"To be clear: there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and an important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death."
The safety of COVID vaccines can indeed be questioned. The very paper that was supposed to demonstrate Pfizer vaccine safety indicated 101 "severe" adverse events caused by the vaccine compared to 8 cases of "severe COVID-19" prevented (see Tables S3 and S5).
I can personally attest to the fact that the shots have risks. Both my wife and I got very ill. Her fever went over 104 for five days. A friend-of-friend (35, female, great health) died 24 hours after Moderna. Meanwhile, our neighbors actually got COVID and only found out by accident.
Yes, this is all anecdotal, but from what I understand so far, it is quite possible that people in some demographics are a greater risk from the shot than from the disease. And if the shot doesn't prevent a person from transmitting the virus, then shaming people for making a personal decision is a terrible thing.
I know 2 people that had strokes after the vaccination. And I don’t know that many people. It is definitely not safe. Interesting that along with Blacks and Hispanics, a demographic with low vaccination rates is people with PhDs. Whereas Masters’ Degree holders ( as their highest education level) have a very high vaccination rate. Makes sense to me. Master’s degree people primarily read other people’s research. PhDs are required to think for themselves and have original ideas. My .02.
My city is 60% black and they've been very suspicious....we are in Georgia and the Tuskegee cruelty wasn't that long ago. The Free No Appointment Line Starts Here at Walmart, Walgreens, etc not only is empty but those getting Vicks and Cough syrup scatter when the Pharmacist comes out to find the line.
I have a cousin by marriage (and whom I only met once) who died of COVID in the last week. I do not know if she was vaccinated. I believe she was around age 50 and I suspect she had a few co-morbidities.
This is a very difficult issue and there are no easy answers. I respect the people who acknowledge the inconsistencies and who give us information. I am not well enough educated or informed to be able to understand the more technical information. It is sad that many of our leaders and experts treat the rest of us like fools and give us flawed data and opinions disguised as facts.
Most of the commercially available masks have graphene oxide in the cloth. This is a dangerous toxin. It is possible, probably likely that many people who got sick was due to Graphenen Oxide poisoning.
David E. Martin PhD is the developer of several innovation-based quantitative indices of public equities and founder of the Purple Bridge Funds and M-CAM International. He has worked closely with the United States Congress and numerous trade and financial regulatory agencies in the United States. Dr. Martin is also a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.
Since 1999, Dr. Martin has been actively tracking patent applications and approvals for the purpose of identifying suspicious activity. In the 94-minute video shown below, he shares the findings from his research regarding the laboratory development of a pathogenic coronavirus that started in 1999 and released initially upon human populations in the SARS CoV-1 in 2002-2003, then again in MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in 2012, and then again in SARS CoV-2 which was renamed COVID-19, as shown below with evidence from the primary development lab in Wuhan China.
In my opinion, his research proves that all of these pathogenic variants of the coronavirus were laboratory developed, man-made bioweapons. And they've all been funded by the NIAID under the direction of a self-proclaimed Jesuit, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. I will concede that it may be more accurate to say "whether or not the vaccine is effective". But this point is not relevant to his central thesis. In fact, the author demonstrates that you can concede this point and that his central thesis holds.
It may be more effective, in presenting a persuasive argument, for the author to acknowledge the point and concede it rather than to belabor the issue. An advocate should not be expected to write a persuasive argument in the same form and manner that a journalist would write a news story.
Rumble — Attorney Thomas Renz joined Stew Peters to reveal the highly censored DoD documents proving that the "vaccine" is more dangerous than it is helpful, as the vast majority of patients over 65 hospitalized with "COVID" are more-than-likely experiencing injury from the shots!
You're correct. Those who condemn you for reporting anecdotal data might be correct; they also have clearly forgotten that the origin of all science isn't randomized controlled peer-reviewed published articles. It's simple observation and attempting to explain the world around one's self. Otherwise known as interpreted observation, or anecdotes.
It's the unfortunate trend of adding a disclaimer that indicates the goodthink of the author, but is irrelevant to the thrust of the article. It indicates how deeply virtue signaling has crept into our discourse, even that which bucks the narrative.
Last year it was "To be sure, Trump is an awful person, but..."
Thank the DNC and COVID for torpedoing the greatest economy in history and leaving us where we are now.
2019 will go down in history as record American prosperity just in time for a man-made virus to bring it all to a halt in time for said presidents election
such a neat coincidence for team democrat
just in time for trillions in bailout at the federal level for state problems that had nothing to do with covid
THE GREAT RESET: H.G. WELLS’ DYSTOPIAN VISION COMES ALIVE THE CAULDRON OF PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT IN THE EARLY 1900S PROVIDED FERTILE GROUND FOR TECHNOCRACY TO EMERGE. ALTHOUGH THIS AUTHOR DOES NOT MENTION TECHNOCRACY PER SE, THE PLAYERS HE MENTIONED WERE HEAVILY INFLUENTIAL IN THE MOVEMENT.
Military leaders saw pandemic as unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians, Forces report says --A plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war. | 27 Sept 2021 | Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes. The federal government never asked for the so-called information operations campaign, nor did cabinet authorize the initiative developed during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, then headed by Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau. But military commanders believed they didn't need to get approval from higher authorities to develop and proceed with their plan, retired Maj.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, who was brought in to investigate the scheme, concluded in his report. The propaganda plan was developed and put in place in April 2020 even though the Canadian Forces had already acknowledged "information operations and targeting policies and doctrines are aimed at adversaries and have a limited application in a domestic concept." A copy of the Dec. 2, 2020, Gosselin investigation, as well as other related documents, was obtained by this newspaper using the Access to Information law.
They all are awful. Seriously. There have been like 2 people in all of congress who haven't been either completely compliant or quiet on this issue, and its Ron Johnson and Rand Paul.
You are a 'proud Bernie bro' I don't think you are really in any position to point at anyone else's mental health.
I mean Bernie sucks and I love Burlington and everything about VT. Except Bernie. He sucks. He sucks really fucking bad.
Hes had 2 bills in his entire career. 2. One was a post-office naming. The guy is a pathetic liar and fraud and anyone with a brain can easily see this.
For many people, the disclaimers are simple truth.
I don't like Trump BUT Biden makes him look good by comparison.
I didn't vote for Trump BUT I have rather large concerns over election conduct.
I don't like what some people did on 1/6 BUT I +really+ don't like the steady looting and burning that went unchecked for a year or so.
I am personally vaccinated, BUT that's my choice, my business: coercing someone else is unacceptable.
Many of us have to carefully map out the hill we are willing to die on because there are so many out there people are fighting tooth and nail over that are not worth a papercut. I'd rather not have to make a tragic last stand in the Battle of Oh-Wait-Weren't-We-Supposed-To-Be-Over-There.
My point being that the qualification is irrelevant to the crux of the article and detracts from the argument being made. It's indicative of the fear of violating a narrative. The article didn't need it or benefit from it.
Actually, the qualification didn't "detract" from the argument at all, and was included because it was true and relevant, not for "fear of violating a narrative".
Jeremy Beckham, the author, included the qualification so that readers would be able to understand his article's intended point. He wanted to clarify that his point was not "(1) Politicized choices and views (such as vaccine hesitancy) have no harmful effect on Covid death rates" but rather "(2) Politicized choices and views (such as vaccine hesitancy) have less effect on Covid death rates than the NY Times article suggests". (2) is true and (1) is false, so he wouldn't have wanted readers to come away thinking his article's point was to support (1); if they did it would have been misleading to those readers inclined to believe (1) as well as to readers inclined to reject (1).
Possibly you would have preferred Beckham to write the article in a way that readers could more easily think (1) is the point, but it wasn't his point and he wanted to make clear that his point was something different. It is perfectly okay, and even valuable, for him to do that.
94% of COVID deaths are individuals with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities). This is the highest correlation of any factor I've seen and yet it is not a part of most narratives that see the light of day in 2021.
"To be clear: there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are a safe, effective, and important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death. The vaccination rate for rural counties is 41.4%, while the rate in urban areas is 53.3%. This difference also surely has an impact on the different rates of death from COVID-19. But this is only one part of the equation, and The New York Times’ recent viral article contained no such nuanced or informative discussion about this complex web of interrelated factors influencing disease burden and health outcomes. If you search the article for any mention of ‘age,’ or ‘rural’ you get no results, because these factors didn’t appear in their analysis at all. In any discussion about factors influencing COVID-19 mortality rates, failing to mention the role of these important demographic influences is journalistic malpractice that grossly distorts reality."
I can drop the first sentence of that paragraph and the rest stands just fine. In fact, the opener has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph or its conclusion.
I see that Randall fucking Rose, who so often complains as to the lack of quality in my commentary finds himself overwhelmed by the popularity of the comment of Lee, who has 13 hearts compared to zero hearts for poor Randall fucking Rose. He also has the arrogance to explain the motivations of the author of the article. He explains that the author thus: "He wanted to clarify that his point was "...bla bla bla, lending Rose's own narrative to the authors intentions.
So never forget that Randall fucking Rose's opinions are sacrosanct, and any who disagree with him is stupid, ignorant, and crass.
The disclaimers are there because any time anyone says anything against the groupthink they are immediately labeled with a discrediting, derogatory term, typically "Trump lackey".
Meanwhile, the abortion marchers keep yelling how its their body and their choice.
Actually, these concessions are often informative and valuable to read, from whatever side of the political spectrum they come from. Only crude people think that these concessions are only there to indicate "the goodthink of the author".
"crude people"? Really Mr. Rose? Now your definition of a crude person would be? Oh of course the people you don't like.
In other words a purely subjective assessment based in your own biases.
Of course you could write up a 400 word argumentum verbosium and making your disingenuous rhetorical sophistry appear 'scholarly' as is your habit at times.
William Whitten is the top commenter on this Substack, as long as quality is not considered. He posts over 100 comments on every article Greenwald sends out, and despite his talk about 400-word posts, he is tops in total word count too. His posts address such important matters as his belief in Pizzagate and his belief that Covid vaccines contain allegedly magnetizable graphene oxide (or, as he sometimes writes, "Graphic Oxide and Spike Protean"). High frequency, low quality.
about the number of comments I make, as if he is the hall monitor for Glenn Greenwald's forums. He thinks his personal opinions are sacrosanct and above reproach.
He has complained about Mr. Greenwald himself as well, saying that Glenn isn't sufficiently intelligent in scientific and technical matters, which is truly arrogant bullshit because Randal fucking Rose himself doesn't even grasp elementary Newtonian physics.
Yes Graphic Oxide and other particulates have been discovered in all of the brands of mRNA solutions.
The following conference of German pathologists present evidence of such in their presentation of microscopic images of the product from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson:
Hm, you're slightly close to the truth. Yes, I don't like crude people, and I dislike them because they're crude, as you've personally experienced. But I also respect people I disagree with when they're not crude and they have intelligent things to say; you just haven't experienced that.
Your attempt to rebut the part about crude people is incomprehensible to me and probably many others. So, you neatly strengthened the point that crude people can't appreciate the value a fair concession has for serious people who want more than a one-sided view. No use talking with you further.
Yes, m'lord. So sorry, m'lord. You are far above my station, so great and majestic, and I, but a lowly serf, crude and unwashed. Shall I go clean thine pheasant now, m'lord?
Excellent is an overstatement. For this topic, the author should have included the fact that COVID death counting is its own can of worms, with many places (including Utah) showing a lot more extra all-cause deaths than the official COVID tally. The confounding factor of age is interesting, but the garbage-in garbage-out aspect of the NYT correlation is also noteworthy.
Yeah, it would be better to leave this out, both leave the obsequious tic out of the original article and leave the trutherism out of the comments.
One reason you leave the tic out of the article is that it makes trutherism less fair game. How many posts is it going to be before the first mention of zinc, sunlight, ADE, or some such "I wish this were true and found one youtube video about it" nonsense? It will prove The Times's point and obscure the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. They can't say they're following the science then only follow it when convenient to their true motivation which looks more like hatred and smugness. That's clearer if we don't have more partisans in the comments shilling antivax youtube videos.
Another reason is we need to establish a precedent in political discussion: "I'm not arguing that _right now_. I may or may not argue it later. I'm not going to take your bait. You should listen to me and not change the subject. I can't make you do that, but your incentive to do it is that you're going to look like an idiot later, not that I flatter you by shilling your points to my audience right now."
Not only does this encourage epistemic vice, it validates the frame that people with megaphones have an obligation to righteous power trips and condescendingly pushing acceptable behaviour, rather than simply an obligation to accurately and respectfully inform. The tic really undermined the core point of the article.
The vaccine is not win-win. I remember the day I was getting my vaccine at the county fairgrounds and the nurse was like, "isn't this the best day ever!?" I looked at her and said, "no, I don't want this vaccine, it just seems like the best option at the moment." I had to carefully weigh my risk factors and age and do a risk-benefit analysis after consultation with my doctor. Nobody should be forced to vaccinate. It's a decision that needs to be arrived at through careful analysis of personal health and in consultation with family doctors.
Yep, at 82 it was an easy calculation, my long terms isn't so long. For a 13 year old, another matter altogether. This one-size-all mandate is potentially hazardous long term. Sadly, few think years ahead.
I tell people to follow the data and not THE SCIENCE. NEJM is probably the premier medical journal in the world, because it is written for applied scientists - physicians and biomedical workers - rather than health bureaucrats. Physicians and biomedical workers are dismissed by medical bureaucrats; I was told that I cannot call myself a scientist because I haven't got a PhD and have not devoted at least 16 years to laboratory research resulting in peer reviewed papers. Instead, when I practiced, I was interested in what worked with patients.
I got into an online pissing contest with another physician in the same discipline - psychiatry - when he claimed to practice evidence-based medicine. I asked him how he could be assured he had accounted for all the evidence he needed. He couldn't. That's what is missing in the NYT article.
I haven't been in med school for forty years, and I quit medicine about 35 years ago when I had to return to the US from Europe. I couldn't afford to take a year off without income to learn English medical terms (I studied in Germany) and take the boards. then compete at the age of 40 with a bunch of 27 year-olds for a residency. I used my medical training to become a top-tier global management consultant, and when I quit that world, I devoted the last 20 years of my life extolling entrepreneurship and helping young people transform their lives by teaching them how to turn their experiences into their own company - a job- and never look back.
Authoritarians despite entrepreneurship. It sets people free, and is the surest route to upward socioeconomic mobility. Obama's successful war against entrepreneurship and small business destroyed entire industries, caused massive consolidation, and tilted the playing field in favor of the large and powerful against the small and weaker. In that sense, the current administration is Obama 2.0.
For those under 20, the risk of hospitalization from an adverse reaction to the vaccine exceeds the risk of hospitalization from COVID19. I would never counsel an otherwise healthy 19 year old to be vaccinated without a thorough evaluation from his doctor. What I'm seeing in the demonization of the unvaccinated is a refusal by authoritarians to recognize the superiority of natural immunity. The other failure to follow the data is focusing on infections instead of what is important - hospitalizations. That is where trouble begins.
I knew immediately, despite not having been an immunologist nor a public health bureaucrat what we needed to do. It was to protect the old, the fat, and leave everyone else alone until we knew more. That got my deplatformed all over the world. It was misinformation, even though it was correct. In the few areas where we did that hospitalizations were rare.
I no longer read NYT. It ignores data, makes shit up, and lies by omission more than by commission. It is a cancer that needs to go.
It is exactly what you are expressing. These doctors, scientists, and researchers got beat up for falling outside the narrative lines, despite the coherence of their analysis.
94% of COVID deaths are individuals with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities). This is the highest correlation of any factor I've seen and yet it is not a part of most narratives that see the light of day in 2021.
"...with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities)..."
You think that "respiratory arrest", "cardiac arrest", "Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)", etc, listed in Table 3 are "chronic diseases"? How long does the typical "respiratory arrest" patient suffer? Some of the things listed in Table 3 are chronic diseases or may be related to chronic conditions but many clearly are not (they are in fact symptoms of covid-19) and others may or may not be depending on individual case data not represented in the table. Therefore, your 94% number is completely made up.
Is Covid-19 highly correlated with age and (rather common) preexisting conditions? Yes. Does your argument make any sense or use "comorbidity" correctly? No. There are detailed clinical studies which do account for case data and try to make sense of that correlation. Your claim is simply a regurgitated -- and false-- meme that people parrot.
Yes, I agree with Norstadt, there is much to learn about the adverse effects of the mRNA serums being promoted as "vaccines" -- they are NOT vaccines, they are genetic manipulations by molecular products held in a suspension of a nanoparticle sol-gel.
The following presentation presents some shocking discoveries in the ingredients of these mRNA solutions:
PRESS CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, 9/20/2021
4PM IN THE LIVE STREAM
CAUSE OF DEATH AFTER COVID-19 VACCINATION
UNDECLARED COMPONENTS OF THE COVID-19 VACCINES
20.09.2021 16:00 |
On Monday, 9/20/202 in the pathological institute in Reutlingen, the results of the autopsies of eight people who died after COVID19 vaccination will be presented. The fine tissue analyses were performed by pathologists Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Dr. Walter Lang. The findings confirm Prof. Dr. Peter Schirmacher's finding that among more than 40 corpses he autopsied who had died within two weeks of COVID19 vaccination, approximately one-third of those deaths were caused by the vaccination. Microscopic details of the tissue changes will be shown during the live-streamed press conference. Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz will report on the current parameters of the statistical recording of vaccination events.
The press conference will also present the results of the analysis of COVID-19 vaccine samples by an Austrian research group, which are in line with the findings of scientists from Japan and the USA. Undeclared metal-containing components were found in the vaccine. Visually, vaccine elements are conspicuous by their unusual shape.
The results of the investigation have led to legal and political demands, for example, for the immediate collection of information by the authorities in order to be able to assess the health risk posed to the population by the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, early signals of impaired fertility in vaccinated individuals can be examined by consulting IVF registries. Through the cancer registry, insights can be gained into the development of cancer due to the genetic modifications of the viral RNA. Suspension of COVID-19 vaccination should be considered.
The author seems intelligent. I wonder on what data he bases this disclaimer. I am getting the impression that such disclaimers may simply be intended to ward off censorship. But if people really think that things are so clear, as believers in science they should be able to give scientific reasons for being so convinced. "Because so and so said so" is not a scientific explanation. It seems to me that a reasonable person would still be suspending judgement at this point. If not only for all the clearly anti-scientific perspectives that a lot of "scientists" are vouchsafing that are more clearly untrue than anything said about covid.
The covid shot is clearly an unspectacular "vaccine". Why are people so insisting on it? I wonder if the point is simply humiliating the conservatives who believe in liberty by showing how easily it can be taken away.
Maybe this is in retaliation for anti-abortion views that many conservatives have that are probably also experienced as humiliating and antifreedom. You can't be paying attention if you really think any players in our politics care that much about every single life, so I tend to defer to parents who want to kill their unborn children. I realize I might have made that decision in some situations. I would leave reasonable abortions and vaccinations both up to the people involved.
I can't understand why a lot of people are more interested in denying freedom to others than securing it for themselves. Humans are in no sense moral paragons. Most evil arises in the name of fighting evil, so I'll pass and just happily demand my own freedom and leave you yours.
Because people want to 'fit in' and 'be a part of something' for the most part, and additionally virtue signalling in public tends to grant access to the very community that many people who are lonely want to be a part of.
So a lot of it is fitting in and wanting to be cool and at the same time most of what is being said "sounds good" and "means well" so it is easier to support.
In reality it is pushing authoritarianism under a different guise.
What "severe" events were "caused" by the vaccine? The paper you cite says "Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia). Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo. No Covid-19–associated deaths were observed. No stopping rules were met during the reporting period. Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of vaccine."
To me, this looks like a remarkably safe vaccine.
As for efficacy, the people who received the vaccine had only about 5% of the covid cases of the unvaccinated group, meaning 95% of the cases of covid were prevented by using the vaccine (granted, pre-delta).
That looks like a very effective vaccine.
The vaccine is safe. The vaccine is effective. Whether some people choose not to take part in the community effort to give the virus nowhere to go, well that's unfortunate, and it seems based in ignorance of the basic facts, or in difficulty evaluating the facts (or perhaps just an unwillingness to take on a small personal risk for the benefit of the larger group) but it doesn't change the fact that as vaccines go, this vaccine is safe and effective.
Well toots, if you think these mRNA solutions are safe, take a look at this presentation:
"The results of the investigation have led to legal and political demands, for example, for the immediate collection of information by the authorities in order to be able to assess the health risk posed to the population by the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, early signals of impaired fertility in vaccinated individuals can be examined by consulting IVF registries. Through the cancer registry, insights can be gained into the development of cancer due to the genetic modifications of the viral RNA. Suspension of COVID-19 vaccination should be considered."
What are you even talking about, and why would you call me "toots"? Are you just doing some kind of "cute" ad hominem thing there?
I'm not sure what you think is the "gotcha" with that passage you snipped. It describes (not-evidence-based) fears related to the vaccine, and proposes that in the future, supposedly, these not-evidence-based things will come to light as being true if we examine IVF numbers or cancer numbers. There no proposed basis here for how and why this might really be true. It's literally baseless.
For the infertility rumor, long since debunked, the supposed MECHANISM for such infertility would be a protein that is shared by SARS-CoV-2 itself -- so getting covid would make you just as infertile (or more so, since people who get sick with covid have way, way, way more virus, and thus way, way, way more of this protein in their bodies, than people who get the vaccine).
If that protein is the problem, and we're eager to find a "signal" of infertility, why don't we just look at the much larger pool of people who've had covid, and see if we can detect a signal there? Oh wait -- what's that you say? There IS no signal? Yeah ok. So cross that off the list.
And in any case, the protein that was supposedly the culprit is quite a bit different from the protein that came from a completely different type of vaccine for a completely different type of condition. There's nothing there. It's a different protein in a vaccine (or in SARS-CoV-2). There is no infertility.
The same goes for cancer -- except there is not even a proposed mechanism for that which makes any sense -- even the phrase "genetic modifications of the viral RNA" displays ignorance on a stunning level -- like a middle-schooler trying to sound science-y.
If someone doesn't even have enough basic knowledge to understand why that phrase is silly and didn't come from any reputable source, it is not going to be worth my time trying to convince him or her. I suggest (1) going back to graduate school and learning about this stuff directly, or (2) finding reliable experts and sources of information, and not this website mimicking medical-speak with all the grace and panache of a chia pet.
