharma funds most studies in GENERAL, just sayin'.

[Kathianne]

Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

He's not being honest.
If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
that's all.
He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
not Short term rise in Strokes.
not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
not Crippling Neurological diseases
etc etc etc

He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
Sorry.

Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
and leave it there.

I think you misinterpret what fj is saying, which has much more to your presentation of your 'facts' or 'laundry list' or whatever one calls it. I personally have stopped arguing with specifics regarding issues being presented as 'science based.' Sure I have my preferences, based upon scientific method or the 'ivory tower' approach or whatever one wishes to call it. I don't expect anyone to give up their 'search for the truth' or whatever one calls it. Nor should they expect anyone else to be changing their minds based on whomever they've been following for years or believe to be the most respected and knowledgeable in any field.

Truly it's not Covid or vaccines that I feel this way about. Same with Climate Change or Global Warming or Global Cooling or Population Bombs or Ozone Holes or whatever.

I try to at least skim posts, I do not watch videos, the most I'd likely post is 'interesting' or 'really.' It's about all I can manage. Addressing some post about agreeing with fj, that's usually because he has written something like, 'I'm waiting for more results, but interesting.' or 'You've got to be kidding me? Why keep repeating the same?' I agree about results which has to do with further testing and replication. If someone is insisting that something is 'fact' because they've been studying/following writer/Dr for a long time and know so much more than others, (You do NOT do that), I'll probably 'like' or 'agree' because I do.

[fj1200]

Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

He's not being honest.
If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
that's all.
He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
not Short term rise in Strokes.
not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
not Crippling Neurological diseases
etc etc etc

He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
Sorry.

Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
and leave it there.

Oh good lord. You have to be obstinately not reading what I post or purposely misreading what I post. I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported. You're wrong because you present conclusions that are not supported. You can't say that they reached any conclusion that they don't say that they reached. If it was supported I'm sure that they would have made the conclusion but the only thing that they looked at was excess deaths. If it was convincingly shown that vaccines were the issue then it would have said so and Dalgliesh and you would have pointed that out. But you can't. It's not there. Read that again please. It might be in a subsequent study when they have access to more and better information and make comparisons of specific populations against control groups but as of right now this study does not show what you keep attempting to point out as the conclusion. Whether it's the excess deaths of 47 developed countries and increased cancer deaths in Japan; those two things do not prove what you say that they do. If they did you would have posted it.

I'm not going to address your laundry list because they are not germane to the discussion. Are they reasons that you think that these studies will eventually show that vaccines are a leading factor? Sure they are but those things are not at issue right here.

Did the GBD attempt to draw out every single factor that should be considered and might happen? No. If they turned a 1-page declaration into a 25 page in-the-weeds paper with potentially unsupported factors then it would not have carried the weight it did IMO. IIRC they were less than one year into covid, and prior to the vaccine release, so it's folly to make it out to be more than it was.

It would be nice if we could keep the discussion to the relevant because then you won't have to infer what I'm thinking. FWIW if I see someone relying on what I think is bad science then I will point it out. If I think there is grasping then I will point it out. Show me a relevant fact on the table and I won't dodge it. When a laundry list is presented just because I don't specifically address it doesn't mean it's not acknowledged. I just won't address the same laundry list 10 times in one thread.

[Kathianne]

Oh good lord. You have to be obstinately not reading what I post or purposely misreading what I post. I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported. You're wrong because you present conclusions that are not supported. You can't say that they reached any conclusion that they don't say that they reached. If it was supported I'm sure that they would have made the conclusion but the only thing that they looked at was excess deaths. If it was convincingly shown that vaccines were the issue then it would have said so and Dalgliesh and you would have pointed that out. But you can't. It's not there. Read that again please. It might be in a subsequent study when they have access to more and better information and make comparisons of specific populations against control groups but as of right now this study does not show what you keep attempting to point out as the conclusion. Whether it's the excess deaths of 47 developed countries and increased cancer deaths in Japan; those two things do not prove what you say that they do. If they did you would have posted it.

I'm not going to address your laundry list because they are not germane to the discussion. Are they reasons that you think that these studies will eventually show that vaccines are a leading factor? Sure they are but those things are not at issue right here.

Did the GBD attempt to draw out every single factor that should be considered and might happen? No. If they turned a 1-page declaration into a 25 page in-the-weeds paper with potentially unsupported factors then it would not have carried the weight it did IMO. IIRC they were less than one year into covid, and prior to the vaccine release, so it's folly to make it out to be more than it was.