I will repeat: (1) the proposed mechanism for infertility (in the rumor about infertility) is completely invalid. It referred to a different protein in a different vaccine. JFC look it up and read about it. (2) If it HAD been the same protein as the vaccine (which is wasn’t) that protein would have been the same as in the SARS-Co-2 virus itself, in which case you’d have “infertility” from getting natural covid too. (3) There’s no evidence of infertility from covid OR the vaccine. None. Not with the virus, not with the vaccine. Considering the millions and millions and millions of cases of covid and the millions and millions and millions of doses in the vaccines and not one peep of “women are having trouble conceiving, the birth rate is decreasing” anywhere in the world, it’s safe to conclude there is NO infertility even though (4) asking someone to prove a negative is pretty silly. The onus is on you, the frightened believer that infertility might be an issue in complete absence of all evidence, to convince people with facts. Fun side note (5) every reputable infectious disease doctor has had themselves and their families vaccinated. Anyone who believes this is a conspiracy to force something bad on you should just open their eyes and look at what the rich, powerful, educated and knowledgeable are doing for themselves and their families. They’re all getting the vaccine. Those who are still not believing, snug in their misinformation bubbles, just look crazier and crazier.
I find your reiteration baffling. You haven't explained how you can determine the time period of any adverse reactions. As Herd pointed out it has only been ten months since the first injections.
Your assertions that **every reputable infectious disease doctor has had themselves and their families vaccinated.** is not only hyperbole but based on presumption. You cannot possibly know who or how many doctors have taken the 'vaccine'
How do you know this group you call, "the rich, powerful," are actually all educated and knowledgeable about the actual ingredients in these products? You cannot actually know this.
Your entire argument is built on presumption and guesses. And that makes you appear desperate
Have you actually consulted the IVF registries?
If you still haven't watched the presentation then you should be ignored,
Whitten's addressing you as "toots" is typical for him; he's done similar things with other women here and it's not always welcome (as other commenters below allude to).
Well well well, if it isn't Randall fucking Rose sticking his nose into other peoples business again. I wonder if the gallant Mr. Rose has looked at the page under discussion and has any idea of what he is talking about.
Her it is Rose, explain to the readers what the error is of these renowned pathologists. Be the brave Galahad for the damsel in distress.
You should just pity the guy. He's here all day flailing away as if this is his own personal venue for writing a "contrarian" treatise that no one will ever see much less take seriously. And for what purpose? To trash a vaccine that's already saved 100s of thousands of lives? It's really quite sad.
To say that the long term effects of the vaccines for a virus not even identified until 2019 aren't fully known is to say nothing useful at all. We're in worldwide emergency where the grownups are trying to save lives and here he is all day in inconsequential link-heavy pissing contests over trivialities. The links often don't even back him except as an attempt in vain to cause some doubt like the one about Canadian military experimenting with propaganda.
The dissident page? Hilarious! He's even a "truther"! LOL!
"To trash a vaccine that's already saved 100s of thousands of lives? It's really quite sad."--Bryan L
I am glad to hear this Bryan, I hope you got your shot and get your boosters too! A world full of morons like you will be better off when you all finally succumb to your own folly.
Don't watch this one...it is too late for you if you already took your medicine....grin
You obviously just read the comment I made and did not go to the link I posted.
The people you are calling ignorant are clinical pathologists with years of practice in their fields
Arne Burkhardt
pathologist researcher
Arne Burkhardt, German pathologist, researcher. Certified in medicine University Kiel, Germany; certified pathologist University Hamburg. Recipient Konjetzny prize Cancer Liga Hamburg, 1980. Member International Association Oral Pathologists (councilor 1992-1996).
Background
Burkhardt, Arne was born on January 6, 1944 in Schleswig, Germany. Son of Hans Theodor and Maria Franziska (Weber) Burkhardt.
Education
Doctor of Medicine, University Munich, 1971. Privatdozent, University Hamburg, Germany, 1979. Professor, University Bern, Switzerland, 1988.
Career
Scientific assistant University Heidelberg, Germany, 1970-1973, University Hamburg, 1973-1980. Senior pathologist University Bern, 1980-1991. Head department pathology Lehrkrankenhaus University Tübingen, Reutlingen, Germany, since 1991.
Achievements
Arne Burkhardt has been listed as a noteworthy Pathologist, researcher by Marquis Who's Who.
No, the resumes indicate these people are academics and/or medical bureaucrats. None is a practicing physician, who are applied scientists and not theoretical/research scientists. The interests of medical academics and medical bureaucrats are authority and adulation, not helping real people.
They dismiss observational science, which is the origin of all science. Practicing physicians are interested in what works in real patients, not what can be proven in a laboratory. They are not carriers of tales; thwey know how to read scientific papers, what standards are, and how to find other physicians researching the same topic. The use of antiepileptic to treat mood disorders was started by a couple dozen psychiatrists and neurologists scattered around the world. We don't understand how they work any better than we understand how accupuncture works.
You are supporting the use of medical "experts," actually medical bureaucrats, to support your contention that there's a problem with the vaccines. That actually duplicates the methodology of the authoritarians and supports them. Please find another route.
BTW, I've been approached by multiple WHO'S WHO publishers over the years to be included. There is a standardized cost to pay. I don't pay it. Others make other choices.
You say, "None is a practicing physician", that is not so and it is obvious in the comment you are replying to:
Arne Burkhardt, *pathologist* & researcher. He was a practicing pathologist, but is now retired.
I understand Burkhardt was a forensic pathologist who do not normally have living patients, they do autopsies.
However, The analysis we see in the video presentation literally speaks for itself, or more properly you can see for yourself the images on the screen of tissue samples under powerful microscopy As well as samples of the mRNA solutions also under powerful microscopy, showing very bizarre items.
You use of the term "medical bureaucrat" in this instance, is in my view rhetorical sophistry.
We can discuss this more if you actually watch the presentation.
Our Willie is also a structural engineering expert. He'll come up with arguments towards 9/11 WTC destruction perpetrated by the government. Which proves in his mind that he's also an authority on vaccines. Just wait.
The numbers are straight from the study, and data tables typically include less propaganda than the main text. Tables S3 and S5 are in the supplementary apendix. Vaccine: 240 severe adverse events. Placebo: 139. Vaccine: 1 severe COVID-19. Placebo: 9. Do I need to do the subtraction for you?
It's amazing to watch doctors defend the Høeg paper with the basic bottom-line results of government-mandated pharma-funded trials from other doctors wanting to censor it.
We've reached levels of mask-slipping I never thought possible.
There are dozens of studies of extensive vaccine problems. Check out the dailyskeptic.org's extensive lists if you actually want to see why people are concerned. Of course it is near impossible to absolutely prove that the vax caused a problem. Look how long we were run around with cigs: Decades!
But consider the gulf in approach between covid cases and vax cases. Cases are declared covid with limited concern about other explanations while a vax problem requires a virtually unobtainable level of confirmation. This isn't an unbiased evaluation.
I do not know that the vax is that dangerous. I hope not. But it is just the first step in an interminable train of boosters that will eventually do real damage. It is best to stop the vax push now. Sure, people are welcome to have the vax but it should be voluntary.
Why do you think that the vax leaves the virus nowhere to go? The vax doesn't exterminate the virus. It just lets a carrier coexist a little better. This coexistence leads to higher virus levels and more hidden transmission than you get from the unvaxed. T
94% of COVID deaths are individuals with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities). This is the highest correlation of any factor I've seen and yet it is not a part of most narratives that see the light of day in 2021.
I think the essential point is that many many people are getting covid after a vaccination. The partial action of the "vax" makes vaccinated people BETTER carriers of the virus. It also allows them to breed stronger variants, the way that partial use of antibiotics does. If anything, the vaccinated are more dangerous than the unvaccinated. Not that I would deny people the vaccine. They have a right to their choices. But so do the unvaccinated,
"an unwillingness to take on a small personal risk for the benefit of the larger group but it doesn't change the fact that as vaccines go, this vaccine is **safe and effective**."--B Price
It is NOT a fact that this is a "vaccine'. It is a mRNA gene therapy not a proper vaccine:
This film features Israelis who experienced serious post-vax complications or lost loved ones. It’s in Hebrew with English sub-titles: https://www.vaxtestimonies.org/en/
Some of this is coincidence, but we need far more information to make that case. Spontaneous idiopathic transient ischemic attacks occur, but I don’t know how often. I developed a constellation of neurological problems for no known reason and am adopted.
What we are seeing is increasing morbidity in vaccinated populations and decreasing vax effect against cases, deaths and hospitalizations. The demands for proof that vax caused a specific death are just about impossible to satisfy. Nobody asked for this level of proof for covid cases. But the statistics show relative differences that indicate that the vax can cause severe morbidity. As we collect more data from real life experience we can quantify the effect more accurately. I hope that the effect is small for the sake of my friends who had the vax. But nobody should be bullied into the vax. It doesn't stop transmission so it is totally a personal decision.
"Nobody should be bullied into the vax." I agree 100%. Bullying is counterproductive and authoritarian. The decision to vaccinate or not requires a cost-benefit analysis, which varies from person to person, and independent research and critical thinking (tricky). It also includes an honest assessment of ones tolerance for risk as well as ones personal value system. So far I've come down on the side of getting vaccinated because of my age (pushing 70) and because I'm extremely risk-averse. But that may change over time, if the risk starts to outweigh the benefit of getting boosters.
The first one was a stroke at the age of thirty (43 years ago) that left me with expressive aphasia and right side weakness, plus a right pronator drift. Since then I've been unable to pass a roadside sobriety test. It wiped out my English-language vocabulary for household appliances and my ability to read German. My native language now for household appliances is Spanish. I've had to re-learn how to read German.
Over the next several decades I had a number of transient ischemic attacks. Then while I was waiting on a gurney for a bypass operation, already in the OR, I had a cardiac arrest, which caused an ischemic stroke in 2014. I had already been diagnosed with left side trigeminal neuralgia, in 1988, which is often described as the worst pain known to humans. It sets off a firestorm of pain along the jawline, feeling as though every tooth on that side of the jaw is in abscess, then extends up to my brain causing me to have to wander about until I drop from exhaustion. Fortunately, opiates and opiods do nothing for it, otherwise during an attack I would happily break into the nearest pharmacy and steal the drugs. The only way to deal with an acute case is to find an ENT surgeon or a specially-trained dental surgeon to inject marcaine or similar long-lasting local anesthetic through the roof of my mouth into my brain.
In 1993 I was diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia on the right side. Eventually I learned that the only medication that works on it was ordered withdrawn by our all-powerful FDA because they determined it wasn't effective in as many cases as the manufacturer claimed. I've contacted a compounding pharmacist and discovered that it is still legal to create the medication and dispense it, but it is ungodly expensive that way - hundreds of dollars per dose - and I have to take it for three weeks whenever it flares. Fortunately it hasn't flared in two decades.
In 2016 I spontaneously developed complex partial seizures, which cause me to be unable to move any muscles, including the diaphragm, so when it strikes I can't breathe. In the interim in 2017 I was diagnosed with late-onset hydrocephalus, necessitating three brain surgeries. It causes incontinence, inability to maintain balance, and slow progress towards non-Alzheimer's dementia. The medications to treat the incontinence pass through the blood-brain barrier an contribute to a worsening of the cognition. Medication for the loss of balance (I am essentially wheelchair-bound) is also neurotropic and increases the likelihood of a fall.
In 1995 I had been diagnosed with an essential, or familial, tremor on the right side. In 2016 it became impossible to hold a glass without it shaking, and an inability to type. My handwriting deteriorated steadily. I am not senile; most of my doctors trust me and we work together on diagnoses and treatments. The tremor is partially controlled with medication, but it is becoming more Parkinson's-like every month.
I developed migraines in 2019, and when they are coming on I get an olfactory hallucination of wood burning. In 2020 I developed what is evidently a separate case of migraine specifically occurring behind my left eye, and when it is coming on I see handwriting and typed words on flat surfaces, eventually evolving into cartoons.
I have mild diabetic neuropathy in both feet, diagnosed when I was considered pre-diabetic, controlled with medication, primarily HCTZ. Even with my systolic blood pressure going down and my blood sugar slightly lower than when I was considered pre-diabetic, the standards have changed, so I am now diagnosed as diabetic. I control it with diet.
Those are the highlights. Reality is a lot more complicated. When I diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia I was treated with tegretol, an anti-epileptic. I was living in Bavaria at the time, where the sun rarely shines. On a visit to the US I developed an intolerance for tegretol when exposed to sunlight, which causes a hyper-reaction turning my skin into lizard-like scales.
Aren't you sorry you asked? I appreciate your concern, honestly. I tell friends and family who offer to pray for me simply to pray that God's will be done. Whatever it is, it will be better than I deserve.
“ A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; ”
Your comment is distorting what the research in the article it says. In the first week 162 severe cases occurred for people with placebo. So even if we look at your numbers then 162-110 = 52 severe cases avoided just in the first week!
And the vaccine’s effects for protection last much longer than seven days.
In your table severe cases occurring are pretty much the same as severe cases for placebo group. However, people with placebo would be expected to continue having such “severe cases” every week due to contracting covid at a substantially higher rate than the vaccinated population - which is why people (like me) take the vaccine. Or do you not agree that the vaccine protects you from covid?
They are not "pretty much the same". The difference is statistically significant and indicates more excess severe adverse events than severe COVID by a factor of 12. Yes, the paper shows protection from COVID for vaccine over the two month observation period. But it would taker a long time for the number of severe COVID cases to catch up with the excess severe adverse events, and now the vaccine is said to become less effective over time.
1) your study is looking at what happens after one dose. The vaccine is much more effective after two doses.
2) your argument for factor of 12 is simply hilarious. Firstly, you conveniently use “severe cases” (why not use “life threatening cases” in which case you’d have to admit defeat immediately as they are 21 for placebo group and 24 for vaccinated population?).
You use 139 and 240 (severe cases for vaccinated and placebo). And then 9 and 1 (sever covid for vaccinated and placebo respectively)
The numbers should be:
240+1 = 241
And
139+9 = 148
You are going for (240-139)/(9-1) =12.6
Would you then say that if we use your logic then since a high positive number means favourable outcomes for placebo then a lower negative number (further from zero) should mean favourable outcomes for the vaccines?
Hint: I suggest you don’t answer my question to avoid embarrassing yourself.
1. It is Pfizer's study, not mine, and the number of COVID-cases (1 vs. 9) includes the post-two-dose period. Any case after dose 2 is by definition also after dose 1 and included in that total (first line of Table S5). The period after dose 1 includes the period after dose 2. It is not the time between doses.
2. I use "severe" adverse events vs "severe COVID-19", because the words indicate similar levels of severity. The paper's definition of "severe COVID-19" does not require hospitalization, so I don't think comparison to "life-threatening" events is appropriate. The rest of what you wrote is wrong. The point is to compare the number of severe adverse events to severe COVID cases.
Ms. Abby, There has been a massive amount of research that shows that these mRNA solutions are extremely dangerous. And the long term effects are yet to manifest.
Substantial research has been stepped over compared to all other vaccines in history. It takes years to "know" anything. (BTW its not a vaccine). Vaccines are a one time deal, this is a therapeutic.
Yes you are correct. Thanks for catching me on calling it a vaccination. It is important for us NOT to do that. It gives them a credibility they should not have.
The study says nothing about '8 cases of "severe COVID-19". There were roughly 18,000 subjects in each group, vaccinated and placebo. 8 of those given the vaccine came down with COVID vs 162 for those given the placebo. There were only 4 severe adverse reactions in those given the vaccine:
Few participants in either group had severe adverse events,
serious adverse events, or adverse events leading
to withdrawal from the trial. Four related serious
adverse events were reported among BNT162b2
recipients
I have no idea where you got your figures. A study like this would NEVER say something like "cases prevented', that data isn't and CAN'T BE known.
I'm no fan of BigPharma, they routinely do all kinds of shady BS to foist unsafe and unneeded medications on us. BUT, the kinds of games they play in order to do that shit just aren't available to them with this. There are WAY to many VERY educated eyes on this whole process for them to get away with anything.
Do you mean like the educated eyes of the FDA advisory panel that rejected Pfizer’s latest booster application by a vote of 16 to 2—and then the FDA went ahead and approved it anyway?
They aren't getting away with anything, we are finding them out right now:
PRESS CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, 9/20/2021
4PM IN THE LIVE STREAM
CAUSE OF DEATH AFTER COVID-19 VACCINATION
UNDECLARED COMPONENTS OF THE COVID-19 VACCINES
On Monday, 9/20/202 in the pathological institute in Reutlingen, the results of the autopsies of eight people who died after COVID19 vaccination will be presented. The fine tissue analyses were performed by pathologists Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Dr. Walter Lang. The findings confirm Prof. Dr. Peter Schirmacher's finding that among more than 40 corpses he autopsied who had died within two weeks of COVID19 vaccination, approximately one-third of those deaths were caused by the vaccination. Microscopic details of the tissue changes will be shown during the live-streamed press conference. Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz will report on the current parameters of the statistical recording of vaccination events.
The press conference will also present the results of the analysis of COVID-19 vaccine samples by an Austrian research group, which are in line with the findings of scientists from Japan and the USA. Undeclared metal-containing components were found in the vaccine. Visually, vaccine elements are conspicuous by their unusual shape.
The results of the investigation have led to legal and political demands, for example, for the immediate collection of information by the authorities in order to be able to assess the health risk posed to the population by the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, early signals of impaired fertility in vaccinated individuals can be examined by consulting IVF registries. Through the cancer registry, insights can be gained into the development of cancer due to the genetic modifications of the viral RNA. Suspension of COVID-19 vaccination should be considered.
I got them from the study Tables S3 and S5 which are in the supplementary apendix. Learn to read. Vaccine: 240 severe adverse events. Placebo: 139. Vaccine: 1 severe COVID-19. Placebo: 9. Do I need to do the subtraction for you, too?
Do you know what 'related' means? I can read, the more important question is if you can understand what you're reading, including the necessity of actually reading the footnotes: c. Assessed by the investigator as
In a randomized study like that, any statistically significant imbalance in the outcomes is related to the treatment, no matter what the investigators assess. That's the whole purpose of randomized trials.
Oh FFS, so if a few got killed in car accidents, that's still relevant? Or had ANY medical condition no matter how impossible it was for the vaccine to cause it?
This is hypothetical, but yes, if 240 vaccinated people had died in a car accident vs. 139 placebo recipients, that would be significant enough for the vaccine to be the likely cause. Motion-induced seizures causing accidents are more likely than a statistical fluke of that magnitude.
Severe covid is not defined the way you have defined it in your “article”. It is defined on page 65 of the protocol amendment 9 or 193 of the full protocol. “Respiratory failure (non-invasive or invasive I.e intubation). Evidence of shock requiring vasopressors. Significant acute renal, hepatic or neurological dysfunction. Admission to a ICU or death.
All of this is life threatening and easily compared to grade 4 (life threatening adverse events). You are the one comparing apples to oranges by comparing severe covid to grade three severe reactions. Grade three is a reaction like to a bad hangover, migraine headache or the stomach flu. Also defined in the same protocol.
If you had read what I wrote you would see that Pfizer's follow-on study cites exactly the FDA definition and not the protocol one. Just because the protocol's definition of "severe" included the "critical" category doesn't mean there were any critical patients. Apparently there were none, because the follow-on study has no counts of critical COVID-19 and cites the FDA definition of severe which specifically excludes critical.
I did read what you wrote. But it’s just not correct. Looking at the updated study in the appendix s6 there are 30 severe cases in placebo group to 1 in vaccine group. The study did not change the definition of severe covid cases pages 373-376 are the exact same definition same with the appendix. However the article does mention the FDA definitions. It also did not change the definition of severe reactions(grade 3) vs life threatening reactions(grade 4). Life threatening reactions are nearly identical in number between vaccine and placebo group without any statistical significance.
In terms of the FDA they just split the study’s definition of severe into two groups severe and critical. In both cases it would require hospitalization. A resting heart rate over 125 or resting respiratory rate over 30 per minute requires hospitalization, a p/f ratio below 300 indicates respiratory failure. In your article it seems you purposely neglect the FDAs definition of critical covid cases. “ Severe Covid
Clinical signs indicative of severe systemic illness with COVID-19, such as respiratory rate ≥ 30 per minute, heart rate ≥ 125 per minute, SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air at sea level or PaO2/FiO2 < 300
Critical COVID-19
• Positive testing by virologic test (i.e., a nucleic acid amplification test of an antigen test)
• Evidence of critical illness, defined by at least one of the following:
Respiratory failure defined based on resource utilization requiring at least one of the
following:
Endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, oxygen delivered by high57 flow nasal cannula (heated, humidified, oxygen delivered via reinforced nasal cannula at flow rates > 20 L/min with fraction of delivered oxygen ≥ 0.5),
noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, ECMO, or clinical diagnosis of
respiratory failure (i.e., clinical need for one of the preceding therapies, but preceding therapies not able to be administered in setting of resource limitation)
Shock (defined by systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, or diastolic blood pressure <mm Hg or requiring vasopressors)
Multi-organ dysfunction/failure“
Case and point, you cannot compare severe (grade 3) reactions to severe covid cases as defined in the study. Severe covid cases will require hospitalization and critical covid cases will most likely cause death. The correct comparison is grade 4(life threatening). Even if the study used the FDA definition of severe covid it still means hospitalization is required where as grade 3( severe) reactions Hospitalization is not required. I appreciate that you are one to read. You are still making a false comparison. If you want to make a comparison the new data suggests 3 serious vaccine reactions.
Where does the FDA definition of "severe COVID-19" require hospitalization? Severe COVID-19 is a severe systemic illness, i.e. Grade 3 on the FDA scale.
For critical (i.e. life-threatening) COVID-19, there were no such cases in the updated study. That is Grade 4 on the FDA scale, which also applies to systemic illness like COVID.
All the symptoms mentioned in severe covid-19 either FDA or the Pfizer protocol will require hospitalization.
FDA “ Clinical signs indicative of severe systemic illness with COVID-19, such as respiratory rate ≥ 30 per minute, heart rate ≥ 125 per minute, SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air at sea level or PaO2/FiO2 < 300”
Those exact symptoms require hospitalization.
Severe averse events as defined in the protocol (grade 3) will not require hospitalization. Grade 3 in the FDA measurements will require hospitalization.
They are different measures. You are trying to compare incomparable statistics. FDA defined Severe covid-19 and critical covid 19 both require hospitalization and are both grade 4 (emergency room visit or hospitalization) based on the protocol. Look at page 53 of the protocol for scaling of adverse events and then look at slide 14 on this website. They are different and you are defining them incorrectly. https://www.fda.gov/media/84954/download
Show me where "FDA defined Severe covid-19 and critical covid 19 both require hospitalization ..." I think you are wrong about that.
The Pfizer study and FDA use nearly the same scale for adverse events. From the Fig. 2 caption of the first study:
mild, does not interfere with activity; moderate, interferes with activity; severe, prevents daily activity; and grade 4, emergency department visit or hospitalization https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
According to the FDA scale which applies both to adverse events and systemic illness (such as COVID-19): mild, no interference with activity; moderate, some interference activity with activity not requiring medical intervention; severe, prevents daily activity and requires medical intervention; grade 4, ER visit or hospitalization. https://www.fda.gov/media/73679/download
Medical intervention is likely to mean a phone call with a doctor or outpatient visit. If hospitalization is required, it's a grade 4 event, both according to the FDA and study protocol. You are completely misreading these definitions. There is still no evidence that severe COVID-19 is worse for patients than severe adverse events and I'm tired of having rhetorical sand thrown in my eyes.
That is not what the supplementary data shows. Are you lying to yourself or just to other people. S3 shows 126 serious adverse events in the vaccinated population and 111 in the placebo group. 4 of the serious adverse events were associated with the vaccine and 0 for the placebo. That is not statistically significant at all.
Are you one of those types who has an established idea and fumbles the numbers to “prove” it. You should work for the New York Times.
Just a line below states there were more serious life threatening adverse events in the placebo group(24) compared to vaccine group (21). The comparison shows it’s not the vaccine specifically associated with these events. Only in 4 cases was the vaccine the reason for adverse events. In S2 it lists the litany of major diseases that the patients had all of which were responsible for adverse events not associated with the vaccine.
8 times more likely to have serious covid is statistically significant.
It’s still a personal choice. If someone has a death wish who am I to stop them.
You are comparing serious apples to severe oranges with numbers that are not statistically significant. "Severe COVID-19" is specifically defined by the FDA as "not critical" i.e. life-threatening. Why are you comparing to life-threatening adverse events?
139 is the baseline (placebo) value. It is non-zero because unfortunate medical events always happen at some rate. The higher rate of 240 for the vaccine shows extra harm that dwarfs the vaccine benefit.
It is not about ratios. Should people take a drug if it reduces a rare cancer by 10x, but doubles their risk for heart attacks? What matters is total harm and benefit. The vaccines have only shown net harm in randomized trials, which are the gold standards for medical evidence.
Beckham's analysis is on point, but his article of faith statement that "there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and an important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death" undercuts his analysis. We do not have enough experience or data to affirm those claims yet, notwithstanding the political rush to approve. Little to no research is being done long term on side effect;, there is concern that issues are underreported on VAERS; there is still debate and experiment on how far apart the initial doses should be, and while it is clear that the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines wane relatively quickly, there is no data on the impact of repeated shots, or of the interaction between the vaccine and the antibody status of people who have had the disease, yet many employers are demanding mandates for vaccination, even among those with natural immunity from experience of the disease. Similar statements in many reports seem to me an attempt to maintain credibility with the establishment that is being challenged. it won't work, and we've had our thalidomide and Zantac and how many more experiences in the past were it took longer to see the problems. The political manipulation of COVID to enhance government and corporate power, and to advance an idea of safety, as defined by the corporate government axis as paramount over protection of individual rights, minority opinions, and autonomy over our own bodies is the core of this issue, not the efficacy of a vaccine.
Not to mention the whole concept of "peer-review" is a shortcut for the challenge of people doing research without institutional support. It was originally a publishing safety-belt to protect ignorant editors from posting seemingly good research that was methodologically flawed.
It was picked up by the corporatization of scientific papers to give it a USDA-eque mark of validity. It is not. It's just laziness.
Look back at Einstein's works and ask who peer review them.
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."
~ Dr. Macia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
Like everything else the progressive-corporatist State touches, medical science has been completely corrupted and politicized.
Safe and Effective™ is just another corporatist propaganda slogan They are marginally effective, at best, and no one will know how safe they really are for quite some time.
The jabbed are taking part in the largest ad hoc clinical trial in history. I'll be staying in the control group for the foreseeable future, thank you very much.
"I asked Dr. Angell about the Journal’s recent policy changes regarding conflict of interest. The current Editor of the Journal, Jeffery Drazen, has loosened the conflict of interest policy, which now allows authors of editorials and review articles to receive up to $10,000 from each drug company. Dr. Angell holds firm that a zero-tolerance policy, or no allowance of payment between companies and writers, is the only way to eliminate conflict of interest in medical journalism. She discusses why the policy change is problematic and may incentivize unethical promotions."
"Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
~ Richard Horton, former Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet
Your overall sentiment is 100% correct. As someone who has reviewed for the NSF, I can attest to the fact that as a reviewer, you are kinda not supposed to do anything but applaud.
But the comparison with what Einstein went through is more complicated, and worthy of a whole discussion on its own. In fact, going by my understanding of what "peer review" should *actually* mean, he was probably subjected to the most intense peer review of all time. I think it ultimately took ~15 years.
One of the things I ask myself most is what was the difference between then and now? The short answer, of course, is the corrupting influence of money and power. But it feels like people were somehow better at arguing back then... I honestly don't understand... Today, people come at issues with pre-set conclusions, and "argument" is about making the opponent look as bad as possible. People had egos back then too, of course, but ultimately the point of argument was to surface the truth.
Often (though not always) the *real* truth ends up somewhere between the two poles. This is obvious in social policy, but can even be the case in science. A French physicist named Sagnac (and others) hated the idea of Relativity so much he did a great job of building an apparatus to prove Einstein wrong. In the end, both ended up with a "win". Sagnac didn't disprove Special Relativity, but he forced Einstein to clarify his theory, and Sagnac's apparatus made possible sensors that are essential to a lot of modern electronic devices. That's how *real* science is done.
Andy, I really like your comment a lot. Thanks for the reminders of the trials and tribulations of Einstein's special theory of relativity, and how it was refined.
Wow, thanks for saying something. At the time I posted I thought, "Gee, that was a poor comment." I kind of rambled, then failed to drive home the main point.
So, that point is: Yes, Greg Maxwell is right that "peer review" - in its typical current real world execution - has become not much more than a rubber stamp. But lets not forget that *real* review and criticism -- what "peer review" was/is supposed to be -- is valuable. No one should be exempted; not even Einstein (and he wasn't).
You can find a great interview exposing the mess of the system we have today here:
(In The Chronicle of Higher Education!!!) As someone who also "grew up worshiping at the alter of science," let me highlight the part I find most powerful:
"In Flint the agencies paid to protect these people weren’t solving the problem. They were the problem... When was the last time you heard anyone in academia publicly criticize a funding agency, no matter how outrageous their behavior? We just don’t do these things.... I grew up worshiping at the altar of science, and in my wildest dreams I never thought scientists would behave this way.... Unfortunately, in general, academic research and scientists in this country are no longer deserving of the public trust. We’re not."
Neoliberalism has commodified literally everything, including medical research. When you go to a doctor these days all they really do is hand out prescriptions that will require you to continually come back into their office, they are essentially farming you for profit. They give you all these pills and never explain the side effects so that when you start to feel off you will go back in to see them, at that point they will prescribe some other pills to counteract the side effects of the first. Unfortunately the 2nd round of pills also has side effects, some of which may result in serious issues that will require even more medical intervention, more tests, mayber surgeries, etc., all of which will continue to increase the amount of money the medical cartels can extract from you. You can trace this directly back to Big Pharma and their drug pushers, they have no one to blame but themselves for my or any other's vaccine hesitancy, after seeing their execrable record of helping people it'll be a cold day in hell before I get jabbed with their poison.
I fear I've seen the dynamic you describe with my mother.
Well established antibiotics work; so do pain meds (if used responsibly). Beyond that, it's hard to think of any really spectacular drugs from Pharma in spite of all their claims.
"Look back at Einstein's works and ask who peer review them."
It was probably Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien, at least for his famous 1905 "Annus Mirabilis" papers (https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/einsteins-only-rejected-paper/). However, it's generally accepted that the review process was less severe than by modern standards. Journals regularly reject papers today, whereas the acceptance rate was >90% around the time Einstein submitted his papers to Annals of Physics.
Yes, Mr. Silberman, it cannot be stressed to much that the long term effects of these mRNA injections is totally unknown. This has been a world wide experiment on human guinea pigs.
And now many researchers are discovering undeclared substances and particulates in the Pfizer, Johnson and Moderna products.
When the elderly pass away within the time period that is used to claim they have been vaccinated, 1st shot, wait 10 days second shot, wait two weeks now you are vaccinated, they are not counted as dead because of the vaccination. So if they die it is calculated that they were non-vaxed.
"...wait two weeks now you are vaccinated, they are not counted as dead because of the vaccination. ..."
What in the +world+ are you babbling about? Those numbers have nothing to do with one another and (having read the submissions, tables, and studies from multiple countries) that isn't how anything is calculated.
One is not counted as "vaccinated" until two weeks AFTER the second shot. Any deaths, serious adverse reactions, etc occurring before those two weeks (after the second shot) are not counted as deaths or injuries among the "vaccinated." However: most of the worst outcomes occur BEFORE the two week period is over after the second shot. It's a wonderful trick of statistical bullshit: injuries and deaths due to the shots, are not counted as injuries and deaths due to the shots. Presto: It's only the "unvaccinated" who have suffered.
You haven't cited relevant sources. Sure, if a study is about vaccine effectiveness, it's not going to deem people vaccinated until two weeks (or maybe 7 days) after the second shot. But it wouldn't make sense to do that if the study is about vaccine safety. And you haven't cited any studies of vaccine safety that deem people vaccinated only when it's been two weeks after the second shot. If you don't cite links to any vaccine safety study that says that, I'm going to say that you've made a mistake in assuming that the two-week cutoff used in studies of vaccine effectiveness is allegedly used in studies of vaccine safety.
Don and Jim are talking about studies of vaccine effectiveness. If someone happens to die from the vaccine, they are always counted in the effectiveness statistics, as unvaccinated people who died from covid-19. All of this is discussed in Mathew Crawford's substack, here:
Jim's statement may be clear, but it is just as clearly wrong. I have not read any paper on vaccine safety that counts that way and I have read a substantial number of papers. Please go find me a counterexample.
Counter example to the substantial number of papers you have read? I don't know what you have read and therefore a counter example is not possible, but you know this. Here, Jerry just posted this. Enjoy!
The pandemic big blunder defined in this book results from an ineffective and incompetent large public health system. There are fifty-six state and territorial public health agencies and nearly 3,000 local agencies. They have always been responsible for dealing with emergencies and urgent health threats as well as preventing disease. The US has about 500,000 public health workers. There are about thirty-two US schools of public health that graduate about 16,000 individuals yearly, and graduate programs producing 800 people with a master of public health, health administration, or health educator degree. Some states require certain credentials for public health officials such as a medical license or specialized training in preventive medicine or public health. What has shaped the pandemic blunder across the whole public health system are the federal agencies, namely the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. Government officials have been supported by a host of allies, principally reporters and commentators in the leftist media, wrong-headed academics, medical societies, medical journals, drug companies, and many leftists in the political world. Inevitably, we must address the causes of the intentional actions and behaviors. Later, both outright corruption and greed will be explored to help answer the inevitable, logical question: How could such a horrendous blunder happen and persist for so long? Is it just a bureaucratic blunder or is it closer to evil intent? If you have any friend or relative who has suffered or died in this pandemic, then you will, by the end of this book, be inclined to think more in terms of evil than incompetence or even merely greed.
Hirschhorn, Joel S. . Pandemic Blunder: Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment (pp. 2-3). Outskirts Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Doctors can now prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 in Nebraska
Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion on October 14, saying that his office will not seek disciplinary action against doctors who prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as off-label drugs to treat or prevent Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).
The legal opinion is in response to a request from Nebraska Department of Health CEO Dannette Smith. The department licenses and disciplines doctors, and Smith has asked whether or not it would be “deemed unlawful or otherwise subject to discipline” for doctors to use ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or other “off-label use” medications to treat or prevent COVID-19.
Peterson says that his office finds that “the available data do not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19.”
However, he notes that health care providers in general may be subject to discipline if they neglect to obtain informed consent, deceive their patients, prescribe excessively high doses, fail to check for contraindication or engage in misconduct.
The opinion also states that allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate for other tools that could save lives and keep patients out of hospitals and possibly find relief for the strained healthcare system as well. The legal opinion also notes that there may be other promising off-label medicines that help treat COVID-19.
“I haven’t focused on the legality of it, I focused on the possible benefits that it might have for my patients, many of whom are quite ill with COVID,” says Dr. Louis Safranek, a specialist in infectious diseases. He relates that he is still prescribing ivermectin to his patients, and more than 500 have successfully overcome the disease with its help.
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine effective against COVID-19
When the CDC chose to lift restrictions on the vaccinated, ICAN went to work. Through its attorneys, it formally demanded that the CDC also (at the least) lift restrictions on the naturally immune. It provided the CDC with over 60 studies reflecting that natural immunity is more durable and robust than vaccine immunity. The CDC’s response is shameful. It fails to address any of these studies, collectively involving millions of people, and instead cites a single irrelevant study of a few hundred people that does not even involve comparing vaccine versus natural immunity!
As reflected in ICAN’s formal exchange with the CDC, the available data and studies reflect as follows regarding the current virus causing most COVID-19 in the United States:
And here is the full story. In May, the CDC revised its recommendations for fully vaccinated people, lessening certain restrictions. This same guidance, however, made no mention of those who have already recovered from COVID-19.
Immediately after the CDC revised its recommendations, ICAN, through its attorneys, demanded that the CDC immediately include those who have recovered from COVID-19 in the same category as those fully vaccinated. ICAN’s demand was based on a robust body of science.
The CDC responded with a ridiculous form response thanking us for our “interest in” COVID-19. Our attorneys therefore submitted the letter as a formal petition to the CDC on July 6, 2021, to which the CDC is required by law to thoroughly respond.
In September, after even more studies had come out evidencing the robust and durable nature of natural immunity (and the waning efficacy of the vaccines), and having not yet received a response from the CDC (as they were busy cooking up the Kentucky study), our attorneys supplemented the Citizen Petition with 56 additional studies supporting that natural immunity is, in fact, superior to vaccine immunity.
Months after ICAN first contacted the CDC regarding natural immunity and submitted the petition, the CDC responded that it, “find[s] no basis to further modify the current CDC recommendation in this area until the science warrants it.” The CDC’s conclusion relied on one single study of Kentucky residents and ignored each of the 60+ studies ICAN submitted it the CDC!
ICAN’s attorneys have now submitted a reply to the CDC. In that reply, the attorneys explain that the Kentucky study, a retrospective study of only a few hundred people, is irrelevant as to whether it is appropriate for the CDC to lift restrictions on the naturally immune because the study did not compare naturally immune individuals with vaccinated individuals. Instead, it compared the naturally immune to the naturally immune with subsequent vaccination.
An astronomical blunder is a more accurate way of describing what has happened in this pandemic. To be clear, what this book is about is an intentional action with enormous, adverse, irreversible consequences and health impacts for large numbers of people. When it comes to life or death, we enter the world of homicide. There are deliberate actions that directly impair human health and, in the extreme, cause avoidable, preventable death. To be clearer, for this pandemic, the correct notion is criminally negligent homicide.
Hirschhorn, Joel S. . Pandemic Blunder: Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment (pp. 1-2). Outskirts Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Sharri Markson: Unmasking the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origins of COVID-19
In this episode, award-winning journalist Sharri Markson takes us inside her groundbreaking research into the origins of COVID-19 and how events really unfolded at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Her findings are detailed in her new book and documentary of the same name “What Really Happened in Wuhan.”
Markson is the investigations editor at The Australian and host of the show “Sharri” on Sky News Australia.
"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences."--Carroll Quigley
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' - this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."
“Passionate hatreds can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. These people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance.”
Right. The best part about being "tolerant" is how you get to hate on those f***ing bastards who are intolerant. I hate those people, they should all die and we'd be better off.
Aldous Huxley didn't mean that the way you might think he did, he indeed thought it was a most most delicious moral treat.
He like the rest of his family were part of the elite and members of the Fabian Socialist Society. The Brave New World was not a warning, it was a blueprint of what the elite were working toward..
I, too, might step up for an experimental “vaccine” if my risk factors were high — 65+? Co-morbidities? I’m in, in view of the dangers of severe respiratory distress to the elderly and health-compromised. However. Mandating a vax to 74 million under-18s with a statistically zero chance of death is medical malpractice and beyond. While depriving the population of near-zero-risk growth of herd immunity. Blue states have just started these overreaching mandates fir school-age children. I suspect this may be a tipping point - many are ready to die on that hill.
Start marching. Someone has to get the ball rolling, and they will keep on escalating until a large enough part of the population puts their foot down. It just needs to be done peacefully and persistently, or the goon squad will squash it and we'll wind up worse off.
Marching in the streets will get you nowhere. Change has to be done by kicking people out of office that are causing this mess. Go with a group to your congresscritters office and make some noise, everyday.
You have a valid point but I work a pretty busy job. I also think DC is so corrupt that you are marginalized/destroyed if you try to be honest. I really am at a loss
Our current state of scientific inversion has sown intense division in the U.S. and threatens to rip apart the social fabric.
Basic civil, human, and economic rights have been violated under demonstrably fraudulent pretenses, and the mainstream media has been complicit. Actual legit data reveal that the sacrifices we thought we were making for the common good were sacrifices made in vain, and yet unlawful lockdowns continue to demoralize the population and ruin lives. The tragic reality is that this was, and is, all for nothing.
The ruling class cannot admit its mistakes for then the illusion would be fully shattered. People want to believe in a savior and for so many, the government and the technocratic elite are that savior. It is the new Church.
You are so right Blessthe, it is part of the 'Great Reset' agenda. It is a double fold process of thinning the herd plus imposing draconian mandates to cow the remaining population to submit to the global government ruled by the technocrats led by Klaus Schwab in Davos, Switzerland.
Another aspect of this agenda is the "climate change" regime meant to destroy the petrol industry and further break down the supply chains of delivery by banning trucking and perhaps rail delivery. This is called "Build Back Better" and is part of the 'Green Initiative'.
And we cannot forget their promise that, "You will own nothing, and you will be happy."
Pretty blatant bullshit if you actually think about it.
To begin, few take the NYT seriously. It's a partisan rag. I concede there was a time it had credibility, but no longer.
My parents are 75 and 72 and just this week I had them watch 'Manufacturing Consent' by our good friend Chomsky so we could begin to have intelligent conversations about what is happening in America, how the MSM (NYT) and other rags (CNN, MSNBC) work within a defined ecosystem to impress a narrative upon the population. I've also had them read the TIME piece about the collaboration and amplification of Biden and censoring of conservative voices in the last election.
The clear narrative from coastal liberal elites is: white, conservative (Christian) men in rural, flyover America are the enemy. Prove me wrong.
This is the narrative. The Times narrative in this case has less to do with who is dying, because really they could care less, but more to do with a reinforcement of who the enemy is.
The reason Trump won, and may win again, is because he gives voice to the voiceless. It is not farmers in rural, middle America looking down their noses at coastal liberal elites. But it is the case that liberals hold great disdain for "the heathens" in the heartland.
Up until March 2020 I would have supported the Dem Party all day long. No longer. I have never witnessed such a rapacious, evil group of people hell bent on power.
Here's the good news. All the liberal Dems masking their children are declaring them faceless and voiceless, whereas that is not the case with rational, conservative parents. In 15 years, conservatives win because the Sheep will just do what they are told. Plus, no voice, no face.
But, to the article, this resonates: "The mortality burden of COVID-19 is not randomly distributed across age groups. Indeed, age appears to be the “strongest predictor of mortality” from COVID-19..."
There is parallel aspect to all this that I wish you, or Glenn Greenwald, would cover: The continued funding of dangerous virology research with little to no demonstrable chance of societal payoff.
Honestly, when the virus first started spreading, I just didn't worry much about where it came from. In terms of dealing with the immediate crisis, that point was irrelevant, and remains irrelevant. Whatever... But it does matter if we are talking about continued research funding. Once I started seeing familiar signs of "scientists" protecting their grant money, I spent a lot of time looking at the facts of the origin stories. We will never have the "smoking gun" that the media wants (especially since China is never going to cooperate), but if we were in a murder trial, I'd say the threshold of reasonable doubt has been well surpassed: The disease came out of the WIV, funded with US money.
A few weeks ago, Biden announced his $50 Billion program to "fight the next pandemic." Which, his advisors assure us, will almost certainly hit within the next decade. Even if there are people who still want to say we don't know where *this* pandemic came from, is it too much to ask that we stop spending money on actively creating new ones?
This is the major point for me! If we spent all those millions of dollars ON BAT-ORIGIN CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH, what exactly did we get for the money? A group of political 'leaders' who can't find a single ass with all their hands combined.
Also, re. my original comment: I'm disappointed that I failed to clearly connect the dots between the virus research issue and the content of the article itself, but the connecting dots *are* there.... The question I ask myself is this: Is at least part of the motivation for all the fire and brimstone around shots a smoke-and-mirrors effort to keep people from talking about WIV, EcoHealth, and the wisdom of continuing to fund specific virology research?
Of course. It can't get out that the very people we listened to when it came to corona were the ones actually responsible for it.
To me, it doesn't matter if they are responsible for this particular virus or not. They funded dangerous virus research in a shoddy Chinese lab, and that's criminal or worse.
"where [coronavirus] came from ... remains irrelevant"
That claim always perplexes me. For example, if we had hard evidence that it leaked from the Wuhan lab, there would be good reason for the international community to insist that the lab be closed, as being a global danger to lives and economies.
I suspect we are in full agreement. Perhaps you overlooked my conditional: I said, *In terms of dealing with the immediate crisis...*. What you say about relevance over time is absolutely right. Actually, I would go along with SimulationCommander and say just end the funding *period*. What they are doing has been called out as dangerous for at least a decade.
This kind of thing came up wrt the Afghanistan exit too. Everyone was screaming for Biden's head while the withdrawal was still under way. Biden was not personally responsible for the chaos -- his generals were -- and the screaming did not help. But I always said, "Ask me in a few months. If the whole top level of the Pentagon has not been fired by then, I'll join the calls for Biden accountability."
I think my morning coffee hasn't yet kicked in - I at first misread your statement "Biden was not personally responsible for the chaos -- his generals were" as "Biden was not personally responsible for the chaos -- his genitals were". The latter is in fact an accurate explanation of much of politics.
"To be clear: there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and an important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death." -- A religious oath repeated by the faithful or the timid to avoid being labeled a heathen.
I'm disappointed in my "educated" acquaintances that swallow the shoddy analysis hook, line, and sinker. Their love of and belief in SCIENCE and how it's REAL always seems to follow their confirmation biases a little too closely.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a fundamental logical fallacy that constantly gets abused by the media and the politically motivated sociologists. Or is logic 101 not a part of scientific analysis any more?