It would be nice if we could keep the discussion to the relevant because then you won't have to infer what I'm thinking. FWIW if I see someone relying on what I think is bad science then I will point it out. If I think there is grasping then I will point it out. Show me a relevant fact on the table and I won't dodge it. When a laundry list is presented just because I don't specifically address it doesn't mean it's not acknowledged. I just won't address the same laundry list 10 times in one thread.
I think we stated just about the same.

[revelarts]

I think you misinterpret what fj is saying, which has much more to your presentation of your 'facts' or 'laundry list' or whatever one calls it. I personally have stopped arguing with specifics regarding issues being presented as 'science based.' Sure I have my preferences, based upon scientific method or the 'ivory tower' approach or whatever one wishes to call it. I don't expect anyone to give up their 'search for the truth' or whatever one calls it. Nor should they expect anyone else to be changing their minds based on whomever they've been following for years or believe to be the most respected and knowledgeable in any field.

Truly it's not Covid or vaccines that I feel this way about. Same with Climate Change or Global Warming or Global Cooling or Population Bombs or Ozone Holes or whatever.

I try to at least skim posts, I do not watch videos, the most I'd likely post is 'interesting' or 'really.' It's about all I can manage. Addressing some post about agreeing with fj, that's usually because he has written something like, 'I'm waiting for more results, but interesting.' or 'You've got to be kidding me? Why keep repeating the same?' I agree about results which has to do with further testing and replication. If someone is insisting that something is 'fact' because they've been studying/following writer/Dr for a long time and know so much more than others, (You do NOT do that), I'll probably 'like' or 'agree' because I do.
Kath,
Did I at anytime, ask FJ to Agree with me even 99%.
Did I call him any names for not agreeing with me?

He feels free to claim that I'm reaching, using bad science, just as bad as those that were wrong. says the experts I've pointed to are jumping to conclusions, and that they & I are wrong. That's what it looks like to him.
Do I have the same freedom?
I think he's wrong. I've made points to make my case WHY I think so. And pointed out that I think he's dodged facts, and pointed out that FJ LOOKS LIKE he's not open the POV that vaccines are the primary cause.
So why do sassy & I get tarred with,
"You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser."?

FJ
You have a perfect a right to be wrong.
But You don't have a right to honestly say that all the CUMULATIVE evidence so far is NOT pointing in the direction of vaccines as the cause.
When the case is SO MUCH so that many experts have already concluded that it is.
At this point It seems FJ, that you are trying to narrow it down to the OPEN language of each study. Fine.
As I said before let more studies be done.

But I SUSPECT (my opinion) that you'll look for any opening in those that will allow you say that the excess death were primarily caused by OTHER factors.
That's my opinion.
But until then enjoy being wrong in general.

[Kathianne]

Kath,
Did I at anytime, ask FJ to Agree with me even 99%.
Did I call him any names for not agreeing with me?

He feels free to claim that I'm reaching, using bad science, just as bad as those that were wrong. says the experts I've pointed to are jumping to conclusions, and that they & I are wrong. That's what it looks like to him.
Do I have the same freedom?
I think he's wrong. I've made points to make my case WHY I think so. And pointed out that I think he's dodged facts, and pointed out that FJ LOOKS LIKE he's not open the POV that vaccines are the primary cause.
So why do sassy & I get tarred with,
"You haven't agreed, thus you are 'refuting.' Agreement must be the 110% you mentioned, less is being a loser."?

FJ
You have a perfect a right to be wrong.
But You don't have a right to honestly say that all the CUMULATIVE evidence so far is NOT pointing in the direction of vaccines as the cause.
When the case is SO MUCH so that many experts have already concluded that it is.
At this point It seems FJ, that you are trying to narrow it down to the OPEN language of each study. Fine.
As I said before let more studies be done.

But I SUSPECT (my opinion) that you'll look for any opening in those that will allow you say that the excess death were primarily caused by OTHER factors.
That's my opinion.
But until then enjoy being wrong in general.

Because we keep getting, "I've researched and know, someday you'll catch up. Maybe." Perhaps not name calling, but if done in reverse, it's called condescending. Regardless, using the tone along with false premise, doesn't equal being correct or following 'science.'

[SassyLady]

Kath, All I've said several times is that it seems to be the PRIMARY cause.
and pointed to experts who've said the same, and then I've given the reasons (laundry list) for the same.

FJ doesn't say, It MAY BE true, or it MIGHT be true. He said DANGLESH IS WRONG. and FJ then points to the GBD as his reason. Which i address with in the laundry list he doesn't want to acknowledge.

He's not being honest.
If he can address the counter argument cool, But he can't honestly Just say 'IT'S WRONG'. rinse repeat.
Lets not pretend that he's dealing with all the facts presented.
that's all.
He doesn't have to agree. that's fine.
But I'm not going to let him pretend that he's sitting in the most objective place when he won't address the the laundry list of objections to his central point.

the GBD DID NOT expect or predict:
Short term Deaths. (they predicted longterm all cause.)
not Short term rise in Strokes.
not NEW kinds of Blood Clots.
not Heart issues & death in the Young & Healthy.
not Cancers long in remission to virulently return & kill.
not Crippling Neurological diseases
etc etc etc

He can't say that they DID predict those because they DID NOT.
He if wants to say he wants more studies, FINE.
But he can't simply ASSERT that Denglesh & others are wrong and pretend to know better, not addressing the "laundry list".
Sorry.

Folks can disagree all they want, but lets not pretend that there ARE NOT facts on the table that POINT CLEARLY in one direction MORE than another.
If some are still not convinced, that's OK, just don't say others are "WRONG" when you won't even acknowledge a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors.
And then act offended that others say you're dodging facts on the table. And accuse others of "bad science" "grasping" etc... and pretend your hands are clean in the debate. c'mon

Just say,... 'I'm still not sure yet'.
or... 'maybe, but I'm still not convinced",
or ...'Ok I SEE THAT BUT i'd like more studies that say it outright & discern more carefully'
and leave it there.

The sad thing is that all this info was available 4 years ago and got censored off the internet. Some of us saw it (like the 2 doctors from Bakersfield, or Dr. Ryan Cole) before it was taken down.

I posted a link here to "Plandemic" at the very beginning and was told that it was just a conspiracy. Which is what the Deep State (CDC, NIH, WHO, Fauci, Brix, big pharma, government) wanted the public to believe. Keep the truth hidden and people have to believe what's allowed to be shown on MSM.

[fj1200]

I think we stated just about the same.

I thought words in a different order would be helpful. Seems not.


FJ
You have a perfect a right to be wrong.
But You don't have a right to honestly say that all the CUMULATIVE evidence so far is NOT pointing in the direction of vaccines as the cause.
When the case is SO MUCH so that many experts have already concluded that it is.
At this point It seems FJ, that you are trying to narrow it down to the OPEN language of each study. Fine.
As I said before let more studies be done.

But I SUSPECT (my opinion) that you'll look for any opening in those that will allow you say that the excess death were primarily caused by OTHER factors.
That's my opinion.
But until then enjoy being wrong in general.

Please tell me how I'm wrong when I've done nothing other than point out what the analysis said? Until then suspect what you like no matter the words I use nor the order I put them in. Your mind is made up.

[revelarts]

I thought words in a different order would be helpful. Seems not.



Please tell me how I'm wrong when I've done nothing other than point out what the analysis said?

QUOTE=fj1200
"I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported."

He's not supporting his conclusions ONLY on the text of one or 2 studies. He talks about other research, his own experience and the experience of other oncologist he's been in contact with world wide.
A laundry list of info to support his conclusion FJ.

As i said, if you want to keep your focus on the open language of each individual study and draw no conclusions. fine.

Enjoy.

[revelarts]

interesting research for those who want to look.
Denis Rancourt - Charts All-Cause Mortality over time - International Crisis Summit 4 - Nov 2023
VIDEO
https://rumble.com/v3xoina-denis-rancourt-sounds-the-all-cause-mortality-alarm-at-international-crisis.html?mref=15ngam&mrefc=2
Transcript: https://tinyurl.com/5fm8wh5b

Excerpt from transcript:
Okay, I'm going to talk about something quite different. I'm going to talk about all-cause mortality. I'm not going to be concerned about what caused the death. We're just going to count deaths. And I'm going to show you data for Romania as well. And all of the graphs and results that I will be presenting are in several scientific reports that I've, myself and collaborators have been writing for the last three or more years. And they can be found on this website, the scientific reports. And these are my main collaborators on the all-cause mortality research. And two of them are in the room here with us. They're from Prague. And another place that I told them I wouldn't forget the name of, and I just did, I'm sorry about that, Jérémie.