I had a friendly conversation with a Doctor buddy of my a few weeks ago. It was a casual discussion of why I'm not "jabbed". She was polite and listened to my train of justifications and finally as she went to get in her car she said . . . "People are dying."
Our current education system is not designed for critical thinking, if anything it's designed to eliminate critical thinking skills. My wife is currently pregnant with our first child and I am already thinking of how I can homeschool them when they get older, refuse to send my child to some "school" to be indoctrinated with values I abhor. Our society is beyond sick, we've come to a point where people have no choice but to send their kids to these indoctrination centers because both parents have to work in order to support the family. When did raising and educating your children become something for which the government is responsible? Why did we start farming out our responsibilities to our children to the government? When it became acceptable to pursue greed over everything else, when people looked at the natural family structure and decided they wanted to interject government agencies into how people raise their children for profit and control.
Hm, such a brief quote from her is not enough to show a lack of critical thinking on her part (it's possible that her words were meant to get at something that you haven't accounted for).
Give an example of what that might be. Of course people are dying. How many died and are dying because the medical establishment did absolutely NO early treatments, when they were available. Sent people home to infect others. How intelligent is that. Older people died in mass because infected people were sent back to the nursing homes to infect everyone else. BTW, it was a nursing home in Washington state where this whole pandemic was 1st observed, and yet they did it anyway. That was a best negligent homicide, no one will pay a cost for.
Many of your points are fair, as far as they go. And to answer your "Give an example of what that might be" request: one possibility is that Greg Maxwell's "train of justification" was in large part focused on why Maxwell didn't think he himself would experience a net benefit from the vaccine, and Maxwell may have said relatively less (or perhaps nothing) to the doctor about the issue of whether his refusing the vaccine might lead to others catching Covid or might lead to more opportunities for the virus to mutate (it's also possible that the doctor might have presented arguments on these points to him). So, perhaps the conversation between Maxwell and the doctor might have ended with Maxwell focused mainly on what's better for him, and the doctor focused mainly on what's better for other people. Of course this is only one possibility for how the conversation between Maxwell and the doctor could have gone, and I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't asked me to say it. But given that Maxwell's conversation could have gone in this way, or in some other possible ways, it clearly is fair to say that Maxwell hasn't said anything convincing yet to support his claim that the doctor lacked "critical thinking".
There certainly is room for doubt about whether covid-19 vaccines are "safe and effective." As expressed, for example, in this peer reviewed journal article (Kostoff et al.) which states that "there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic."
"Historically, VAERS has been shown to report about 1% of actual vaccine/inoculation adverse events [4]. See Appendix 1 for a first-principles confirmation of that result). By mid-June, deaths following COVID-19 inoculations had reached the ˜6000 levels."
Just for fun I'd be curious to know how many people would be counted as dying from the vax if they applied the *same standard* they used for counting covid deaths -- i.e., counting everyone who died from anything within 60 days of being infected/inoculated.
The authors of the paper are scientific traditionalists, and thus they use customary definitions for cause of death. According to the CDC, only 6% of "covid deaths" were actually caused primarily by the virus, while the other 94% would traditionally have been ascribed to other underlying conditions such as cancer or heart disease, with the virus as a contributing factor. Thus, a more realistic estimate of the number of deaths caused by covid-19 in the US through May 2021 would have been around 40,000.
Based on extrapolation from VAERS data, confirmed by other approaches, the number of deaths caused by the inoculations is somewhere around 200,000. Roughly speaking, this is the basis for the 5:1 estimate.
OK, I have missed a nuance in the paper. What the authors said, exactly, was: "CDC showed that 94 % of the reported deaths had multiple comorbidities, thereby reducing the CDC's numbers attributed strictly to COVID-19 to about 35,000 for all age groups." The argument that the CDC reporting amounted to misdiagnosis, should not have been attributed to the CDC, but rather should be attributed to the authors, who supported that position in the article with multiple references.
You missed a rather large nuance. ALL the deaths listed by the CDC in the underlying table had "covid-19" listed as a cause on the death certificate (not merely a positive test but a coroner somewhere specifically bothered to write it down AS a cause), therefore 100% of the deaths listed are "from covid-19" by standard epidemiological practice going back about a century. The table enumerates all +additional+ causes which ALSO appeared on any of those death certificates. This should be apparent from reading the causes which include things like ARDS or myocarditis which are often symptoms of covid-19! In just about 6% of the cases, there were no other causes listed.
Having a single cause on a death certificate is and +should be+ uncommon. If someone gets shot, the death certificate usually doesn't just say, "they done got shot". It might well say something about open head wounds, exsanguination, maybe even post-op infection or the fall down the stairs, but we don't say they weren't "really" killed by a firearm, do we?
As stated in the notes to the CDC data, there is no indicated priority to the causes in that table: that is, it does not differentiate primary and contributing causes which might appear on the COD. That is +normal+ for deaths in the national vital statistics system, as one would know if one had done, say WISQARS queries for car accident or firearm deaths previously. "Death from bacterial pneumonia with complications from covid-19" codes the same as "Death from covid-19 with complications from bacterial pneumonia". Sorting that out would take examination of individual cases; a count of deaths "from" versus "with"-- if you came up with a rational distinction-- cannot be obtained from the CDC data. The reason it is counted that way is because no one HAS come up with a rational way to cleanly separate such things that can be consistently applied. That is spelled out in textbooks I've worked from going back at least to the 70's.
At this point you're taking issue with Kostoff et al, and their conclusions, and not with my missed nuance. And I'm not an epidemiologist, and not in a position to adjudicate between your position and theirs.
From a lay perspective, by virtue of your analogy with a gunshot victim, it seems logical that a primary cause of death can be identified in many cases. And according to Kostoff et al, based on their review of the CDC presentation, they think the primary cause of death of most alleged Covid-19 victims is actually the various other serious co-morbidities identified in the death certificates.
The CDC issued new guidance in April 2020, regarding coronavirus reporting. As I recall, there was considerable consternation at the time from some doctors who felt the guidance was outrageous and unprecedented. I see now that there are some "fact check" sites who say there was nothing to see there. Here is the guidance.
Again, reading through this as a lay person, I can't imagine why they would need an elaborate 7-page document if they're just reiterating standard procedure. And it appears they've effectively created a flow chart that always requires listing covid-19 as the primary cause of death in virtually every case.
Just casually looking online for statistics, in the U.S., 150 million people are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, and there have been roughly 700,000 deaths from COVID-19. By this analysis, we should have seen 3.5 million deaths from the vaccines alone? Or, even if we are severely overcounting COVID-19 deaths, there should be around a million or so vaccine-related deaths maybe? Even 100,000 vaccine-related deaths would get people's attention. Have they been covered up? The assertion that the vaccines are 5x deadlier than COVID-19 does not seem remotely plausible to me.
"The assertion that the vaccines are 5x deadlier than COVID-19 does not seem remotely plausible to me."
It isn't. As you point to, we wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat without hitting a dead vaccine victim and there is no way that could be hidden. Nevermind that 1) the past VAERS undercount isn't applicable because of historic levels of scrutiny in this case, 2) US VAERS data is not particularly out of line with rates from completely unrelated (and likely better quality) system like Spain's, 3) the historic rate of vaccination which would, clearly, lead to historic levels of even relatively rare side-effects, 4) the researchers who have done much more thorough surveillance in smaller populations (e.g. hospital systems) on symptoms reported in VAERS as a sanity check. For +most+ segments of the population, serious vaccine side-effects (from any of a half-dozen products) are rare and death exceedingly so.
But this is a solid example of where numbers and conclusions that don't pass the sniff test are being manufactured by MULTIPLE factions here, not just the NYT.
Part of the authors' case is that the number of covid-19 deaths has been dramatically inflated, as most of the deaths so-counted were caused primarily by serious underlying conditions. By traditional criteria, the number of covid-19 deaths in the US was about 40,000 as of the date the paper was written.
The ~200,000 vaccine deaths actually have gotten peoples' attention. For example, a professional public opinion poll found that more than 15% of all Americans are personally acquainted with someone who died of the covid vaccine.
However, in our national statistics, these vaccine deaths are being laundered as deaths of "unvaccinated" people (<14 days after last shot) caused by covid-19. See:
I know this isn’t rigorous by any means, but let me give you an example of why I don’t believe this analysis: Before vaccines were widely available, there were enough people dying in New York City that some hospitals had to store bodies in freezer trucks because they were out of space in their morgues. Presumably, this was because of COVID-19 and not because everyone suddenly got cancer and heart attacks at the same time. Currently, 63% of New Yorkers are fully vaccinated. By the above logic, since the vaccines are 5x more fatal than COVID-19, should we not now see freezer trucks full of bodies from vaccine mortality? Even if every, single person in NYC somehow got COVID-19 and most didn’t know it (unlikely, but someone is going to make the argument), we should be seeing 2-3x the number of deaths, and once again, there should be freezer trucks full of them. Is this just not being reported, or is it not happening? I tend to believe that it isn’t happening because the vaccines are relatively safe and prevent more deaths than they cause.
But it is a GREAT example of how analysts perform sanity checks on data. Another example would be the people who were monitoring the changes in obituary column length in major cities (Philadelphia, Boston are two I read analyses of) during the NE wave. These "columns" reached historic levels last year, consuming a measurable thickness in their respective papers. Given that major papers are routinely stored by libraries (whether physically or scanned), the number of entries can be tracked and analyzed over time. The changes in volume of obituaries were not at all inconsistent with the spike in covid deaths. We are seeing no equivalent effects with vaccination campaigns in major cities now.
I don't think anyone would question that there were a lot of deaths brought forward into winter 2020 in which covid-19 was a contributing factor. But regarding vaccine deaths: just because something isn't reported in the media, doesn't mean it isn't happening. FWIW, there's a funeral director by the name of John O'Looney who claims that his morgue is indeed overflowing with vaccine victims. It seems the mass media isn't clamoring to interview him.
Uh, that poll isn't a reliable way of estimating vaccine deaths. The Substack link you gave discussed that poll, and mentioned that none of the "major polling agencies" were willing to conduct the poll. Instead, the poll was run by PeopleFish, surveying a small number of people (only 300, less than reputable polls have) who were recruited through "opt-in panels" where they are paid to take surveys. Pew Research has reported that opt-in panels have serious flaws in surveying public opinion: some of the takers of any given survey may be bots, while some are humans giving false answers instead of stating their actual opinions. The bogus survey responses that PewResearch found could be very crude: in some cases a paid survey-taker would simply answer Yes to all questions, while in other cases a paid survey-taker would questions about their opinion by just doing a web search and plagiarizing phrases found in the search. Pew Research found that "three prominent sources of opt-in survey samples" each have 4-7% bogus responses on opinion surveys. I don't think PeopleFish would count as a "prominent source of opt-in survey samples", so their rate of bogus responses on opinion surveys would likely be higher than 4-7%.
And the rate of bogus answers on this vaccine-death poll is likely worse than 4-7% for another reason: it's not an opinion survey, it's a survey that hopes people will report the facts about their experience. In an survey that's purely about opinions, many paid survey takers will at least have an incentive to be honest about their opinion because they want their personal views to be influential. But in a survey asking about facts, the desire for your views to be influential no longer provides the same incentive to speak your mind: instead you can be influential by misreporting facts.
The poll is unbelievable at face value because 64% of the respondents were female, which obviously isn't a representative sample of US adults in general.
I could mention other methodological problems with how the Substack page you linked to handled this poll (as well as how they got to the conclusion of ~200,000 vaccine deaths), but no need to go further.
Hello Randall Rose, thanks for reading and studying that material. As I said, PeopleFish provided a 'professional' public opinion poll. However, I'm sure you are correct that the "opt-in" method they used is not as good as a randomly sampled poll run by a major organization. It seems to me that a reputable firm should be able to weed out 'bots', but no doubt you are correct that the use of opt-in methods introduces some bias. For example, it seems perfectly reasonable that more women than men would be interested in pursuing a career as a part time survey taker.
But I'm not seeing any reason why there would be a bias to select individuals who would lie about knowing someone who was killed by the vaccine. Nor any reason why women would be more likely to know a vaccine victim, compared to men.
If you want to argue that the estimate of 200,000 dead is only good to one significant figure, that's fine. In fact if you pick a number anywhere between 50,000 and 500,000, mainstream thinkers would be equally flabbergasted. Children's Health Defense is arguing that the vaccine deaths are about 50,000.
We shouldn't need to be guessing or arguing about this. The lack of any real data is a national scandal. VAERS documented deaths are a scandal of their own. How many deaths would it take, before you would think the program should be stopped?
Oh, I don't trust that PeopleFish poll at all, not even for giving the correct order of magnitude on vaccine deaths. The poll results look kind of internally inconsistent, claiming that 9.0% of respondents personally know 1 person who died of the Covid vaccine, 2.9% of respondents personally know 2 people who died of the Covid vaccine, and 3.9% personally know 3 or more, for a total of 15.8%. If it was correct that 15.8% of the population actually knows at least 1 person who died from the vaccine, then the percentage who know of at least 2 vaccine deaths SHOULD be not much more than 15.8% of 15.8%, and the percentage who know of at least 3 should be not much more than 15.8% of 15.8% of 15.8%, nowhere near as high as the 3.9% that the poll reports. I strongly suspect that *none* of the 3.9% of survey-takers who said they knew of 3 or more vaccine deaths were telling the truth.
I'm just tossing that poll, along with the claim of ~200,000 dead which your Substack link tries to support using the poll.
I'm aware that polls show that 15% of Americans answer Yes when asked if they've ever seen a ghost (plus another 17% who answer "Possibly"), and I'm sure polls would also show inflated numbers about other weird experiences. It doesn't look like this is the kind of situation where you can use a poll to get accurate data on facts (as opposed to surveying mere opinions). https://today.yougov.com/topics/philosophy/articles-reports/2018/10/31/americans-think-ghosts-are-more-likely-aliens-eart
I guess if you wanted real facts, one method is to start with an alleged case of vaccine death (the kind of alleged case that gets reported to VAERS), and have a full post-mortem evaluation of the body by a team of two pathologists, one who's initially inclined to think that there are a lot of Covid vaccine deaths and one who's inclined to think that there aren't. If you do that for a bunch of cases of alleged vaccine deaths, we would get an idea about whether VAERS alleged cases of vaccine deaths are mistaken 10% of the time, or 50% of the time, or more than 90% of the time, or whatever. Worth doing, I think.
Why is the word "vaccine" in quotes every time the paper refers to mRNA vaccines? To me, this is an indication that the authors are tin foil hat people. Maybe this analysis is correct, but since I am not familiar with the institutions that the authors work for, and since they have that weird tick of quoting the word vaccine, which I have only ever seen in conspiracy-theory propaganda (ie. "It's not a vaccine. It's gene therapy!"), I don't really trust the accuracy of this paper.
I do hope Mr. Smith, that you know enough history to realize that conspiracies are the flywheel in the engine that drives history forward. Most paradigm shifts are the result of a conspiracy.
As Gore Vidal once said, "I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a conspiracy analyst."
And I really don't believe the producers of this so-called "vaccine"
Legacy vaccines are generally a weakened version of the virus to be fought against. Sometimes a dead version of the virus is used. These new mRNA solutions are entirely different. So those who are critical of these potions use scare quotes to differentiate between the legacy vaccines used prior to the "Covid Pandemic".
Tin foil hats are almost impossible to come by these days. I think you refer to the aluminum foil hats worn by "nutball conspiracy theorists, and escaped patients from mental institutions who have taken rides in flying saucers and camped out on the Grassy Knoll waiting to see JFK's ghost wandering about Dealey Plaza ".
We have had entirely synthetic, "acellular", vaccines for decades. Acellular pertussis springs immediately to mind. Acellular vaccines have their pros and cons but are still "vaccines" by a long-standing and non-controversial definition. The tetnus vaccine has always been acellular because it is not intended to protect against the bacterium but rather the toxin produced.
The authors' explanation is that "A vaccine is legally defined as any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of one or more diseases". They say that since the covid-19 "vaccines" cannot prevent infection by the virus, and their main function is symptom suppression, they should be called "inoculations" or "treatments".
And by that (nonsensical) definition, we don't have any vaccines, including the original vaccinium using cowpox to protect against smallpox. The smallpox vaccine did nothing (and could do nothing) until smallpox was in the bloodstream for the immune system to react to. In other words, the definition of "infection" has suddenly been switched from the onset of clinical symptoms to entry into the body. Both definitions +can+ be valid in the appropriate context but only one makes sense in the context of a vaccine. Only one of them was possible to detect when the term "vaccine" came into use.
For extra credit, he should have also have looked at the correlation between the % of blacks (who voted 95% Democrat) in a county and its (alleged) covid death rate. Simply because Trump carried the South, the correlation between county-level black population % and covid death rates will also be very high. This would further negate the NYT's "Red Covid" propaganda narrative.
….and lurking behind all of these arguments over proper statistical procedure is the widely acknowledged fact that the PCR test isn’t accurate and that there is really no strong correlation between “cases” and disease. This is akin to critiquing the methodology of a horoscope! Proper methodology or not, IT’S STILL ASTROLOGY!
All those PCR tests that were run up until Jan 2021 (when they changed the range to "less than 35") should be analyzed for Cycle Threshold and anything over 25-30 should be tossed out as a case of "Covid".
The last line of the article sums up left-wing MSM: "We may not be better informed, but at least we know who to hate." This summarizes the purpose of the NYT perfectly- It is pure propaganda.
"To be clear: there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and an important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death."
The safety of COVID vaccines can indeed be questioned. The very paper that was supposed to demonstrate Pfizer vaccine safety indicated 101 "severe" adverse events caused by the vaccine compared to 8 cases of "severe COVID-19" prevented (see Tables S3 and S5).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
I can personally attest to the fact that the shots have risks. Both my wife and I got very ill. Her fever went over 104 for five days. A friend-of-friend (35, female, great health) died 24 hours after Moderna. Meanwhile, our neighbors actually got COVID and only found out by accident.
Yes, this is all anecdotal, but from what I understand so far, it is quite possible that people in some demographics are a greater risk from the shot than from the disease. And if the shot doesn't prevent a person from transmitting the virus, then shaming people for making a personal decision is a terrible thing.
I know 2 people that had strokes after the vaccination. And I don’t know that many people. It is definitely not safe. Interesting that along with Blacks and Hispanics, a demographic with low vaccination rates is people with PhDs. Whereas Masters’ Degree holders ( as their highest education level) have a very high vaccination rate. Makes sense to me. Master’s degree people primarily read other people’s research. PhDs are required to think for themselves and have original ideas. My .02.
My city is 60% black and they've been very suspicious....we are in Georgia and the Tuskegee cruelty wasn't that long ago. The Free No Appointment Line Starts Here at Walmart, Walgreens, etc not only is empty but those getting Vicks and Cough syrup scatter when the Pharmacist comes out to find the line.
I have a cousin by marriage (and whom I only met once) who died of COVID in the last week. I do not know if she was vaccinated. I believe she was around age 50 and I suspect she had a few co-morbidities.
This is a very difficult issue and there are no easy answers. I respect the people who acknowledge the inconsistencies and who give us information. I am not well enough educated or informed to be able to understand the more technical information. It is sad that many of our leaders and experts treat the rest of us like fools and give us flawed data and opinions disguised as facts.
Well, they are themselves arrogant fools.
Do you know if she habitually wore a mask?
Most of the commercially available masks have graphene oxide in the cloth. This is a dangerous toxin. It is possible, probably likely that many people who got sick was due to Graphenen Oxide poisoning.
\\][//
I do not know. I've been vaccinated, wear masks in public, and I wash my hands frequently. I'd rather not get hit by the bug
https://soundcloud.com/james-bailey-839082875/david-martin-presents-hard-evidence-showing-covid-19-is-a-man-made-bioweapon
David E. Martin PhD is the developer of several innovation-based quantitative indices of public equities and founder of the Purple Bridge Funds and M-CAM International. He has worked closely with the United States Congress and numerous trade and financial regulatory agencies in the United States. Dr. Martin is also a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.
Since 1999, Dr. Martin has been actively tracking patent applications and approvals for the purpose of identifying suspicious activity. In the 94-minute video shown below, he shares the findings from his research regarding the laboratory development of a pathogenic coronavirus that started in 1999 and released initially upon human populations in the SARS CoV-1 in 2002-2003, then again in MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in 2012, and then again in SARS CoV-2 which was renamed COVID-19, as shown below with evidence from the primary development lab in Wuhan China.
In my opinion, his research proves that all of these pathogenic variants of the coronavirus were laboratory developed, man-made bioweapons. And they've all been funded by the NIAID under the direction of a self-proclaimed Jesuit, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
\\][//
Well Hugh, No one knows the long term effects of the injection. You are now a guinea pig in this world wide human experiment.
Good luck!
\\][//
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. I will concede that it may be more accurate to say "whether or not the vaccine is effective". But this point is not relevant to his central thesis. In fact, the author demonstrates that you can concede this point and that his central thesis holds.
It may be more effective, in presenting a persuasive argument, for the author to acknowledge the point and concede it rather than to belabor the issue. An advocate should not be expected to write a persuasive argument in the same form and manner that a journalist would write a news story.
Amusingly bizarre appeal to authority there, John.
Totally agree. There are many demographics that the “vaccine” is not a clear benefit
agree
Shaming people for making a personal decision is typically a terrible thing to do, regardless of the effectiveness of an experimental treatment.
https://rumble.com/vnb99j-dod-documents-over-70-covid-hospitalizations-are-fully-vaccinated-over-65.html
Rumble — Attorney Thomas Renz joined Stew Peters to reveal the highly censored DoD documents proving that the "vaccine" is more dangerous than it is helpful, as the vast majority of patients over 65 hospitalized with "COVID" are more-than-likely experiencing injury from the shots!
\\][//
You're correct. Those who condemn you for reporting anecdotal data might be correct; they also have clearly forgotten that the origin of all science isn't randomized controlled peer-reviewed published articles. It's simple observation and attempting to explain the world around one's self. Otherwise known as interpreted observation, or anecdotes.
Yeah. I noticed that bit of opinion inserted into an excellent article.
It's the unfortunate trend of adding a disclaimer that indicates the goodthink of the author, but is irrelevant to the thrust of the article. It indicates how deeply virtue signaling has crept into our discourse, even that which bucks the narrative.
Last year it was "To be sure, Trump is an awful person, but..."
OMG! That so pisses me off. They need a good cerebral editor - that whole "Trump . . . But" thing is very unnecessary virtue signalling.
I loved him and miss his leadership
I miss his transparency. Biden is the complete opposite in that regard.
The most transparent liar, you mean.
I'm kind of thinking that "mental vacuum" and "transparency" have a connection.