And so I want to start the historic record, almost 1900. I'll show some data starting in 1900. I'm going to start really at the beginning of COVID if you like. Now all-cause mortality, you're just counting deaths. And this is the case of France from 1946 on, just after the Second World War. And what you find everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere is that death is higher, is larger in the wintertime and it comes down in the summertime. And so it has a seasonal pattern that's very regular. This has been known for more than a hundred years. And I would argue that it's not completely understood. I would argue that it's far from completely understood, but this is what the pattern looks like by month. So we're looking at mortality by month in France. And if you integrate by year, by cycle year around each winter from summer to summer in France, it looks like this. So there can be an intense winter followed by a lower winter and so on. And the pattern looks like that.

So since the end of the Second World War, mortality on a population basis has been decreasing mostly. And it's typically 1% of the population that dies in a given year. So this is the kind of data we're going to deal with. And that last year is the first year of the so-called pandemic. And now if we go to the USA, to give another example, I can do all-cause mortality. This is by year now for a particular age group. This is the 15 to 24 year old age group. And I've separated into male and female. So you've got the two colors there. And this graph allows us to illustrate what you can see when you measure mortality, which is a hard figure. Nobody can tell you that the government didn't count the deaths correctly because they're very serious about counting deaths and it's a legalistic process. And so this is hard data. And this is what you see.

You see that there was an event in 1918, that event was recovered by the CDC and called the Spanish Flu. I know, and there are several scientific articles that show that this was not a viral respiratory disease. No one over 50 years old died in that huge peak of mortality. Only young adults and families and teenagers died in that peak. And the rich didn't die in that period. So that was 1918. And then in the United States you have something called the Great Depression. Huge economic collapse followed by an economic related the Dust Bowl, which was an environmental catastrophe partly. And those were the big hardships, recent hardships in the USA. And you can see the mortality there in both men and women in those periods. Then in the Second World War, you see that men have a mortality, whereas women do not. And I think we all understand why. And in the Vietnam War period, you can see that there's a hump in mortality for the men. This is what you can see in all-cause mortality.

And so in conclusion, I've been studying all-cause mortality extensively in more than a hundred countries on all the continents except Antarctica obviously, and in great detail by unit time, by week, by day, by month, by age group, by sex. And I can tell you that the only thing you can see in all-cause mortality data are the following things. Seasonal variations, like I explained. A maximum in the winter and in the southern hemisphere it's reversed. Their winter is our summer. That's when they have a maximum of mortality. In the equatorial region, there is no seasonal variation in mortality. There's no spikes, it's a flat line. So there's seasonal variation that follows the hemispheres. You can see wars, like I mentioned. You can see economic collapses, huge economic collapses that affect populations. You can see summer heat waves in northern latitudes that are not used to having a very hot period in the summer, that kills people, sometimes because they fall down the stairs when it's really hot, but it kills people. And you can see a peak that lasts about a week in one of these hot spells....

...And my time's up and I didn't even get to the vaccines or Romania. So I'll just show you the Romania data. Okay. So again, this is years of work, more than 30 scientific reports about science related to COVID that you could find on my various websites, on our websites and the one I gave. And so if we look at, this is how we prove that the vaccines were actually causing the death, is that every time you rolled out a dosed, you got immediately following an excess mortality. So this is the case of Israel. So doses one and two, then the first booster, the second booster, and so on. And you can do it by age group like we're doing it here. You start with the most elderly and you go down by age....

..... so that's the conclusions about vaccines. So from this work, we're able to calculate how many people would've died globally, given that we've studied so many countries now and we find that 17 million people were killed by the vaccines on the planet. That's our number. And I'm going to ignore that buzzer because I want to show you Romania. This is the data for Romania by age group. This is the correlation between the vaccine roll outs in dark blue and these huge peaks in excess mortality in Romania. There's no initial peak like you see in the western countries. There's that one with the question mark that we have hypotheses about and something very horrible happened in Romania to explain that. We have ideas about it. And then you have the vaccine deaths, and the last one is the booster. And so in Romania we did a preliminary analysis of that booster and it is killing, you get one death per five or 10 injections in the 80 plus year olds in Romania from the boosters. That's our conclusion, preliminary conclusion on the Romanian data...