He looks transparent because there is nothing behind them. You look in his eyes and all you see is child-like bewilderment.
Lol
You know how far things have fallen when we pine for Donald Trump.
Like Metallica's song, Sad But True.
Fuck Joe Biden.
\\][//
Thank the DNC and COVID for torpedoing the greatest economy in history and leaving us where we are now.
2019 will go down in history as record American prosperity just in time for a man-made virus to bring it all to a halt in time for said presidents election
such a neat coincidence for team democrat
just in time for trillions in bailout at the federal level for state problems that had nothing to do with covid
The agenda is transparent -- 'The Great Reset'
A long history of this agenda is documented:
THE GREAT RESET: H.G. WELLS’ DYSTOPIAN VISION COMES ALIVE THE CAULDRON OF PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT IN THE EARLY 1900S PROVIDED FERTILE GROUND FOR TECHNOCRACY TO EMERGE. ALTHOUGH THIS AUTHOR DOES NOT MENTION TECHNOCRACY PER SE, THE PLAYERS HE MENTIONED WERE HEAVILY INFLUENTIAL IN THE MOVEMENT.
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/26/the-great-reset-h-g-wells-dystopian-vision-comes-alive/
\\][//
So true. So sad.
Military leaders saw pandemic as unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on Canadians, Forces report says --A plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war. | 27 Sept 2021 | Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes. The federal government never asked for the so-called information operations campaign, nor did cabinet authorize the initiative developed during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, then headed by Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau. But military commanders believed they didn't need to get approval from higher authorities to develop and proceed with their plan, retired Maj.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, who was brought in to investigate the scheme, concluded in his report. The propaganda plan was developed and put in place in April 2020 even though the Canadian Forces had already acknowledged "information operations and targeting policies and doctrines are aimed at adversaries and have a limited application in a domestic concept." A copy of the Dec. 2, 2020, Gosselin investigation, as well as other related documents, was obtained by this newspaper using the Access to Information law.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/military-leaders-saw-pandemic-as-unique-opportunity-to-test-propaganda-techniques-on-canadians-forces-report-says
\\][//
I do too Madjack, and now with this idiot Biden screwing up everything he touches....I wonder how long America can survive the damned fool.
\\][//
Use your heads, they will let Biden die in office and use his death to get Harris frauded in just like 2020.
They all are awful. Seriously. There have been like 2 people in all of congress who haven't been either completely compliant or quiet on this issue, and its Ron Johnson and Rand Paul.
2 out of 535 (or whatever number it is) Fuck all of these people.
You are truly nuts.
Ah so normal person, you Bidenista fruitcake? Oh my my...
You gotta lott splainin' to do Lucy!!!
\\][//
You are a 'proud Bernie bro' I don't think you are really in any position to point at anyone else's mental health.
I mean Bernie sucks and I love Burlington and everything about VT. Except Bernie. He sucks. He sucks really fucking bad.
Hes had 2 bills in his entire career. 2. One was a post-office naming. The guy is a pathetic liar and fraud and anyone with a brain can easily see this.
For many people, the disclaimers are simple truth.
I don't like Trump BUT Biden makes him look good by comparison.
I didn't vote for Trump BUT I have rather large concerns over election conduct.
I don't like what some people did on 1/6 BUT I +really+ don't like the steady looting and burning that went unchecked for a year or so.
I am personally vaccinated, BUT that's my choice, my business: coercing someone else is unacceptable.
Many of us have to carefully map out the hill we are willing to die on because there are so many out there people are fighting tooth and nail over that are not worth a papercut. I'd rather not have to make a tragic last stand in the Battle of Oh-Wait-Weren't-We-Supposed-To-Be-Over-There.
My point being that the qualification is irrelevant to the crux of the article and detracts from the argument being made. It's indicative of the fear of violating a narrative. The article didn't need it or benefit from it.
Actually, the qualification didn't "detract" from the argument at all, and was included because it was true and relevant, not for "fear of violating a narrative".
Jeremy Beckham, the author, included the qualification so that readers would be able to understand his article's intended point. He wanted to clarify that his point was not "(1) Politicized choices and views (such as vaccine hesitancy) have no harmful effect on Covid death rates" but rather "(2) Politicized choices and views (such as vaccine hesitancy) have less effect on Covid death rates than the NY Times article suggests". (2) is true and (1) is false, so he wouldn't have wanted readers to come away thinking his article's point was to support (1); if they did it would have been misleading to those readers inclined to believe (1) as well as to readers inclined to reject (1).
Possibly you would have preferred Beckham to write the article in a way that readers could more easily think (1) is the point, but it wasn't his point and he wanted to make clear that his point was something different. It is perfectly okay, and even valuable, for him to do that.
94% of COVID deaths are individuals with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities). This is the highest correlation of any factor I've seen and yet it is not a part of most narratives that see the light of day in 2021.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q#Comorbidities
\\][//
I disagree.
"To be clear: there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are a safe, effective, and important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death. The vaccination rate for rural counties is 41.4%, while the rate in urban areas is 53.3%. This difference also surely has an impact on the different rates of death from COVID-19. But this is only one part of the equation, and The New York Times’ recent viral article contained no such nuanced or informative discussion about this complex web of interrelated factors influencing disease burden and health outcomes. If you search the article for any mention of ‘age,’ or ‘rural’ you get no results, because these factors didn’t appear in their analysis at all. In any discussion about factors influencing COVID-19 mortality rates, failing to mention the role of these important demographic influences is journalistic malpractice that grossly distorts reality."
I can drop the first sentence of that paragraph and the rest stands just fine. In fact, the opener has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph or its conclusion.
I see that Randall fucking Rose, who so often complains as to the lack of quality in my commentary finds himself overwhelmed by the popularity of the comment of Lee, who has 13 hearts compared to zero hearts for poor Randall fucking Rose. He also has the arrogance to explain the motivations of the author of the article. He explains that the author thus: "He wanted to clarify that his point was "...bla bla bla, lending Rose's own narrative to the authors intentions.
So never forget that Randall fucking Rose's opinions are sacrosanct, and any who disagree with him is stupid, ignorant, and crass.
\\][//
The disclaimers are there because any time anyone says anything against the groupthink they are immediately labeled with a discrediting, derogatory term, typically "Trump lackey".
Meanwhile, the abortion marchers keep yelling how its their body and their choice.
SOoooooo confusing.
Problem is these points of dissention at some point become like a frog in a pot. At some point its too late and there is no coming back to sanity.
Andrew Sullivan was the king of that. It was basically the price of admission to be paid before trying to talk sense to liberals.
I think it needs to get cheaper. Anyone still demanding the old rates hasn't been listening.
Yes, and don’t forget, “I believe in the vaccine, I’m not anti-vacc, I chose to get it, but…….”
Actually, these concessions are often informative and valuable to read, from whatever side of the political spectrum they come from. Only crude people think that these concessions are only there to indicate "the goodthink of the author".
"crude people"? Really Mr. Rose? Now your definition of a crude person would be? Oh of course the people you don't like.
In other words a purely subjective assessment based in your own biases.
Of course you could write up a 400 word argumentum verbosium and making your disingenuous rhetorical sophistry appear 'scholarly' as is your habit at times.
\\][//
William Whitten is the top commenter on this Substack, as long as quality is not considered. He posts over 100 comments on every article Greenwald sends out, and despite his talk about 400-word posts, he is tops in total word count too. His posts address such important matters as his belief in Pizzagate and his belief that Covid vaccines contain allegedly magnetizable graphene oxide (or, as he sometimes writes, "Graphic Oxide and Spike Protean"). High frequency, low quality.
Randal fucking Rose and his same whiny complaint
about the number of comments I make, as if he is the hall monitor for Glenn Greenwald's forums. He thinks his personal opinions are sacrosanct and above reproach.
He has complained about Mr. Greenwald himself as well, saying that Glenn isn't sufficiently intelligent in scientific and technical matters, which is truly arrogant bullshit because Randal fucking Rose himself doesn't even grasp elementary Newtonian physics.
Yes Graphic Oxide and other particulates have been discovered in all of the brands of mRNA solutions.
The following conference of German pathologists present evidence of such in their presentation of microscopic images of the product from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson:
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
\\][//
Hm, you're slightly close to the truth. Yes, I don't like crude people, and I dislike them because they're crude, as you've personally experienced. But I also respect people I disagree with when they're not crude and they have intelligent things to say; you just haven't experienced that.
Randall fucking Rose dislikes crude people because they are crude!
And they are crude because Randall fucking Rose says they are.
So the circular reasoning spins on and on in Randal fucking Rose's crudely constructed epistemology. Because, because, because...?
Because of the wonderful things he thinks and thought!!
\\][//
On pathologists and autopsies:
https://youtu.be/UvUXnqfVNCo?t=180
Dr. Cyril H. Wecht
\\][//
'Crude people'. Ha. How many Piss Boys do you require, m'lord, to keep you fresh all day long?
Your attempt to rebut the part about crude people is incomprehensible to me and probably many others. So, you neatly strengthened the point that crude people can't appreciate the value a fair concession has for serious people who want more than a one-sided view. No use talking with you further.
"and probably many others."--Randal fucking Rose
Why would you assume that? I haven't seen a single upvote,[heart] on any of your comments here so far.
\\][//
Yes, m'lord. So sorry, m'lord. You are far above my station, so great and majestic, and I, but a lowly serf, crude and unwashed. Shall I go clean thine pheasant now, m'lord?
Agreed. You see it all the time now.
That’s this year too :-)
Excellent is an overstatement. For this topic, the author should have included the fact that COVID death counting is its own can of worms, with many places (including Utah) showing a lot more extra all-cause deaths than the official COVID tally. The confounding factor of age is interesting, but the garbage-in garbage-out aspect of the NYT correlation is also noteworthy.
I'm being polite to temper the criticism.
Don't be polite. This is important.
More like a bag of worms -- a body bag.
Yeah, it would be better to leave this out, both leave the obsequious tic out of the original article and leave the trutherism out of the comments.
One reason you leave the tic out of the article is that it makes trutherism less fair game. How many posts is it going to be before the first mention of zinc, sunlight, ADE, or some such "I wish this were true and found one youtube video about it" nonsense? It will prove The Times's point and obscure the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. They can't say they're following the science then only follow it when convenient to their true motivation which looks more like hatred and smugness. That's clearer if we don't have more partisans in the comments shilling antivax youtube videos.
Another reason is we need to establish a precedent in political discussion: "I'm not arguing that _right now_. I may or may not argue it later. I'm not going to take your bait. You should listen to me and not change the subject. I can't make you do that, but your incentive to do it is that you're going to look like an idiot later, not that I flatter you by shilling your points to my audience right now."
Not only does this encourage epistemic vice, it validates the frame that people with megaphones have an obligation to righteous power trips and condescendingly pushing acceptable behaviour, rather than simply an obligation to accurately and respectfully inform. The tic really undermined the core point of the article.
The vaccine is not win-win. I remember the day I was getting my vaccine at the county fairgrounds and the nurse was like, "isn't this the best day ever!?" I looked at her and said, "no, I don't want this vaccine, it just seems like the best option at the moment." I had to carefully weigh my risk factors and age and do a risk-benefit analysis after consultation with my doctor. Nobody should be forced to vaccinate. It's a decision that needs to be arrived at through careful analysis of personal health and in consultation with family doctors.
Yep, at 82 it was an easy calculation, my long terms isn't so long. For a 13 year old, another matter altogether. This one-size-all mandate is potentially hazardous long term. Sadly, few think years ahead.
I tell people to follow the data and not THE SCIENCE. NEJM is probably the premier medical journal in the world, because it is written for applied scientists - physicians and biomedical workers - rather than health bureaucrats. Physicians and biomedical workers are dismissed by medical bureaucrats; I was told that I cannot call myself a scientist because I haven't got a PhD and have not devoted at least 16 years to laboratory research resulting in peer reviewed papers. Instead, when I practiced, I was interested in what worked with patients.
I got into an online pissing contest with another physician in the same discipline - psychiatry - when he claimed to practice evidence-based medicine. I asked him how he could be assured he had accounted for all the evidence he needed. He couldn't. That's what is missing in the NYT article.
I haven't been in med school for forty years, and I quit medicine about 35 years ago when I had to return to the US from Europe. I couldn't afford to take a year off without income to learn English medical terms (I studied in Germany) and take the boards. then compete at the age of 40 with a bunch of 27 year-olds for a residency. I used my medical training to become a top-tier global management consultant, and when I quit that world, I devoted the last 20 years of my life extolling entrepreneurship and helping young people transform their lives by teaching them how to turn their experiences into their own company - a job- and never look back.
Authoritarians despite entrepreneurship. It sets people free, and is the surest route to upward socioeconomic mobility. Obama's successful war against entrepreneurship and small business destroyed entire industries, caused massive consolidation, and tilted the playing field in favor of the large and powerful against the small and weaker. In that sense, the current administration is Obama 2.0.
For those under 20, the risk of hospitalization from an adverse reaction to the vaccine exceeds the risk of hospitalization from COVID19. I would never counsel an otherwise healthy 19 year old to be vaccinated without a thorough evaluation from his doctor. What I'm seeing in the demonization of the unvaccinated is a refusal by authoritarians to recognize the superiority of natural immunity. The other failure to follow the data is focusing on infections instead of what is important - hospitalizations. That is where trouble begins.
I knew immediately, despite not having been an immunologist nor a public health bureaucrat what we needed to do. It was to protect the old, the fat, and leave everyone else alone until we knew more. That got my deplatformed all over the world. It was misinformation, even though it was correct. In the few areas where we did that hospitalizations were rare.
I no longer read NYT. It ignores data, makes shit up, and lies by omission more than by commission. It is a cancer that needs to go.
I share the Great Barrington Declaration often, it's brilliant: https://gbdeclaration.org/
It is exactly what you are expressing. These doctors, scientists, and researchers got beat up for falling outside the narrative lines, despite the coherence of their analysis.
94% of COVID deaths are individuals with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities). This is the highest correlation of any factor I've seen and yet it is not a part of most narratives that see the light of day in 2021.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q#Comorbidities
\\][//
"...with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities)..."
You think that "respiratory arrest", "cardiac arrest", "Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)", etc, listed in Table 3 are "chronic diseases"? How long does the typical "respiratory arrest" patient suffer? Some of the things listed in Table 3 are chronic diseases or may be related to chronic conditions but many clearly are not (they are in fact symptoms of covid-19) and others may or may not be depending on individual case data not represented in the table. Therefore, your 94% number is completely made up.
Is Covid-19 highly correlated with age and (rather common) preexisting conditions? Yes. Does your argument make any sense or use "comorbidity" correctly? No. There are detailed clinical studies which do account for case data and try to make sense of that correlation. Your claim is simply a regurgitated -- and false-- meme that people parrot.
"There are detailed clinical studies which do account for case data and try to make sense of that correlation"--TheRadishSaltant
Well then you are free to link to such studies.
\\][//
Yes, I agree with Norstadt, there is much to learn about the adverse effects of the mRNA serums being promoted as "vaccines" -- they are NOT vaccines, they are genetic manipulations by molecular products held in a suspension of a nanoparticle sol-gel.
The following presentation presents some shocking discoveries in the ingredients of these mRNA solutions:
PRESS CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, 9/20/2021
4PM IN THE LIVE STREAM
CAUSE OF DEATH AFTER COVID-19 VACCINATION
UNDECLARED COMPONENTS OF THE COVID-19 VACCINES
20.09.2021 16:00 |
On Monday, 9/20/202 in the pathological institute in Reutlingen, the results of the autopsies of eight people who died after COVID19 vaccination will be presented. The fine tissue analyses were performed by pathologists Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Dr. Walter Lang. The findings confirm Prof. Dr. Peter Schirmacher's finding that among more than 40 corpses he autopsied who had died within two weeks of COVID19 vaccination, approximately one-third of those deaths were caused by the vaccination. Microscopic details of the tissue changes will be shown during the live-streamed press conference. Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz will report on the current parameters of the statistical recording of vaccination events.
The press conference will also present the results of the analysis of COVID-19 vaccine samples by an Austrian research group, which are in line with the findings of scientists from Japan and the USA. Undeclared metal-containing components were found in the vaccine. Visually, vaccine elements are conspicuous by their unusual shape.
The results of the investigation have led to legal and political demands, for example, for the immediate collection of information by the authorities in order to be able to assess the health risk posed to the population by the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, early signals of impaired fertility in vaccinated individuals can be examined by consulting IVF registries. Through the cancer registry, insights can be gained into the development of cancer due to the genetic modifications of the viral RNA. Suspension of COVID-19 vaccination should be considered.
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
\\][//
Very good at last.
The author seems intelligent. I wonder on what data he bases this disclaimer. I am getting the impression that such disclaimers may simply be intended to ward off censorship. But if people really think that things are so clear, as believers in science they should be able to give scientific reasons for being so convinced. "Because so and so said so" is not a scientific explanation. It seems to me that a reasonable person would still be suspending judgement at this point. If not only for all the clearly anti-scientific perspectives that a lot of "scientists" are vouchsafing that are more clearly untrue than anything said about covid.
The covid shot is clearly an unspectacular "vaccine". Why are people so insisting on it? I wonder if the point is simply humiliating the conservatives who believe in liberty by showing how easily it can be taken away.
Maybe this is in retaliation for anti-abortion views that many conservatives have that are probably also experienced as humiliating and antifreedom. You can't be paying attention if you really think any players in our politics care that much about every single life, so I tend to defer to parents who want to kill their unborn children. I realize I might have made that decision in some situations. I would leave reasonable abortions and vaccinations both up to the people involved.
I can't understand why a lot of people are more interested in denying freedom to others than securing it for themselves. Humans are in no sense moral paragons. Most evil arises in the name of fighting evil, so I'll pass and just happily demand my own freedom and leave you yours.
The author has a Master of Public Health degree. For him to publicly question a vaccine is like apostasy in the Church.
Because people want to 'fit in' and 'be a part of something' for the most part, and additionally virtue signalling in public tends to grant access to the very community that many people who are lonely want to be a part of.
So a lot of it is fitting in and wanting to be cool and at the same time most of what is being said "sounds good" and "means well" so it is easier to support.
In reality it is pushing authoritarianism under a different guise.
What "severe" events were "caused" by the vaccine? The paper you cite says "Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia). Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo. No Covid-19–associated deaths were observed. No stopping rules were met during the reporting period. Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of vaccine."
To me, this looks like a remarkably safe vaccine.
As for efficacy, the people who received the vaccine had only about 5% of the covid cases of the unvaccinated group, meaning 95% of the cases of covid were prevented by using the vaccine (granted, pre-delta).
That looks like a very effective vaccine.
The vaccine is safe. The vaccine is effective. Whether some people choose not to take part in the community effort to give the virus nowhere to go, well that's unfortunate, and it seems based in ignorance of the basic facts, or in difficulty evaluating the facts (or perhaps just an unwillingness to take on a small personal risk for the benefit of the larger group) but it doesn't change the fact that as vaccines go, this vaccine is safe and effective.
Well toots, if you think these mRNA solutions are safe, take a look at this presentation:
"The results of the investigation have led to legal and political demands, for example, for the immediate collection of information by the authorities in order to be able to assess the health risk posed to the population by the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, early signals of impaired fertility in vaccinated individuals can be examined by consulting IVF registries. Through the cancer registry, insights can be gained into the development of cancer due to the genetic modifications of the viral RNA. Suspension of COVID-19 vaccination should be considered."
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
\\][//
What are you even talking about, and why would you call me "toots"? Are you just doing some kind of "cute" ad hominem thing there?
I'm not sure what you think is the "gotcha" with that passage you snipped. It describes (not-evidence-based) fears related to the vaccine, and proposes that in the future, supposedly, these not-evidence-based things will come to light as being true if we examine IVF numbers or cancer numbers. There no proposed basis here for how and why this might really be true. It's literally baseless.
For the infertility rumor, long since debunked, the supposed MECHANISM for such infertility would be a protein that is shared by SARS-CoV-2 itself -- so getting covid would make you just as infertile (or more so, since people who get sick with covid have way, way, way more virus, and thus way, way, way more of this protein in their bodies, than people who get the vaccine).
If that protein is the problem, and we're eager to find a "signal" of infertility, why don't we just look at the much larger pool of people who've had covid, and see if we can detect a signal there? Oh wait -- what's that you say? There IS no signal? Yeah ok. So cross that off the list.
And in any case, the protein that was supposedly the culprit is quite a bit different from the protein that came from a completely different type of vaccine for a completely different type of condition. There's nothing there. It's a different protein in a vaccine (or in SARS-CoV-2). There is no infertility.
The same goes for cancer -- except there is not even a proposed mechanism for that which makes any sense -- even the phrase "genetic modifications of the viral RNA" displays ignorance on a stunning level -- like a middle-schooler trying to sound science-y.
If someone doesn't even have enough basic knowledge to understand why that phrase is silly and didn't come from any reputable source, it is not going to be worth my time trying to convince him or her. I suggest (1) going back to graduate school and learning about this stuff directly, or (2) finding reliable experts and sources of information, and not this website mimicking medical-speak with all the grace and panache of a chia pet.
Since the vaccines have only been around for 10 months can you please cite your sources for your statement that "there is no infertility ".
I will repeat: (1) the proposed mechanism for infertility (in the rumor about infertility) is completely invalid. It referred to a different protein in a different vaccine. JFC look it up and read about it. (2) If it HAD been the same protein as the vaccine (which is wasn’t) that protein would have been the same as in the SARS-Co-2 virus itself, in which case you’d have “infertility” from getting natural covid too. (3) There’s no evidence of infertility from covid OR the vaccine. None. Not with the virus, not with the vaccine. Considering the millions and millions and millions of cases of covid and the millions and millions and millions of doses in the vaccines and not one peep of “women are having trouble conceiving, the birth rate is decreasing” anywhere in the world, it’s safe to conclude there is NO infertility even though (4) asking someone to prove a negative is pretty silly. The onus is on you, the frightened believer that infertility might be an issue in complete absence of all evidence, to convince people with facts. Fun side note (5) every reputable infectious disease doctor has had themselves and their families vaccinated. Anyone who believes this is a conspiracy to force something bad on you should just open their eyes and look at what the rich, powerful, educated and knowledgeable are doing for themselves and their families. They’re all getting the vaccine. Those who are still not believing, snug in their misinformation bubbles, just look crazier and crazier.
I am going to ask you one more time Ms. Price,
Did you watch the presentation at this link?
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
I find your reiteration baffling. You haven't explained how you can determine the time period of any adverse reactions. As Herd pointed out it has only been ten months since the first injections.
Your assertions that **every reputable infectious disease doctor has had themselves and their families vaccinated.** is not only hyperbole but based on presumption. You cannot possibly know who or how many doctors have taken the 'vaccine'
How do you know this group you call, "the rich, powerful," are actually all educated and knowledgeable about the actual ingredients in these products? You cannot actually know this.
Your entire argument is built on presumption and guesses. And that makes you appear desperate
Have you actually consulted the IVF registries?
If you still haven't watched the presentation then you should be ignored,
\\][//
Yes, but are they looking crazier than you, toots?
Whitten's addressing you as "toots" is typical for him; he's done similar things with other women here and it's not always welcome (as other commenters below allude to).
Well well well, if it isn't Randall fucking Rose sticking his nose into other peoples business again. I wonder if the gallant Mr. Rose has looked at the page under discussion and has any idea of what he is talking about.
Her it is Rose, explain to the readers what the error is of these renowned pathologists. Be the brave Galahad for the damsel in distress.
\\][//
You should just pity the guy. He's here all day flailing away as if this is his own personal venue for writing a "contrarian" treatise that no one will ever see much less take seriously. And for what purpose? To trash a vaccine that's already saved 100s of thousands of lives? It's really quite sad.
To say that the long term effects of the vaccines for a virus not even identified until 2019 aren't fully known is to say nothing useful at all. We're in worldwide emergency where the grownups are trying to save lives and here he is all day in inconsequential link-heavy pissing contests over trivialities. The links often don't even back him except as an attempt in vain to cause some doubt like the one about Canadian military experimenting with propaganda.
The dissident page? Hilarious! He's even a "truther"! LOL!
"To trash a vaccine that's already saved 100s of thousands of lives? It's really quite sad."--Bryan L
I am glad to hear this Bryan, I hope you got your shot and get your boosters too! A world full of morons like you will be better off when you all finally succumb to your own folly.
Don't watch this one...it is too late for you if you already took your medicine....grin
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RzbWPYoUHhsQ/
I suggest you actually go to the link posted instead of running off your mouth in such a blatantly ignorant way...toots.
\\][//
"I suggest you actually go to the link posted instead of running off your mouth in such a blatantly ignorant way...toots."
Willie's also an expert in personal relationship. The proof is in Peeper.
What the fuck are you talking about Price?
You obviously just read the comment I made and did not go to the link I posted.
The people you are calling ignorant are clinical pathologists with years of practice in their fields
Arne Burkhardt
pathologist researcher
Arne Burkhardt, German pathologist, researcher. Certified in medicine University Kiel, Germany; certified pathologist University Hamburg. Recipient Konjetzny prize Cancer Liga Hamburg, 1980. Member International Association Oral Pathologists (councilor 1992-1996).
Background
Burkhardt, Arne was born on January 6, 1944 in Schleswig, Germany. Son of Hans Theodor and Maria Franziska (Weber) Burkhardt.
Education
Doctor of Medicine, University Munich, 1971. Privatdozent, University Hamburg, Germany, 1979. Professor, University Bern, Switzerland, 1988.
Career
Scientific assistant University Heidelberg, Germany, 1970-1973, University Hamburg, 1973-1980. Senior pathologist University Bern, 1980-1991. Head department pathology Lehrkrankenhaus University Tübingen, Reutlingen, Germany, since 1991.
Achievements
Arne Burkhardt has been listed as a noteworthy Pathologist, researcher by Marquis Who's Who.
https://prabook.com/web/arne.burkhardt/42818
\\][//
No, the resumes indicate these people are academics and/or medical bureaucrats. None is a practicing physician, who are applied scientists and not theoretical/research scientists. The interests of medical academics and medical bureaucrats are authority and adulation, not helping real people.
They dismiss observational science, which is the origin of all science. Practicing physicians are interested in what works in real patients, not what can be proven in a laboratory. They are not carriers of tales; thwey know how to read scientific papers, what standards are, and how to find other physicians researching the same topic. The use of antiepileptic to treat mood disorders was started by a couple dozen psychiatrists and neurologists scattered around the world. We don't understand how they work any better than we understand how accupuncture works.
You are supporting the use of medical "experts," actually medical bureaucrats, to support your contention that there's a problem with the vaccines. That actually duplicates the methodology of the authoritarians and supports them. Please find another route.
BTW, I've been approached by multiple WHO'S WHO publishers over the years to be included. There is a standardized cost to pay. I don't pay it. Others make other choices.
TRYPANOSOMA CRUZI (PARASITE IN PFIZER VAX) - DR MADEJ FOUND IT IN MODERNA TOO
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GNT66FcgJgQU/
\\][//
Alright Bill,
I am going to ask you the same question I asked Ms. Price,
Did you watch the presentation at this link?
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
You say, "None is a practicing physician", that is not so and it is obvious in the comment you are replying to:
Arne Burkhardt, *pathologist* & researcher. He was a practicing pathologist, but is now retired.
I understand Burkhardt was a forensic pathologist who do not normally have living patients, they do autopsies.
However, The analysis we see in the video presentation literally speaks for itself, or more properly you can see for yourself the images on the screen of tissue samples under powerful microscopy As well as samples of the mRNA solutions also under powerful microscopy, showing very bizarre items.
You use of the term "medical bureaucrat" in this instance, is in my view rhetorical sophistry.
We can discuss this more if you actually watch the presentation.
Thank you for your input.
\\][//
"What the fuck are you talking about Price?"
He knows how to formulate the questions so they get an attention. He's a regular charmer. Peeper will attest to that.
Our Willie is also a structural engineering expert. He'll come up with arguments towards 9/11 WTC destruction perpetrated by the government. Which proves in his mind that he's also an authority on vaccines. Just wait.
It's too bad that there's not an easy way to block "autodidact" conspiracy nuts in those forum. So much wasted bandwidth....
Bryan, Go flip your burgers and fuck off.
The numbers are straight from the study, and data tables typically include less propaganda than the main text. Tables S3 and S5 are in the supplementary apendix. Vaccine: 240 severe adverse events. Placebo: 139. Vaccine: 1 severe COVID-19. Placebo: 9. Do I need to do the subtraction for you?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf
It's amazing to watch doctors defend the Høeg paper with the basic bottom-line results of government-mandated pharma-funded trials from other doctors wanting to censor it.
We've reached levels of mask-slipping I never thought possible.
There are dozens of studies of extensive vaccine problems. Check out the dailyskeptic.org's extensive lists if you actually want to see why people are concerned. Of course it is near impossible to absolutely prove that the vax caused a problem. Look how long we were run around with cigs: Decades!
But consider the gulf in approach between covid cases and vax cases. Cases are declared covid with limited concern about other explanations while a vax problem requires a virtually unobtainable level of confirmation. This isn't an unbiased evaluation.
I do not know that the vax is that dangerous. I hope not. But it is just the first step in an interminable train of boosters that will eventually do real damage. It is best to stop the vax push now. Sure, people are welcome to have the vax but it should be voluntary.
Why do you think that the vax leaves the virus nowhere to go? The vax doesn't exterminate the virus. It just lets a carrier coexist a little better. This coexistence leads to higher virus levels and more hidden transmission than you get from the unvaxed. T
That's really just your opinion, toots.
94% of COVID deaths are individuals with on average 4 chronic diseases (comorbidities). This is the highest correlation of any factor I've seen and yet it is not a part of most narratives that see the light of day in 2021.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q#Comorbidities
\\][//
I think the essential point is that many many people are getting covid after a vaccination. The partial action of the "vax" makes vaccinated people BETTER carriers of the virus. It also allows them to breed stronger variants, the way that partial use of antibiotics does. If anything, the vaccinated are more dangerous than the unvaccinated. Not that I would deny people the vaccine. They have a right to their choices. But so do the unvaccinated,
"an unwillingness to take on a small personal risk for the benefit of the larger group but it doesn't change the fact that as vaccines go, this vaccine is **safe and effective**."--B Price
It is NOT a fact that this is a "vaccine'. It is a mRNA gene therapy not a proper vaccine:
https://web.archive.org/save/https://thedissedent.page/2021/09/19/the-fauci-covid-19-dossier/
It is NOT safe nor effective:
CAUSE OF DEATH AFTER COVID-19 VACCINATION
UNDECLARED COMPONENTS OF THE COVID-19 VACCINES
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/fauci-bright-and-daszak-caught-wargaming-covid-virus-and-mrna-vaccine-rollout/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-the-nuremberg-code-crimes-against-humanity/5755776
\\][//
This film features Israelis who experienced serious post-vax complications or lost loved ones. It’s in Hebrew with English sub-titles: https://www.vaxtestimonies.org/en/
Some of this is coincidence, but we need far more information to make that case. Spontaneous idiopathic transient ischemic attacks occur, but I don’t know how often. I developed a constellation of neurological problems for no known reason and am adopted.
I agree. The testimonies are compelling and disturbing but not sufficient in themselves to make the case definitively.
What we are seeing is increasing morbidity in vaccinated populations and decreasing vax effect against cases, deaths and hospitalizations. The demands for proof that vax caused a specific death are just about impossible to satisfy. Nobody asked for this level of proof for covid cases. But the statistics show relative differences that indicate that the vax can cause severe morbidity. As we collect more data from real life experience we can quantify the effect more accurately. I hope that the effect is small for the sake of my friends who had the vax. But nobody should be bullied into the vax. It doesn't stop transmission so it is totally a personal decision.
"Nobody should be bullied into the vax." I agree 100%. Bullying is counterproductive and authoritarian. The decision to vaccinate or not requires a cost-benefit analysis, which varies from person to person, and independent research and critical thinking (tricky). It also includes an honest assessment of ones tolerance for risk as well as ones personal value system. So far I've come down on the side of getting vaccinated because of my age (pushing 70) and because I'm extremely risk-averse. But that may change over time, if the risk starts to outweigh the benefit of getting boosters.
Yes they are. Just because it is normalized to count, come up with numbers and plug them into the stat formula doesn't make it so
I don't understand your comment. Would you be kind enough to go into more detail? I'd like to get the gist of it. Thanks.
"I developed a constellation of neurological problems"--Bill Heath
When did this happen to you? How long have you been suffering from this?
\\][//
The first one was a stroke at the age of thirty (43 years ago) that left me with expressive aphasia and right side weakness, plus a right pronator drift. Since then I've been unable to pass a roadside sobriety test. It wiped out my English-language vocabulary for household appliances and my ability to read German. My native language now for household appliances is Spanish. I've had to re-learn how to read German.
Over the next several decades I had a number of transient ischemic attacks. Then while I was waiting on a gurney for a bypass operation, already in the OR, I had a cardiac arrest, which caused an ischemic stroke in 2014. I had already been diagnosed with left side trigeminal neuralgia, in 1988, which is often described as the worst pain known to humans. It sets off a firestorm of pain along the jawline, feeling as though every tooth on that side of the jaw is in abscess, then extends up to my brain causing me to have to wander about until I drop from exhaustion. Fortunately, opiates and opiods do nothing for it, otherwise during an attack I would happily break into the nearest pharmacy and steal the drugs. The only way to deal with an acute case is to find an ENT surgeon or a specially-trained dental surgeon to inject marcaine or similar long-lasting local anesthetic through the roof of my mouth into my brain.
In 1993 I was diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia on the right side. Eventually I learned that the only medication that works on it was ordered withdrawn by our all-powerful FDA because they determined it wasn't effective in as many cases as the manufacturer claimed. I've contacted a compounding pharmacist and discovered that it is still legal to create the medication and dispense it, but it is ungodly expensive that way - hundreds of dollars per dose - and I have to take it for three weeks whenever it flares. Fortunately it hasn't flared in two decades.
In 2016 I spontaneously developed complex partial seizures, which cause me to be unable to move any muscles, including the diaphragm, so when it strikes I can't breathe. In the interim in 2017 I was diagnosed with late-onset hydrocephalus, necessitating three brain surgeries. It causes incontinence, inability to maintain balance, and slow progress towards non-Alzheimer's dementia. The medications to treat the incontinence pass through the blood-brain barrier an contribute to a worsening of the cognition. Medication for the loss of balance (I am essentially wheelchair-bound) is also neurotropic and increases the likelihood of a fall.
In 1995 I had been diagnosed with an essential, or familial, tremor on the right side. In 2016 it became impossible to hold a glass without it shaking, and an inability to type. My handwriting deteriorated steadily. I am not senile; most of my doctors trust me and we work together on diagnoses and treatments. The tremor is partially controlled with medication, but it is becoming more Parkinson's-like every month.
I developed migraines in 2019, and when they are coming on I get an olfactory hallucination of wood burning. In 2020 I developed what is evidently a separate case of migraine specifically occurring behind my left eye, and when it is coming on I see handwriting and typed words on flat surfaces, eventually evolving into cartoons.
I have mild diabetic neuropathy in both feet, diagnosed when I was considered pre-diabetic, controlled with medication, primarily HCTZ. Even with my systolic blood pressure going down and my blood sugar slightly lower than when I was considered pre-diabetic, the standards have changed, so I am now diagnosed as diabetic. I control it with diet.
Those are the highlights. Reality is a lot more complicated. When I diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia I was treated with tegretol, an anti-epileptic. I was living in Bavaria at the time, where the sun rarely shines. On a visit to the US I developed an intolerance for tegretol when exposed to sunlight, which causes a hyper-reaction turning my skin into lizard-like scales.
Aren't you sorry you asked? I appreciate your concern, honestly. I tell friends and family who offer to pray for me simply to pray that God's will be done. Whatever it is, it will be better than I deserve.
"Aren't you sorry you asked?"
Yes indeed Bill, I am sorry I asked, and very sorry to read that.
You must have extraordinary will power to live with all of that.
I wish you the best and hope for a miracle to bless your life.
\\][//
I'm sorry to hear that. Your resilience is admirable. Your decency is clear and I'm sure it comes out in other ways too.
“ A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; ”
Your comment is distorting what the research in the article it says. In the first week 162 severe cases occurred for people with placebo. So even if we look at your numbers then 162-110 = 52 severe cases avoided just in the first week!
And the vaccine’s effects for protection last much longer than seven days.
My numbers are straight from the study, and I explain them again here:
https://norstadt.substack.com/p/severe-adverse-events-vs-severe-covid
Nothing in the study's text contradicts what I wrote.
In your table severe cases occurring are pretty much the same as severe cases for placebo group. However, people with placebo would be expected to continue having such “severe cases” every week due to contracting covid at a substantially higher rate than the vaccinated population - which is why people (like me) take the vaccine. Or do you not agree that the vaccine protects you from covid?
They are not "pretty much the same". The difference is statistically significant and indicates more excess severe adverse events than severe COVID by a factor of 12. Yes, the paper shows protection from COVID for vaccine over the two month observation period. But it would taker a long time for the number of severe COVID cases to catch up with the excess severe adverse events, and now the vaccine is said to become less effective over time.
1) your study is looking at what happens after one dose. The vaccine is much more effective after two doses.
2) your argument for factor of 12 is simply hilarious. Firstly, you conveniently use “severe cases” (why not use “life threatening cases” in which case you’d have to admit defeat immediately as they are 21 for placebo group and 24 for vaccinated population?).
You use 139 and 240 (severe cases for vaccinated and placebo). And then 9 and 1 (sever covid for vaccinated and placebo respectively)
The numbers should be:
240+1 = 241
And
139+9 = 148
You are going for (240-139)/(9-1) =12.6
Would you then say that if we use your logic then since a high positive number means favourable outcomes for placebo then a lower negative number (further from zero) should mean favourable outcomes for the vaccines?
Hint: I suggest you don’t answer my question to avoid embarrassing yourself.
1. It is Pfizer's study, not mine, and the number of COVID-cases (1 vs. 9) includes the post-two-dose period. Any case after dose 2 is by definition also after dose 1 and included in that total (first line of Table S5). The period after dose 1 includes the period after dose 2. It is not the time between doses.
2. I use "severe" adverse events vs "severe COVID-19", because the words indicate similar levels of severity. The paper's definition of "severe COVID-19" does not require hospitalization, so I don't think comparison to "life-threatening" events is appropriate. The rest of what you wrote is wrong. The point is to compare the number of severe adverse events to severe COVID cases.
Thanks norstadt, that is very valuable information.
\\][//
Only one problem with his contribution - um, that’s not how you do maths.
If he keeps engaging with my comments I will easily and surely get him to a point of in-your-face logical inconsistency.
No there is substantial research that is critical of vaccinated people and Covid infection and contagion.
Ms. Abby, There has been a massive amount of research that shows that these mRNA solutions are extremely dangerous. And the long term effects are yet to manifest.
\\][//
Yes I know. The sheeple will pay for their obedience.
Yes and it is right here at substack. Are you reading Matthew?
Willie, you are "massive"!
Substantial research has been stepped over compared to all other vaccines in history. It takes years to "know" anything. (BTW its not a vaccine). Vaccines are a one time deal, this is a therapeutic.
Yes you are correct. Thanks for catching me on calling it a vaccination. It is important for us NOT to do that. It gives them a credibility they should not have.
The study says nothing about '8 cases of "severe COVID-19". There were roughly 18,000 subjects in each group, vaccinated and placebo. 8 of those given the vaccine came down with COVID vs 162 for those given the placebo. There were only 4 severe adverse reactions in those given the vaccine:
Few participants in either group had severe adverse events,
serious adverse events, or adverse events leading
to withdrawal from the trial. Four related serious
adverse events were reported among BNT162b2
recipients
I have no idea where you got your figures. A study like this would NEVER say something like "cases prevented', that data isn't and CAN'T BE known.
Note mechtheist; "Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728. opens in new tab.
Why should we trust a product that was tested by a company funded by that product?
\\][//
I'm no fan of BigPharma, they routinely do all kinds of shady BS to foist unsafe and unneeded medications on us. BUT, the kinds of games they play in order to do that shit just aren't available to them with this. There are WAY to many VERY educated eyes on this whole process for them to get away with anything.
Do you mean like the educated eyes of the FDA advisory panel that rejected Pfizer’s latest booster application by a vote of 16 to 2—and then the FDA went ahead and approved it anyway?
They aren't getting away with anything, we are finding them out right now:
PRESS CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, 9/20/2021
4PM IN THE LIVE STREAM
CAUSE OF DEATH AFTER COVID-19 VACCINATION
UNDECLARED COMPONENTS OF THE COVID-19 VACCINES
On Monday, 9/20/202 in the pathological institute in Reutlingen, the results of the autopsies of eight people who died after COVID19 vaccination will be presented. The fine tissue analyses were performed by pathologists Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Dr. Walter Lang. The findings confirm Prof. Dr. Peter Schirmacher's finding that among more than 40 corpses he autopsied who had died within two weeks of COVID19 vaccination, approximately one-third of those deaths were caused by the vaccination. Microscopic details of the tissue changes will be shown during the live-streamed press conference. Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz will report on the current parameters of the statistical recording of vaccination events.
The press conference will also present the results of the analysis of COVID-19 vaccine samples by an Austrian research group, which are in line with the findings of scientists from Japan and the USA. Undeclared metal-containing components were found in the vaccine. Visually, vaccine elements are conspicuous by their unusual shape.
The results of the investigation have led to legal and political demands, for example, for the immediate collection of information by the authorities in order to be able to assess the health risk posed to the population by the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, early signals of impaired fertility in vaccinated individuals can be examined by consulting IVF registries. Through the cancer registry, insights can be gained into the development of cancer due to the genetic modifications of the viral RNA. Suspension of COVID-19 vaccination should be considered.
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
\\][//
I got them from the study Tables S3 and S5 which are in the supplementary apendix. Learn to read. Vaccine: 240 severe adverse events. Placebo: 139. Vaccine: 1 severe COVID-19. Placebo: 9. Do I need to do the subtraction for you, too?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf
Do you know what 'related' means? I can read, the more important question is if you can understand what you're reading, including the necessity of actually reading the footnotes: c. Assessed by the investigator as
related to investigational product.
In a randomized study like that, any statistically significant imbalance in the outcomes is related to the treatment, no matter what the investigators assess. That's the whole purpose of randomized trials.
Oh FFS, so if a few got killed in car accidents, that's still relevant? Or had ANY medical condition no matter how impossible it was for the vaccine to cause it?
This is hypothetical, but yes, if 240 vaccinated people had died in a car accident vs. 139 placebo recipients, that would be significant enough for the vaccine to be the likely cause. Motion-induced seizures causing accidents are more likely than a statistical fluke of that magnitude.
Thank you...I mean really
It was literally at that sentence I stopped reading.
Yea that sentence attached itself to my mind like a spike protein.
Glowed like neon it did.
\\][//
True. For younger men it is riskier to get the vaccine.
Severe covid is not defined the way you have defined it in your “article”. It is defined on page 65 of the protocol amendment 9 or 193 of the full protocol. “Respiratory failure (non-invasive or invasive I.e intubation). Evidence of shock requiring vasopressors. Significant acute renal, hepatic or neurological dysfunction. Admission to a ICU or death.
All of this is life threatening and easily compared to grade 4 (life threatening adverse events). You are the one comparing apples to oranges by comparing severe covid to grade three severe reactions. Grade three is a reaction like to a bad hangover, migraine headache or the stomach flu. Also defined in the same protocol.
You lost me at “page 65 of The protocol 9”
If you had read what I wrote you would see that Pfizer's follow-on study cites exactly the FDA definition and not the protocol one. Just because the protocol's definition of "severe" included the "critical" category doesn't mean there were any critical patients. Apparently there were none, because the follow-on study has no counts of critical COVID-19 and cites the FDA definition of severe which specifically excludes critical.
I did read what you wrote. But it’s just not correct. Looking at the updated study in the appendix s6 there are 30 severe cases in placebo group to 1 in vaccine group. The study did not change the definition of severe covid cases pages 373-376 are the exact same definition same with the appendix. However the article does mention the FDA definitions. It also did not change the definition of severe reactions(grade 3) vs life threatening reactions(grade 4). Life threatening reactions are nearly identical in number between vaccine and placebo group without any statistical significance.