Denis Rancourt speaking at The International Crisis Summit 4 on November 18, 2023.
https://www.internationalcovidsummit.com/
Denis has a PhD in Physics (1984, University of Toronto), is a former tenured Full Professor (University of Ottawa), and has published over one hundred articles in leading science journals. Denis’ reports and articles can be found here:
https://correlation-canada.org/research/

Denis Rancourt: Realities Of Health (Interesting & Important)
https://rumble.com/v3x6q0o-denis-rancourt-realities-of-health-very-interesting.html


Deadly Quiet: The Wall Of Silence Surrounding Excess Deaths (A COVID-19 Documentary)
https://rumble.com/v4k9zlw-deadly-quiet-the-wall-of-silence-surrounding-excess-deaths-a-covid-19-docum.html

[fj1200]

"I'm saying Dalglieish is wrong because he presents conclusions that are not supported."

He's not supporting his conclusions ONLY on the text of one or 2 studies. He talks about other research, his own experience and the experience of other oncologist he's been in contact with world wide.
A laundry list of info to support his conclusion FJ.

As i said, if you want to keep your focus on the open language of each individual study and draw no conclusions. fine.

Enjoy.

He specifically mentions the Japanese study which I'm guessing is the Japanese study that you posted previously which has the same caveat that the 47 country study does. Those studies make no attempt at a control group that would be necessary to confirm actual causal relationships. If my presumption is true then his statement is wrong.


A newly published Japanese study confirms UK Professor of Oncology at St George's Hospital Medical School, London Angus Dalgleish’s concerns about mRNA injections causing cancer:

"A paper was published out of Japan and it was the Japan's Office of National Statistics, which don't hide, meddle, fiddle...But it shows absolutely clearly that the cancer incidence has gone up in Japan just due to the vaccine program. They've correlated it absolutely beautifully.

If he bases it on other research then he can reference his other research. If he wants to base it on his experiences and others experiences then he can say he has concerns but should acknowledge that his experience is anecdotal. Don't tell me that I'm somehow focusing on "open language" when you're pouncing on any language that even slightly resembles support for your viewpoint. The problem with your laundry lists you like to post is that you post them as proven whether they are or not and sometimes they are just relevant to the discussion.

My focus is on supportable statements not knee jerk reactions.

[Mr. P]

I have a very vivid mental image of a dog chasing its tail.
Just sayin.

[revelarts]

For those who are interested
"Using official government data for deaths in England and Wales between 2010 and 2022, former BlackRock portfolio manager Ed Dowd and his partners at Phinance Technologies found that excess death rates from cardiovascular diseases were up 13% in 2020, 30% in 2021, and 44% in 2022, which "point to a worrying picture of an even greater acceleration in coming years of deaths & disabilities."
"What's more, they found that "deaths per year from cardiovascular diseases had been trending lower from 2010 to
2019, with a significant downward slope," until 2020, when the trend reversed. They also found that in 2022, men began outpacing women in cardiovascular diseases."
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/excess-deaths-cardiovascular-diseases-44-last-year-among-uk-citizens-aged-15-44

But don't jump to conclusions... some studies should be done.
Maybe it's Vaping

[fj1200]

These are extreme events that we believe need a thorough investigation.

Very true.

[revelarts]

Another study

DNA Contamination in Pfizer COVID Vaccine Exceeded 500 Times Allowable Levels, Study Finds

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/dna-contamination-pfizer-covid-vaccine-exceeded-500-times-allowable-levels/

https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/7/3/41

...2. Conclusions
The available information and data indicate that the ready-to-use mRNA vaccine Comirnaty contains DNA impurities that exceed the permitted limit value by several hundred times and, in some cases, even more than 500 times, and that this went unnoticed because the DNA quantification carried out as part of batch testing only at the active substance level appears to be methodologically inadequate when using qPCR, as explained above. Because of the conditions during the production of the mRNA active substance of Comirnaty, the applied qPCR is designed so that a massive under-detection of DNA impurities appears to be the result. Here, we have to remember that qPCR is matchless if specific DNA sequences are being quantified, but this is not the case if the aim is the quantification of the total DNA content. However, DNA contamination in Comirnaty is about total DNA, regardless of the sequences that it contains. Accordingly, it can be assumed that a fluorescence spectrometric measurement of the total DNA in the end product, analogous to the quantification of the mRNA active ingredient, a process that is, in fact, carried out in the end product, is not associated with a risk of under-detecting DNA contaminations but rather provides reliable values and thus satisfies the required level of drug safety.
Against this background, experimental testing of the total DNA contained in the ready-to-use diluted vaccine Comirnaty® via fluorescence spectrometric measurement, which is to be carried out by the authorities as part of the legal mandate for official batch testing, appears to be essential. Why this was systematically omitted by the European control laboratories according to the statements by the German Federal Government cited above should therefore be the subject of extensive expert discussions and reconsiderations.
Further, it should also be taken into account that DNA impurities in Comirnaty® are apparently integrated into the lipid nanoparticles and are thus transported directly into the cells of a vaccinated person, just like the mRNA active ingredient. What this means for the safety risks, particularly the possible integration of this DNA into the human genome, i.e., the risk of insertional mutagenesis, should be a secondary focus of the discussion required, which must go far beyond what could have been considered years before the so unexpected introduction of mRNA pharmaceuticals into the global market....