In terms of the FDA they just split the study’s definition of severe into two groups severe and critical. In both cases it would require hospitalization. A resting heart rate over 125 or resting respiratory rate over 30 per minute requires hospitalization, a p/f ratio below 300 indicates respiratory failure. In your article it seems you purposely neglect the FDAs definition of critical covid cases. “ Severe Covid
Clinical signs indicative of severe systemic illness with COVID-19, such as respiratory rate ≥ 30 per minute, heart rate ≥ 125 per minute, SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air at sea level or PaO2/FiO2 < 300
Critical COVID-19
• Positive testing by virologic test (i.e., a nucleic acid amplification test of an antigen test)
• Evidence of critical illness, defined by at least one of the following:
Respiratory failure defined based on resource utilization requiring at least one of the
following:
Endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, oxygen delivered by high57 flow nasal cannula (heated, humidified, oxygen delivered via reinforced nasal cannula at flow rates > 20 L/min with fraction of delivered oxygen ≥ 0.5),
noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, ECMO, or clinical diagnosis of
respiratory failure (i.e., clinical need for one of the preceding therapies, but preceding therapies not able to be administered in setting of resource limitation)
Shock (defined by systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, or diastolic blood pressure <mm Hg or requiring vasopressors)
Multi-organ dysfunction/failure“
Case and point, you cannot compare severe (grade 3) reactions to severe covid cases as defined in the study. Severe covid cases will require hospitalization and critical covid cases will most likely cause death. The correct comparison is grade 4(life threatening). Even if the study used the FDA definition of severe covid it still means hospitalization is required where as grade 3( severe) reactions Hospitalization is not required. I appreciate that you are one to read. You are still making a false comparison. If you want to make a comparison the new data suggests 3 serious vaccine reactions.
Where does the FDA definition of "severe COVID-19" require hospitalization? Severe COVID-19 is a severe systemic illness, i.e. Grade 3 on the FDA scale.
For critical (i.e. life-threatening) COVID-19, there were no such cases in the updated study. That is Grade 4 on the FDA scale, which also applies to systemic illness like COVID.
All the symptoms mentioned in severe covid-19 either FDA or the Pfizer protocol will require hospitalization.
FDA “ Clinical signs indicative of severe systemic illness with COVID-19, such as respiratory rate ≥ 30 per minute, heart rate ≥ 125 per minute, SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air at sea level or PaO2/FiO2 < 300”
Those exact symptoms require hospitalization.
Severe averse events as defined in the protocol (grade 3) will not require hospitalization. Grade 3 in the FDA measurements will require hospitalization.
They are different measures. You are trying to compare incomparable statistics. FDA defined Severe covid-19 and critical covid 19 both require hospitalization and are both grade 4 (emergency room visit or hospitalization) based on the protocol. Look at page 53 of the protocol for scaling of adverse events and then look at slide 14 on this website. They are different and you are defining them incorrectly. https://www.fda.gov/media/84954/download
Show me the reference where "Those exact symptoms [of severe COVID-19] require hospitalization." SpO2 < 93% is normal for 5% of community-dwelling elderly adults (see Table 2). https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.12580
Show me where "FDA defined Severe covid-19 and critical covid 19 both require hospitalization ..." I think you are wrong about that.
The Pfizer study and FDA use nearly the same scale for adverse events. From the Fig. 2 caption of the first study:
mild, does not interfere with activity; moderate, interferes with activity; severe, prevents daily activity; and grade 4, emergency department visit or hospitalization https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
According to the FDA scale which applies both to adverse events and systemic illness (such as COVID-19): mild, no interference with activity; moderate, some interference activity with activity not requiring medical intervention; severe, prevents daily activity and requires medical intervention; grade 4, ER visit or hospitalization. https://www.fda.gov/media/73679/download
Medical intervention is likely to mean a phone call with a doctor or outpatient visit. If hospitalization is required, it's a grade 4 event, both according to the FDA and study protocol. You are completely misreading these definitions. There is still no evidence that severe COVID-19 is worse for patients than severe adverse events and I'm tired of having rhetorical sand thrown in my eyes.
That is not what the supplementary data shows. Are you lying to yourself or just to other people. S3 shows 126 serious adverse events in the vaccinated population and 111 in the placebo group. 4 of the serious adverse events were associated with the vaccine and 0 for the placebo. That is not statistically significant at all.
Are you one of those types who has an established idea and fumbles the numbers to “prove” it. You should work for the New York Times.
Great article I’m glad I subscribed to Greenwald.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf
Table S3: Adverse Event, Severe, BNT162b2 240, Placebo 139
Table S5 Severe COVID-19, BNT162b2 1, Placebo 9
240 - 139 = 101
9 - 1 = 8
Just a line below states there were more serious life threatening adverse events in the placebo group(24) compared to vaccine group (21). The comparison shows it’s not the vaccine specifically associated with these events. Only in 4 cases was the vaccine the reason for adverse events. In S2 it lists the litany of major diseases that the patients had all of which were responsible for adverse events not associated with the vaccine.
8 times more likely to have serious covid is statistically significant.
It’s still a personal choice. If someone has a death wish who am I to stop them.
You are comparing serious apples to severe oranges with numbers that are not statistically significant. "Severe COVID-19" is specifically defined by the FDA as "not critical" i.e. life-threatening. Why are you comparing to life-threatening adverse events?
Severe COVID-19 and severe adverse events are both defined as “prevents daily activity and requires medical intervention”. They are both severe medical outcomes and I wrote about it. https://norstadt.substack.com/p/severe-adverse-events-vs-severe-covid
139 is the baseline (placebo) value. It is non-zero because unfortunate medical events always happen at some rate. The higher rate of 240 for the vaccine shows extra harm that dwarfs the vaccine benefit.
It is not about ratios. Should people take a drug if it reduces a rare cancer by 10x, but doubles their risk for heart attacks? What matters is total harm and benefit. The vaccines have only shown net harm in randomized trials, which are the gold standards for medical evidence.
Beckham's analysis is on point, but his article of faith statement that "there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and an important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death" undercuts his analysis. We do not have enough experience or data to affirm those claims yet, notwithstanding the political rush to approve. Little to no research is being done long term on side effect;, there is concern that issues are underreported on VAERS; there is still debate and experiment on how far apart the initial doses should be, and while it is clear that the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines wane relatively quickly, there is no data on the impact of repeated shots, or of the interaction between the vaccine and the antibody status of people who have had the disease, yet many employers are demanding mandates for vaccination, even among those with natural immunity from experience of the disease. Similar statements in many reports seem to me an attempt to maintain credibility with the establishment that is being challenged. it won't work, and we've had our thalidomide and Zantac and how many more experiences in the past were it took longer to see the problems. The political manipulation of COVID to enhance government and corporate power, and to advance an idea of safety, as defined by the corporate government axis as paramount over protection of individual rights, minority opinions, and autonomy over our own bodies is the core of this issue, not the efficacy of a vaccine.
Just some knee-jerk CYA most likely.
Not to mention the whole concept of "peer-review" is a shortcut for the challenge of people doing research without institutional support. It was originally a publishing safety-belt to protect ignorant editors from posting seemingly good research that was methodologically flawed.
It was picked up by the corporatization of scientific papers to give it a USDA-eque mark of validity. It is not. It's just laziness.
Look back at Einstein's works and ask who peer review them.
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."
~ Dr. Macia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal
Like everything else the progressive-corporatist State touches, medical science has been completely corrupted and politicized.
Safe and Effective™ is just another corporatist propaganda slogan They are marginally effective, at best, and no one will know how safe they really are for quite some time.
The jabbed are taking part in the largest ad hoc clinical trial in history. I'll be staying in the control group for the foreseeable future, thank you very much.
Safe and Effective™ is just like The Most Secure Election Ever™ meme of 2020.
And now YouTube is banning "Anti-Vax" videos, just like they banned "Election Fraud" videos in 2020.
Standard agenda for big tech woowoo.
\\][//
"I asked Dr. Angell about the Journal’s recent policy changes regarding conflict of interest. The current Editor of the Journal, Jeffery Drazen, has loosened the conflict of interest policy, which now allows authors of editorials and review articles to receive up to $10,000 from each drug company. Dr. Angell holds firm that a zero-tolerance policy, or no allowance of payment between companies and writers, is the only way to eliminate conflict of interest in medical journalism. She discusses why the policy change is problematic and may incentivize unethical promotions."
Read entire article:
https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/bioethics/article/view/5993
\\][//
And the good Dr. Angell is not alone:
"Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
~ Richard Horton, former Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet
Yes yes Libertate, I remember reading that years ago.
The corruption of science has gone on as we have slipped deeper into corporatism and oligarchy.
\\][//
You can add this one too:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
Your overall sentiment is 100% correct. As someone who has reviewed for the NSF, I can attest to the fact that as a reviewer, you are kinda not supposed to do anything but applaud.
But the comparison with what Einstein went through is more complicated, and worthy of a whole discussion on its own. In fact, going by my understanding of what "peer review" should *actually* mean, he was probably subjected to the most intense peer review of all time. I think it ultimately took ~15 years.
One of the things I ask myself most is what was the difference between then and now? The short answer, of course, is the corrupting influence of money and power. But it feels like people were somehow better at arguing back then... I honestly don't understand... Today, people come at issues with pre-set conclusions, and "argument" is about making the opponent look as bad as possible. People had egos back then too, of course, but ultimately the point of argument was to surface the truth.
Often (though not always) the *real* truth ends up somewhere between the two poles. This is obvious in social policy, but can even be the case in science. A French physicist named Sagnac (and others) hated the idea of Relativity so much he did a great job of building an apparatus to prove Einstein wrong. In the end, both ended up with a "win". Sagnac didn't disprove Special Relativity, but he forced Einstein to clarify his theory, and Sagnac's apparatus made possible sensors that are essential to a lot of modern electronic devices. That's how *real* science is done.
Andy, I really like your comment a lot. Thanks for the reminders of the trials and tribulations of Einstein's special theory of relativity, and how it was refined.
\\][//
Wow, thanks for saying something. At the time I posted I thought, "Gee, that was a poor comment." I kind of rambled, then failed to drive home the main point.
So, that point is: Yes, Greg Maxwell is right that "peer review" - in its typical current real world execution - has become not much more than a rubber stamp. But lets not forget that *real* review and criticism -- what "peer review" was/is supposed to be -- is valuable. No one should be exempted; not even Einstein (and he wasn't).
You can find a great interview exposing the mess of the system we have today here:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-water-next-time-professor-who-helped-expose-crisis-in-flint-says-public-science-is-broken/
(In The Chronicle of Higher Education!!!) As someone who also "grew up worshiping at the alter of science," let me highlight the part I find most powerful:
"In Flint the agencies paid to protect these people weren’t solving the problem. They were the problem... When was the last time you heard anyone in academia publicly criticize a funding agency, no matter how outrageous their behavior? We just don’t do these things.... I grew up worshiping at the altar of science, and in my wildest dreams I never thought scientists would behave this way.... Unfortunately, in general, academic research and scientists in this country are no longer deserving of the public trust. We’re not."
Neoliberalism has commodified literally everything, including medical research. When you go to a doctor these days all they really do is hand out prescriptions that will require you to continually come back into their office, they are essentially farming you for profit. They give you all these pills and never explain the side effects so that when you start to feel off you will go back in to see them, at that point they will prescribe some other pills to counteract the side effects of the first. Unfortunately the 2nd round of pills also has side effects, some of which may result in serious issues that will require even more medical intervention, more tests, mayber surgeries, etc., all of which will continue to increase the amount of money the medical cartels can extract from you. You can trace this directly back to Big Pharma and their drug pushers, they have no one to blame but themselves for my or any other's vaccine hesitancy, after seeing their execrable record of helping people it'll be a cold day in hell before I get jabbed with their poison.
I fear I've seen the dynamic you describe with my mother.
Well established antibiotics work; so do pain meds (if used responsibly). Beyond that, it's hard to think of any really spectacular drugs from Pharma in spite of all their claims.
"Look back at Einstein's works and ask who peer review them."
It was probably Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien, at least for his famous 1905 "Annus Mirabilis" papers (https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/einsteins-only-rejected-paper/). However, it's generally accepted that the review process was less severe than by modern standards. Journals regularly reject papers today, whereas the acceptance rate was >90% around the time Einstein submitted his papers to Annals of Physics.
Yes, Mr. Silberman, it cannot be stressed to much that the long term effects of these mRNA injections is totally unknown. This has been a world wide experiment on human guinea pigs.
And now many researchers are discovering undeclared substances and particulates in the Pfizer, Johnson and Moderna products.
Just on of many at this link:
https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en/
\\][//
When the elderly pass away within the time period that is used to claim they have been vaccinated, 1st shot, wait 10 days second shot, wait two weeks now you are vaccinated, they are not counted as dead because of the vaccination. So if they die it is calculated that they were non-vaxed.
"...wait two weeks now you are vaccinated, they are not counted as dead because of the vaccination. ..."
What in the +world+ are you babbling about? Those numbers have nothing to do with one another and (having read the submissions, tables, and studies from multiple countries) that isn't how anything is calculated.
One is not counted as "vaccinated" until two weeks AFTER the second shot. Any deaths, serious adverse reactions, etc occurring before those two weeks (after the second shot) are not counted as deaths or injuries among the "vaccinated." However: most of the worst outcomes occur BEFORE the two week period is over after the second shot. It's a wonderful trick of statistical bullshit: injuries and deaths due to the shots, are not counted as injuries and deaths due to the shots. Presto: It's only the "unvaccinated" who have suffered.
You haven't cited relevant sources. Sure, if a study is about vaccine effectiveness, it's not going to deem people vaccinated until two weeks (or maybe 7 days) after the second shot. But it wouldn't make sense to do that if the study is about vaccine safety. And you haven't cited any studies of vaccine safety that deem people vaccinated only when it's been two weeks after the second shot. If you don't cite links to any vaccine safety study that says that, I'm going to say that you've made a mistake in assuming that the two-week cutoff used in studies of vaccine effectiveness is allegedly used in studies of vaccine safety.
Don and Jim are talking about studies of vaccine effectiveness. If someone happens to die from the vaccine, they are always counted in the effectiveness statistics, as unvaccinated people who died from covid-19. All of this is discussed in Mathew Crawford's substack, here:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/probable-misclassification-of-vaccine
What Jim said below, I just wasn't as clear. Nice job Jim.
Jim's statement may be clear, but it is just as clearly wrong. I have not read any paper on vaccine safety that counts that way and I have read a substantial number of papers. Please go find me a counterexample.
Counter example to the substantial number of papers you have read? I don't know what you have read and therefore a counter example is not possible, but you know this. Here, Jerry just posted this. Enjoy!
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/probable-misclassification-of-vaccine
We do have the data that proves the vaccines safe and effective, that data allowed the vaccines to be released for use.
The pandemic big blunder defined in this book results from an ineffective and incompetent large public health system. There are fifty-six state and territorial public health agencies and nearly 3,000 local agencies. They have always been responsible for dealing with emergencies and urgent health threats as well as preventing disease. The US has about 500,000 public health workers. There are about thirty-two US schools of public health that graduate about 16,000 individuals yearly, and graduate programs producing 800 people with a master of public health, health administration, or health educator degree. Some states require certain credentials for public health officials such as a medical license or specialized training in preventive medicine or public health. What has shaped the pandemic blunder across the whole public health system are the federal agencies, namely the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. Government officials have been supported by a host of allies, principally reporters and commentators in the leftist media, wrong-headed academics, medical societies, medical journals, drug companies, and many leftists in the political world. Inevitably, we must address the causes of the intentional actions and behaviors. Later, both outright corruption and greed will be explored to help answer the inevitable, logical question: How could such a horrendous blunder happen and persist for so long? Is it just a bureaucratic blunder or is it closer to evil intent? If you have any friend or relative who has suffered or died in this pandemic, then you will, by the end of this book, be inclined to think more in terms of evil than incompetence or even merely greed.
Hirschhorn, Joel S. . Pandemic Blunder: Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment (pp. 2-3). Outskirts Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
\\][//
The blunder was Trump's ego, stupidity, incompetence, arrogance, etc.
The REAL Crime of the Century
Over time the pharmaceutical industry has learned from its mistakes. It has built a huge supportive, criminal network to crush any dissent.
Read entire article:
https://joyce-bowen.blog/2021/09/25/the-crime-of-the-century/
\\][//
the government should own all of these med patents and put up for bid production, with a reasonable profit. we don't need Big Pharma actually.
OCTOBER 24, 2021 DREDDYMD BIOLOGICAL MEDICINE, DISEASES & DISORDERS, DRUGS, NEWS & REVIEWS
Doctors can now prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 in Nebraska
Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson issued a legal opinion on October 14, saying that his office will not seek disciplinary action against doctors who prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as off-label drugs to treat or prevent Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).
The legal opinion is in response to a request from Nebraska Department of Health CEO Dannette Smith. The department licenses and disciplines doctors, and Smith has asked whether or not it would be “deemed unlawful or otherwise subject to discipline” for doctors to use ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or other “off-label use” medications to treat or prevent COVID-19.
Peterson says that his office finds that “the available data do not justify filing disciplinary actions against physicians simply because they prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19.”
However, he notes that health care providers in general may be subject to discipline if they neglect to obtain informed consent, deceive their patients, prescribe excessively high doses, fail to check for contraindication or engage in misconduct.
The opinion also states that allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate for other tools that could save lives and keep patients out of hospitals and possibly find relief for the strained healthcare system as well. The legal opinion also notes that there may be other promising off-label medicines that help treat COVID-19.
“I haven’t focused on the legality of it, I focused on the possible benefits that it might have for my patients, many of whom are quite ill with COVID,” says Dr. Louis Safranek, a specialist in infectious diseases. He relates that he is still prescribing ivermectin to his patients, and more than 500 have successfully overcome the disease with its help.
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine effective against COVID-19
https://dreddymd.com/2021/10/24/doctors-can-now-prescribe-ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine-nebraska/
\\][//
And? the vaccine is the way to go, it sets up the immune system, having anti-virals is good too.
When the CDC chose to lift restrictions on the vaccinated, ICAN went to work. Through its attorneys, it formally demanded that the CDC also (at the least) lift restrictions on the naturally immune. It provided the CDC with over 60 studies reflecting that natural immunity is more durable and robust than vaccine immunity. The CDC’s response is shameful. It fails to address any of these studies, collectively involving millions of people, and instead cites a single irrelevant study of a few hundred people that does not even involve comparing vaccine versus natural immunity!
As reflected in ICAN’s formal exchange with the CDC, the available data and studies reflect as follows regarding the current virus causing most COVID-19 in the United States:
And here is the full story. In May, the CDC revised its recommendations for fully vaccinated people, lessening certain restrictions. This same guidance, however, made no mention of those who have already recovered from COVID-19.
Immediately after the CDC revised its recommendations, ICAN, through its attorneys, demanded that the CDC immediately include those who have recovered from COVID-19 in the same category as those fully vaccinated. ICAN’s demand was based on a robust body of science.
The CDC responded with a ridiculous form response thanking us for our “interest in” COVID-19. Our attorneys therefore submitted the letter as a formal petition to the CDC on July 6, 2021, to which the CDC is required by law to thoroughly respond.
In September, after even more studies had come out evidencing the robust and durable nature of natural immunity (and the waning efficacy of the vaccines), and having not yet received a response from the CDC (as they were busy cooking up the Kentucky study), our attorneys supplemented the Citizen Petition with 56 additional studies supporting that natural immunity is, in fact, superior to vaccine immunity.
Months after ICAN first contacted the CDC regarding natural immunity and submitted the petition, the CDC responded that it, “find[s] no basis to further modify the current CDC recommendation in this area until the science warrants it.” The CDC’s conclusion relied on one single study of Kentucky residents and ignored each of the 60+ studies ICAN submitted it the CDC!
ICAN’s attorneys have now submitted a reply to the CDC. In that reply, the attorneys explain that the Kentucky study, a retrospective study of only a few hundred people, is irrelevant as to whether it is appropriate for the CDC to lift restrictions on the naturally immune because the study did not compare naturally immune individuals with vaccinated individuals. Instead, it compared the naturally immune to the naturally immune with subsequent vaccination.
Read entire article:
https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/ican-eviscerates-cdc-in-formal-exchange-regarding-natural-immunity/
\\][//
The CDC is under the executive, under Trump. He failed.
An astronomical blunder is a more accurate way of describing what has happened in this pandemic. To be clear, what this book is about is an intentional action with enormous, adverse, irreversible consequences and health impacts for large numbers of people. When it comes to life or death, we enter the world of homicide. There are deliberate actions that directly impair human health and, in the extreme, cause avoidable, preventable death. To be clearer, for this pandemic, the correct notion is criminally negligent homicide.
Hirschhorn, Joel S. . Pandemic Blunder: Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment (pp. 1-2). Outskirts Press, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
\\][//
Trump was the astronomical blunder.
Sharri Markson: Unmasking the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Origins of COVID-19
In this episode, award-winning journalist Sharri Markson takes us inside her groundbreaking research into the origins of COVID-19 and how events really unfolded at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Her findings are detailed in her new book and documentary of the same name “What Really Happened in Wuhan.”
Markson is the investigations editor at The Australian and host of the show “Sharri” on Sky News Australia.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/sharri-markson-unmasking-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology-and-the-origins-of-covid-19_4033913.html
\\][//
"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences."--Carroll Quigley
from his book TRAGEDY & HOPE
\\][//
And it is the lies told about that data that is the proximate crime of this entire operation.
\\][//
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' - this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."
-Aldous Huxley
Along those lines...
“Passionate hatreds can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. These people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance.”
― Eric Hoffer
Love Hoffer
Right. The best part about being "tolerant" is how you get to hate on those f***ing bastards who are intolerant. I hate those people, they should all die and we'd be better off.
Aldous Huxley didn't mean that the way you might think he did, he indeed thought it was a most most delicious moral treat.
He like the rest of his family were part of the elite and members of the Fabian Socialist Society. The Brave New World was not a warning, it was a blueprint of what the elite were working toward..
\\][//
Psychologists called it projection
I, too, might step up for an experimental “vaccine” if my risk factors were high — 65+? Co-morbidities? I’m in, in view of the dangers of severe respiratory distress to the elderly and health-compromised. However. Mandating a vax to 74 million under-18s with a statistically zero chance of death is medical malpractice and beyond. While depriving the population of near-zero-risk growth of herd immunity. Blue states have just started these overreaching mandates fir school-age children. I suspect this may be a tipping point - many are ready to die on that hill.
What they are doing is disgusting. I long for the day that we March in the streets and shut this down
Start marching. Someone has to get the ball rolling, and they will keep on escalating until a large enough part of the population puts their foot down. It just needs to be done peacefully and persistently, or the goon squad will squash it and we'll wind up worse off.
It’s coming. Joe’s lack of a mandate - funny word - is already crushing his unwritten legacy.
Marching in the streets will get you nowhere. Change has to be done by kicking people out of office that are causing this mess. Go with a group to your congresscritters office and make some noise, everyday.
You have a valid point but I work a pretty busy job. I also think DC is so corrupt that you are marginalized/destroyed if you try to be honest. I really am at a loss
Our current state of scientific inversion has sown intense division in the U.S. and threatens to rip apart the social fabric.
Basic civil, human, and economic rights have been violated under demonstrably fraudulent pretenses, and the mainstream media has been complicit. Actual legit data reveal that the sacrifices we thought we were making for the common good were sacrifices made in vain, and yet unlawful lockdowns continue to demoralize the population and ruin lives. The tragic reality is that this was, and is, all for nothing.