[revelarts]

AUSTRALIA
Another Study
Senate hearing on Excess Deaths:
Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan
Shares how Pfizer manipulated trial results by hiding deaths in the vaccinated.
"At the pivotal point of Pfizer's vaccine approval in December 2020, there was a gross misrepresentation in what was presented publicly. Instead of the six deaths publicly disclosed, four placebo, two vaccinated, suggesting a benefit of vaccination. There were in fact eleven deaths with more deaths in the vaccinated arm. Six we found undisclosed deaths, especially in the vaccinated arm of this clinical trial, in contravention to legal and ethical obligations of trial sponsors."


https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/86
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/86/224
"
Abstract
The analysis reported here is unique in that it is the first study of the original data from the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial (CA4591001) to be carried out by a group unaffiliated with the trial sponsor. Our study is a forensic analysis of the 38 trial subjects who died between July 27, 2020, the start of Phase 2/3 of the clinical trial, and March 13, 2021,...

...Our analysis revealed inconsistencies between the subject data listed in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators. Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls. This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer/BioNTech. Potential sources of these data inconsistencies are identified."

...
"CONCLUSIONS
1.The C4591001 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of 22,030 vaccinated and 22,030 placebo subjects was the world’s only opportunity for an unbiased evaluation of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine.
2.Unblinding of placebo subjects starting in Week 20 terminated the placebo-controlled clinical trial, thereby ending all unbiased evaluation of possible adverse event signals.
3.The mRNA-LNP platform is novel, not previously phase 2/3 tested in humans, and the toxicity of PP-Spike protein was unknown. Taken together, a 20-weeks placebo-controlled clinical trial is NOT sufficient to identify any except for the most common safety concerns.
4.The number of all-cause deaths is NOT decreased by BNT162b2 vaccination.
5.Of the 38 deaths reported in the 6-Month Interim Report of Adverse Events, 21BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects died compared to 17 placebo subjects.
6.Delayed reporting of the subject deaths into the Case Report Form, which was in violation of the trial protocol, allowed the EUA to proceed unchallenged.
7.The number of subject deaths was 17% of the expected number, based on age-adjusted US mortality. One possible explanation could lie in the 395 subjects that were“Lost to Follow-up”.
8.There was a 3.7-fold increase in cardiac events in subjects who received the BNT162b2 vaccine versusthe placebo.
9.Of the 15 subjects who were Sudden Adult Deaths (SAD)or Found Dead (FD), 12 died of a cardiac event, 9 of whom were vaccinated.
10.The cardiac adverse event signal was obscured by delays in reporting the accurate date of subject death that was known to Pfizer/BioNTech in the subject’s Narrative Report.

[revelarts]

another study...
Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/06/lancet-study-on-covid-vaccine-autopsies-finds-74-were-caused-by-vaccine-journal-removes-study-within-24-hours/?highlight=lancet
A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours.
The paper, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company (https://www.twc.health/), as well as top pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson and others, and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4496137) of the prestigious medical journal.
However, less than 24 hours later, the study was removed and a note appeared stating: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” While the study had not undergone any part of the peer-review process, the note implies it fell foul of “screening criteria”.
The original study abstract can be found in the Internet Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20230706021406/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4496137). It reads (with my emphasis added):

Background: The rapid development and widespread deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction and carcinogenicity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.
Methods: We searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023. We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.
Findings: The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%) and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.
Interpretation: The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.

The full study does not appear to have been saved in the Internet Archive, but can be read here (https://dailysceptic.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SSRN-id4496137.pdf)

Without further detail from the Preprints with the Lancet staff who removed the paper it is hard to know what substance the claim that the conclusions are not supported by the methodology really has. A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so it is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line. Keep in mind that the CDC has not yet acknowledged a single death being caused by the Covid mRNA vaccines. Autopsy evidence demonstrating otherwise is clearly not what the U.S. public health establishment wants to hear.Dr. Clare Craig, a pathologist and co-Chair of the HART pandemic advisory group (https://www.hartgroup.org/), says that in her view the approach taken in the study is sound. She told the Daily Sceptic:


The VAERS system [of vaccine adverse event reporting] is designed to alert to potential harms without necessarily being the best way of measuring the extent of those harms.Quantifying the impact of deaths can be done by looking at overall mortality rates in a country.However, this is imperfect as a deficit of deaths would be expected after a period of excess deaths, making the accuracy of any baseline dubious.An alternative approach of auditing such deaths through autopsy is sound.There may be a bias [in the study] towards reporting the autopsies of deaths where there was evidence of causation and the likelihood of causation might be exaggerated by that bias. For example, 19 of the 325 deaths were due to vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) but these reports may be overrepresented because of the regulators’ willingness to acknowledge such deaths.Nevertheless, it is important that attempts are made to quantify the risk of harm and censorship of these attempts, rather than open scientific critique, does nothing to help reassure people.Dr. Harvey Risch, one of the study’s authors, told the Daily Sceptic he deems it “pure Government-directed censorship, even after the Missouri v. Biden injunction”.
“Meanwhile, my colleagues are studying what they call ‘Long Vax (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12267293/Harvard-Yale-scientists-probing-new-condition-linked-Covid-vaccines.html)‘, which is vaccine-caused damage. But of course that is a rare, rare, rare outcome, except that they seem not to be having any problem finding such individuals to enroll in their study,” he added.
Stop Press: Co-author Dr. Peter McCullough has defended the study in an interview with the Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/significant-covid-19-vaccine-study-censored-by-a-medical-journal-within-24-hours_5388409.html), saying the project was approved through the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, and the team used a standard scientific evaluation methodology known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4) to evaluate studies for inclusion. He added that before removal, the study was experiencing “hundreds of reviews per minute” and is now on the Zenodo preprint server (https://zenodo.org/record/8120771) and currently under review at another high-level journal.





but FYI it was pulled so... all the other doctors that say the study is valid are by default wrong, despite their sound reasons, experience & credentials, i'm sure.

More studies should be done.

[revelarts]

Another Study
(I didn't believe this 1 when i 1st heard this myself)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38806183/

A potential association between COVID-19 vaccination and development of alzheimer's disease

Abstract
Background: The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic extend to concerns about vaccine side effects, particularly potential links to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD).

Aim: This study investigates the association between COVID-19 vaccination and the onset of AD and its prodromal state, mild cognitive impairment (MCI)....
...
Results: Findings showed an increased incidence of MCI and AD in vaccinated individuals, particularly those receiving mRNA vaccines, within three months post-vaccination. The mRNA vaccine group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of AD (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.225; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.025-1.464; p = 0.026) and MCI (OR: 2.377; CI: 1.845-3.064; p < 0.001) compared to the unvaccinated group. No significant relationship was found with vascular dementia or Parkinson's disease.

Conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests a potential link between COVID-19 vaccination, particularly mRNA vaccines, and increased incidences of AD and MCI. This underscores the need for further research to elucidate the relationship between vaccine-induced immune responses and neurodegenerative processes, advocating for continuous monitoring and investigation into the vaccines' long-term neurological impacts.


https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/qjmed/hcae103/7684274?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false


so yeah "further research" needs to be done...

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQ4A13EWAAA4dJZ?format=jpg&name=small


It's just an observation, no conclusions should be drawn, More study should be done.

[revelarts]

Another study, not peer reviewed, just a pre-print, observational study, not double blind etc.., the researchers are highly credentialed doctors etc BUT they are long time critics, so no one should really draw any negative conclusions.
more study should be done.


COVID shots have 200-times higher risk of brain clots than other jabs: new report

A new review by Dr. Peter McCullough and other medical experts found 5,137 cases of cerebral thromboembolism since the COVID-19 shots have been available, compared to less than 400 for the previous three decades.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/covid-shots-have-200-times-higher-risk-of-brain-clots-than-other-jabs-new-report/?utm_source=daily-usa-2024-06-20&utm_medium=email

COVID-19 Vaccines: A Risk Factor for Cerebral Thrombotic Syndromes
...Results: There are 5137 cerebral thromboembolism AEs reported in the 3 years (36 months) after COVID-19 vaccines compared to 52 AEs for the influenza vaccines over the past 34 years (408 months) and 282 AEs for all other vaccines (excluding COVID-19) over the past 34 years (408 months). The PRR’s are significant when comparing AEs by time from COVID-19 vaccines to that of the influenza vaccines (p < 0.0001) or to that of all other vaccines (p < 0.0001). The CTE AEs PRR by time (95% confidence intervals) for the COVID-19 vaccine AEs vs influenza AEs is 1120 (95% confidence interval (723-1730), p < 0.0001) and for COVID-19 vaccines vs all others is 207 (95% confidence interval (144-296), p < 0.0001). ...

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202406.1236/v2

[revelarts]

This review of the 99 million person study is from a Doctor who promoted the vaccine regularly and "debunked" "extreme" negative claims about the vaccines.... at this point he gingerly opens the door to many aspects of what appear to be the sad reality.


COVID19 vaccines linked to myocarditis, pericarditis, ITP, Guillain Barre Syndrome, Bell's Palsy, ADEM, PE, Febrile seizures & more
A new analysis of 99 million people shows at the *bare minimum* increased risk of harms; For methodological reasons, the truth is likely worse; Low risk populations were harmed by mandatory vaccination

study from the journal Vaccine
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270

A new paper appears in the journal Vaccine, and is the largest analysis (to date) of COVID19 vaccine safety. It looks at 99 million individuals with solid vaccination records and compares the rate of adverse events after vaccine to the historical, baseline rate before. It raises major concerns.

First, let us be clear, the benefit of COVID vaccination is small, uncertain or not present in several populations. For instance, there is no reliable evidence anyone who had COVID previously had a further reduction in severe disease from getting a dose (or 7 doses) of vaccine.

The theoretical absolute benefit of vaccination depends on the baseline risk so the *upper bound* absolute benefits to healthy people under 20, 30 or 40 were always minuscule— bordering on zero— and possible not present. Available data lacks power to show a benefit in 20 year olds.

Worse, there is not even one reliable study that shows a benefit in children. This means- that for these populations- even rare safety signals can tilt the entire balance. We have previously shown that boosters and dose 2 of mRNA vaccines were, on balance, harmful to young men because the risk of myocarditis was greater than the further upper bound absolute risk reduction in severe COVID19 outcomes.

....

Now, we see concerning signals for

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)
Febrile seizures
Myocarditis/ pericarditis
Racing heart - SVT
Bells palsy (facial paralysis)
Pulmonary embolism
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and more

My overall thoughts. A few years ago a vaccine safety researcher told me she worried tinnitus was linked to COVID19 vaccination. Yet, she had to abandon the project because the political pressure to not find safety signals was too high. We repeatedly see researchers saying that COVID19 is still worse than vaccination, but this is dishonest. Vaccination was worse for young men, and that can be easily shown mathematically.

One mistake these people make is they consider the rate of harms post-covid only among people sick enough to present to the doctor with COVID, but this inflates the rate of harms, as I explained. A second mistake they make is lumping 20 year old men with 80 year old women (this paper also makes this mistake), which minimizes the extent of the harm.

I suspect there is widespread dishonesty in the COVID19 vaccine safety literature. There is a strong political effort to not admit that our vaccination policies harmed some populations, and these were known at the time and not just in retrospect. For this reason, the current paper is deeply concerning. It shows that COVID vaccines are capable of lowering platelets, causing clots, damaging hearts and resulting in partial paralysis.

Imagine a 20 year old man who had covid and was doing fine, and then their college forced them to get the shot, and they suffered bell’s palsy or myocarditis. This man suffered net harm. The mistake was known not in retrospect but at the time. I know because I published a paper saying so in the summer 2021 (before mandates). Public health should be ashamed of itself for harming people in pursuit of a misguided policy goal, and worse, for obfuscating the data, and not admitting error. With time and distance, I suspect most academics will see the wisdom of my argument.

I encourage everyone to read my comprehensive paper.

But, of course, more studies should be done.
nothing can ever be conclusive.

what was the control group? Huh?!?!