It always is.
The ruling class cannot admit its mistakes for then the illusion would be fully shattered. People want to believe in a savior and for so many, the government and the technocratic elite are that savior. It is the new Church.
Only this has not happened by mistake.
You are so right Blessthe, it is part of the 'Great Reset' agenda. It is a double fold process of thinning the herd plus imposing draconian mandates to cow the remaining population to submit to the global government ruled by the technocrats led by Klaus Schwab in Davos, Switzerland.
Another aspect of this agenda is the "climate change" regime meant to destroy the petrol industry and further break down the supply chains of delivery by banning trucking and perhaps rail delivery. This is called "Build Back Better" and is part of the 'Green Initiative'.
And we cannot forget their promise that, "You will own nothing, and you will be happy."
Pretty blatant bullshit if you actually think about it.
\\][//
New version of the oldest church: the State.
The contemptible hubris of the ruling class needs to be humiliated periodically to keep them in line. Thanks for doing this.
To begin, few take the NYT seriously. It's a partisan rag. I concede there was a time it had credibility, but no longer.
My parents are 75 and 72 and just this week I had them watch 'Manufacturing Consent' by our good friend Chomsky so we could begin to have intelligent conversations about what is happening in America, how the MSM (NYT) and other rags (CNN, MSNBC) work within a defined ecosystem to impress a narrative upon the population. I've also had them read the TIME piece about the collaboration and amplification of Biden and censoring of conservative voices in the last election.
The clear narrative from coastal liberal elites is: white, conservative (Christian) men in rural, flyover America are the enemy. Prove me wrong.
This is the narrative. The Times narrative in this case has less to do with who is dying, because really they could care less, but more to do with a reinforcement of who the enemy is.
The reason Trump won, and may win again, is because he gives voice to the voiceless. It is not farmers in rural, middle America looking down their noses at coastal liberal elites. But it is the case that liberals hold great disdain for "the heathens" in the heartland.
Up until March 2020 I would have supported the Dem Party all day long. No longer. I have never witnessed such a rapacious, evil group of people hell bent on power.
Here's the good news. All the liberal Dems masking their children are declaring them faceless and voiceless, whereas that is not the case with rational, conservative parents. In 15 years, conservatives win because the Sheep will just do what they are told. Plus, no voice, no face.
But, to the article, this resonates: "The mortality burden of COVID-19 is not randomly distributed across age groups. Indeed, age appears to be the “strongest predictor of mortality” from COVID-19..."
FULL FUCKING STOP
There is parallel aspect to all this that I wish you, or Glenn Greenwald, would cover: The continued funding of dangerous virology research with little to no demonstrable chance of societal payoff.
Honestly, when the virus first started spreading, I just didn't worry much about where it came from. In terms of dealing with the immediate crisis, that point was irrelevant, and remains irrelevant. Whatever... But it does matter if we are talking about continued research funding. Once I started seeing familiar signs of "scientists" protecting their grant money, I spent a lot of time looking at the facts of the origin stories. We will never have the "smoking gun" that the media wants (especially since China is never going to cooperate), but if we were in a murder trial, I'd say the threshold of reasonable doubt has been well surpassed: The disease came out of the WIV, funded with US money.
A few weeks ago, Biden announced his $50 Billion program to "fight the next pandemic." Which, his advisors assure us, will almost certainly hit within the next decade. Even if there are people who still want to say we don't know where *this* pandemic came from, is it too much to ask that we stop spending money on actively creating new ones?
This is the major point for me! If we spent all those millions of dollars ON BAT-ORIGIN CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH, what exactly did we get for the money? A group of political 'leaders' who can't find a single ass with all their hands combined.
Thanks. It's good to know others see this too.
Also, re. my original comment: I'm disappointed that I failed to clearly connect the dots between the virus research issue and the content of the article itself, but the connecting dots *are* there.... The question I ask myself is this: Is at least part of the motivation for all the fire and brimstone around shots a smoke-and-mirrors effort to keep people from talking about WIV, EcoHealth, and the wisdom of continuing to fund specific virology research?
Of course. It can't get out that the very people we listened to when it came to corona were the ones actually responsible for it.
To me, it doesn't matter if they are responsible for this particular virus or not. They funded dangerous virus research in a shoddy Chinese lab, and that's criminal or worse.
This won't tell you anything you don't already know, but it's got some useful observations. Worth reading if you have time.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak-covid-virus-origins-china
The wonderful thing about bureaucracy is that there's ALWAYS a paper trail.
"where [coronavirus] came from ... remains irrelevant"
That claim always perplexes me. For example, if we had hard evidence that it leaked from the Wuhan lab, there would be good reason for the international community to insist that the lab be closed, as being a global danger to lives and economies.
I suspect we are in full agreement. Perhaps you overlooked my conditional: I said, *In terms of dealing with the immediate crisis...*. What you say about relevance over time is absolutely right. Actually, I would go along with SimulationCommander and say just end the funding *period*. What they are doing has been called out as dangerous for at least a decade.
This kind of thing came up wrt the Afghanistan exit too. Everyone was screaming for Biden's head while the withdrawal was still under way. Biden was not personally responsible for the chaos -- his generals were -- and the screaming did not help. But I always said, "Ask me in a few months. If the whole top level of the Pentagon has not been fired by then, I'll join the calls for Biden accountability."
Fair enough, I understand your point.
I think my morning coffee hasn't yet kicked in - I at first misread your statement "Biden was not personally responsible for the chaos -- his generals were" as "Biden was not personally responsible for the chaos -- his genitals were". The latter is in fact an accurate explanation of much of politics.
:)
"To be clear: there is no question that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and an important tool in protecting people from severe disease and death." -- A religious oath repeated by the faithful or the timid to avoid being labeled a heathen.
Bingo
I'm disappointed in my "educated" acquaintances that swallow the shoddy analysis hook, line, and sinker. Their love of and belief in SCIENCE and how it's REAL always seems to follow their confirmation biases a little too closely.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a fundamental logical fallacy that constantly gets abused by the media and the politically motivated sociologists. Or is logic 101 not a part of scientific analysis any more?
I had a friendly conversation with a Doctor buddy of my a few weeks ago. It was a casual discussion of why I'm not "jabbed". She was polite and listened to my train of justifications and finally as she went to get in her car she said . . . "People are dying."
Degrees do not mean critical thinking.
We must do something.
This is something.
Therefore we must do it.
Particularly if your employment is conditioned on going along. Nice house you have there, would be a shame if you lost it.
Our current education system is not designed for critical thinking, if anything it's designed to eliminate critical thinking skills. My wife is currently pregnant with our first child and I am already thinking of how I can homeschool them when they get older, refuse to send my child to some "school" to be indoctrinated with values I abhor. Our society is beyond sick, we've come to a point where people have no choice but to send their kids to these indoctrination centers because both parents have to work in order to support the family. When did raising and educating your children become something for which the government is responsible? Why did we start farming out our responsibilities to our children to the government? When it became acceptable to pursue greed over everything else, when people looked at the natural family structure and decided they wanted to interject government agencies into how people raise their children for profit and control.
Hm, such a brief quote from her is not enough to show a lack of critical thinking on her part (it's possible that her words were meant to get at something that you haven't accounted for).
Give an example of what that might be. Of course people are dying. How many died and are dying because the medical establishment did absolutely NO early treatments, when they were available. Sent people home to infect others. How intelligent is that. Older people died in mass because infected people were sent back to the nursing homes to infect everyone else. BTW, it was a nursing home in Washington state where this whole pandemic was 1st observed, and yet they did it anyway. That was a best negligent homicide, no one will pay a cost for.
Many of your points are fair, as far as they go. And to answer your "Give an example of what that might be" request: one possibility is that Greg Maxwell's "train of justification" was in large part focused on why Maxwell didn't think he himself would experience a net benefit from the vaccine, and Maxwell may have said relatively less (or perhaps nothing) to the doctor about the issue of whether his refusing the vaccine might lead to others catching Covid or might lead to more opportunities for the virus to mutate (it's also possible that the doctor might have presented arguments on these points to him). So, perhaps the conversation between Maxwell and the doctor might have ended with Maxwell focused mainly on what's better for him, and the doctor focused mainly on what's better for other people. Of course this is only one possibility for how the conversation between Maxwell and the doctor could have gone, and I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't asked me to say it. But given that Maxwell's conversation could have gone in this way, or in some other possible ways, it clearly is fair to say that Maxwell hasn't said anything convincing yet to support his claim that the doctor lacked "critical thinking".
Your doctor buddy probably realized you were too dumb to reason with, so tried to appeal to your obviously underdeveloped concern for your fellow man.
Yup. Sorry I didn't see your post before I posted.
This is why statistics, rather than CRT, should be part of every high school curriculum.
TL;DR - Correlation does not equal causation.
There certainly is room for doubt about whether covid-19 vaccines are "safe and effective." As expressed, for example, in this peer reviewed journal article (Kostoff et al.) which states that "there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X
Wow. Especially this nugget from the paper:
"Historically, VAERS has been shown to report about 1% of actual vaccine/inoculation adverse events [4]. See Appendix 1 for a first-principles confirmation of that result). By mid-June, deaths following COVID-19 inoculations had reached the ˜6000 levels."
Just for fun I'd be curious to know how many people would be counted as dying from the vax if they applied the *same standard* they used for counting covid deaths -- i.e., counting everyone who died from anything within 60 days of being infected/inoculated.
The authors of the paper are scientific traditionalists, and thus they use customary definitions for cause of death. According to the CDC, only 6% of "covid deaths" were actually caused primarily by the virus, while the other 94% would traditionally have been ascribed to other underlying conditions such as cancer or heart disease, with the virus as a contributing factor. Thus, a more realistic estimate of the number of deaths caused by covid-19 in the US through May 2021 would have been around 40,000.
Based on extrapolation from VAERS data, confirmed by other approaches, the number of deaths caused by the inoculations is somewhere around 200,000. Roughly speaking, this is the basis for the 5:1 estimate.
"According to the CDC, only 6% of "covid deaths" were actually caused primarily by the virus, while the other 94%..."
No.
OK, I have missed a nuance in the paper. What the authors said, exactly, was: "CDC showed that 94 % of the reported deaths had multiple comorbidities, thereby reducing the CDC's numbers attributed strictly to COVID-19 to about 35,000 for all age groups." The argument that the CDC reporting amounted to misdiagnosis, should not have been attributed to the CDC, but rather should be attributed to the authors, who supported that position in the article with multiple references.
You missed a rather large nuance. ALL the deaths listed by the CDC in the underlying table had "covid-19" listed as a cause on the death certificate (not merely a positive test but a coroner somewhere specifically bothered to write it down AS a cause), therefore 100% of the deaths listed are "from covid-19" by standard epidemiological practice going back about a century. The table enumerates all +additional+ causes which ALSO appeared on any of those death certificates. This should be apparent from reading the causes which include things like ARDS or myocarditis which are often symptoms of covid-19! In just about 6% of the cases, there were no other causes listed.
Having a single cause on a death certificate is and +should be+ uncommon. If someone gets shot, the death certificate usually doesn't just say, "they done got shot". It might well say something about open head wounds, exsanguination, maybe even post-op infection or the fall down the stairs, but we don't say they weren't "really" killed by a firearm, do we?
As stated in the notes to the CDC data, there is no indicated priority to the causes in that table: that is, it does not differentiate primary and contributing causes which might appear on the COD. That is +normal+ for deaths in the national vital statistics system, as one would know if one had done, say WISQARS queries for car accident or firearm deaths previously. "Death from bacterial pneumonia with complications from covid-19" codes the same as "Death from covid-19 with complications from bacterial pneumonia". Sorting that out would take examination of individual cases; a count of deaths "from" versus "with"-- if you came up with a rational distinction-- cannot be obtained from the CDC data. The reason it is counted that way is because no one HAS come up with a rational way to cleanly separate such things that can be consistently applied. That is spelled out in textbooks I've worked from going back at least to the 70's.
At this point you're taking issue with Kostoff et al, and their conclusions, and not with my missed nuance. And I'm not an epidemiologist, and not in a position to adjudicate between your position and theirs.
From a lay perspective, by virtue of your analogy with a gunshot victim, it seems logical that a primary cause of death can be identified in many cases. And according to Kostoff et al, based on their review of the CDC presentation, they think the primary cause of death of most alleged Covid-19 victims is actually the various other serious co-morbidities identified in the death certificates.
The CDC issued new guidance in April 2020, regarding coronavirus reporting. As I recall, there was considerable consternation at the time from some doctors who felt the guidance was outrageous and unprecedented. I see now that there are some "fact check" sites who say there was nothing to see there. Here is the guidance.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf
Again, reading through this as a lay person, I can't imagine why they would need an elaborate 7-page document if they're just reiterating standard procedure. And it appears they've effectively created a flow chart that always requires listing covid-19 as the primary cause of death in virtually every case.
Just casually looking online for statistics, in the U.S., 150 million people are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, and there have been roughly 700,000 deaths from COVID-19. By this analysis, we should have seen 3.5 million deaths from the vaccines alone? Or, even if we are severely overcounting COVID-19 deaths, there should be around a million or so vaccine-related deaths maybe? Even 100,000 vaccine-related deaths would get people's attention. Have they been covered up? The assertion that the vaccines are 5x deadlier than COVID-19 does not seem remotely plausible to me.
Mr. Smith, we await the long term effects of this so-called "vaccine".
As it is said, "It ain't over 'till it's over" And the fat lady ain't singing yet either.
\\][//
"The assertion that the vaccines are 5x deadlier than COVID-19 does not seem remotely plausible to me."
It isn't. As you point to, we wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat without hitting a dead vaccine victim and there is no way that could be hidden. Nevermind that 1) the past VAERS undercount isn't applicable because of historic levels of scrutiny in this case, 2) US VAERS data is not particularly out of line with rates from completely unrelated (and likely better quality) system like Spain's, 3) the historic rate of vaccination which would, clearly, lead to historic levels of even relatively rare side-effects, 4) the researchers who have done much more thorough surveillance in smaller populations (e.g. hospital systems) on symptoms reported in VAERS as a sanity check. For +most+ segments of the population, serious vaccine side-effects (from any of a half-dozen products) are rare and death exceedingly so.
But this is a solid example of where numbers and conclusions that don't pass the sniff test are being manufactured by MULTIPLE factions here, not just the NYT.
Part of the authors' case is that the number of covid-19 deaths has been dramatically inflated, as most of the deaths so-counted were caused primarily by serious underlying conditions. By traditional criteria, the number of covid-19 deaths in the US was about 40,000 as of the date the paper was written.
The ~200,000 vaccine deaths actually have gotten peoples' attention. For example, a professional public opinion poll found that more than 15% of all Americans are personally acquainted with someone who died of the covid vaccine.
However, in our national statistics, these vaccine deaths are being laundered as deaths of "unvaccinated" people (<14 days after last shot) caused by covid-19. See:
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/estimating-vaccine-induced-mortality-49c
I know this isn’t rigorous by any means, but let me give you an example of why I don’t believe this analysis: Before vaccines were widely available, there were enough people dying in New York City that some hospitals had to store bodies in freezer trucks because they were out of space in their morgues. Presumably, this was because of COVID-19 and not because everyone suddenly got cancer and heart attacks at the same time. Currently, 63% of New Yorkers are fully vaccinated. By the above logic, since the vaccines are 5x more fatal than COVID-19, should we not now see freezer trucks full of bodies from vaccine mortality? Even if every, single person in NYC somehow got COVID-19 and most didn’t know it (unlikely, but someone is going to make the argument), we should be seeing 2-3x the number of deaths, and once again, there should be freezer trucks full of them. Is this just not being reported, or is it not happening? I tend to believe that it isn’t happening because the vaccines are relatively safe and prevent more deaths than they cause.
"...isn't rigorous by any means..."
But it is a GREAT example of how analysts perform sanity checks on data. Another example would be the people who were monitoring the changes in obituary column length in major cities (Philadelphia, Boston are two I read analyses of) during the NE wave. These "columns" reached historic levels last year, consuming a measurable thickness in their respective papers. Given that major papers are routinely stored by libraries (whether physically or scanned), the number of entries can be tracked and analyzed over time. The changes in volume of obituaries were not at all inconsistent with the spike in covid deaths. We are seeing no equivalent effects with vaccination campaigns in major cities now.
I don't think anyone would question that there were a lot of deaths brought forward into winter 2020 in which covid-19 was a contributing factor. But regarding vaccine deaths: just because something isn't reported in the media, doesn't mean it isn't happening. FWIW, there's a funeral director by the name of John O'Looney who claims that his morgue is indeed overflowing with vaccine victims. It seems the mass media isn't clamoring to interview him.
https://odysee.com/@liabilitymate:5/max2:c
Uh, that poll isn't a reliable way of estimating vaccine deaths. The Substack link you gave discussed that poll, and mentioned that none of the "major polling agencies" were willing to conduct the poll. Instead, the poll was run by PeopleFish, surveying a small number of people (only 300, less than reputable polls have) who were recruited through "opt-in panels" where they are paid to take surveys. Pew Research has reported that opt-in panels have serious flaws in surveying public opinion: some of the takers of any given survey may be bots, while some are humans giving false answers instead of stating their actual opinions. The bogus survey responses that PewResearch found could be very crude: in some cases a paid survey-taker would simply answer Yes to all questions, while in other cases a paid survey-taker would questions about their opinion by just doing a web search and plagiarizing phrases found in the search. Pew Research found that "three prominent sources of opt-in survey samples" each have 4-7% bogus responses on opinion surveys. I don't think PeopleFish would count as a "prominent source of opt-in survey samples", so their rate of bogus responses on opinion surveys would likely be higher than 4-7%.
And the rate of bogus answers on this vaccine-death poll is likely worse than 4-7% for another reason: it's not an opinion survey, it's a survey that hopes people will report the facts about their experience. In an survey that's purely about opinions, many paid survey takers will at least have an incentive to be honest about their opinion because they want their personal views to be influential. But in a survey asking about facts, the desire for your views to be influential no longer provides the same incentive to speak your mind: instead you can be influential by misreporting facts.
The poll is unbelievable at face value because 64% of the respondents were female, which obviously isn't a representative sample of US adults in general.
I could mention other methodological problems with how the Substack page you linked to handled this poll (as well as how they got to the conclusion of ~200,000 vaccine deaths), but no need to go further.
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2020/02/18/assessing-the-risks-to-online-polls-from-bogus-respondents/
https://surveys.people.fish/r/468283_61267d5158cbd1.33050462
Hello Randall Rose, thanks for reading and studying that material. As I said, PeopleFish provided a 'professional' public opinion poll. However, I'm sure you are correct that the "opt-in" method they used is not as good as a randomly sampled poll run by a major organization. It seems to me that a reputable firm should be able to weed out 'bots', but no doubt you are correct that the use of opt-in methods introduces some bias. For example, it seems perfectly reasonable that more women than men would be interested in pursuing a career as a part time survey taker.
But I'm not seeing any reason why there would be a bias to select individuals who would lie about knowing someone who was killed by the vaccine. Nor any reason why women would be more likely to know a vaccine victim, compared to men.
If you want to argue that the estimate of 200,000 dead is only good to one significant figure, that's fine. In fact if you pick a number anywhere between 50,000 and 500,000, mainstream thinkers would be equally flabbergasted. Children's Health Defense is arguing that the vaccine deaths are about 50,000.
We shouldn't need to be guessing or arguing about this. The lack of any real data is a national scandal. VAERS documented deaths are a scandal of their own. How many deaths would it take, before you would think the program should be stopped?
Oh, I don't trust that PeopleFish poll at all, not even for giving the correct order of magnitude on vaccine deaths. The poll results look kind of internally inconsistent, claiming that 9.0% of respondents personally know 1 person who died of the Covid vaccine, 2.9% of respondents personally know 2 people who died of the Covid vaccine, and 3.9% personally know 3 or more, for a total of 15.8%. If it was correct that 15.8% of the population actually knows at least 1 person who died from the vaccine, then the percentage who know of at least 2 vaccine deaths SHOULD be not much more than 15.8% of 15.8%, and the percentage who know of at least 3 should be not much more than 15.8% of 15.8% of 15.8%, nowhere near as high as the 3.9% that the poll reports. I strongly suspect that *none* of the 3.9% of survey-takers who said they knew of 3 or more vaccine deaths were telling the truth.
I'm just tossing that poll, along with the claim of ~200,000 dead which your Substack link tries to support using the poll.
I'm aware that polls show that 15% of Americans answer Yes when asked if they've ever seen a ghost (plus another 17% who answer "Possibly"), and I'm sure polls would also show inflated numbers about other weird experiences. It doesn't look like this is the kind of situation where you can use a poll to get accurate data on facts (as opposed to surveying mere opinions). https://today.yougov.com/topics/philosophy/articles-reports/2018/10/31/americans-think-ghosts-are-more-likely-aliens-eart
I guess if you wanted real facts, one method is to start with an alleged case of vaccine death (the kind of alleged case that gets reported to VAERS), and have a full post-mortem evaluation of the body by a team of two pathologists, one who's initially inclined to think that there are a lot of Covid vaccine deaths and one who's inclined to think that there aren't. If you do that for a bunch of cases of alleged vaccine deaths, we would get an idea about whether VAERS alleged cases of vaccine deaths are mistaken 10% of the time, or 50% of the time, or more than 90% of the time, or whatever. Worth doing, I think.
Why is the word "vaccine" in quotes every time the paper refers to mRNA vaccines? To me, this is an indication that the authors are tin foil hat people. Maybe this analysis is correct, but since I am not familiar with the institutions that the authors work for, and since they have that weird tick of quoting the word vaccine, which I have only ever seen in conspiracy-theory propaganda (ie. "It's not a vaccine. It's gene therapy!"), I don't really trust the accuracy of this paper.
It wasn't a vaccine 2 years ago.
I do hope Mr. Smith, that you know enough history to realize that conspiracies are the flywheel in the engine that drives history forward. Most paradigm shifts are the result of a conspiracy.
As Gore Vidal once said, "I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a conspiracy analyst."
\\][//
And I really don't believe the producers of this so-called "vaccine"
Legacy vaccines are generally a weakened version of the virus to be fought against. Sometimes a dead version of the virus is used. These new mRNA solutions are entirely different. So those who are critical of these potions use scare quotes to differentiate between the legacy vaccines used prior to the "Covid Pandemic".
Tin foil hats are almost impossible to come by these days. I think you refer to the aluminum foil hats worn by "nutball conspiracy theorists, and escaped patients from mental institutions who have taken rides in flying saucers and camped out on the Grassy Knoll waiting to see JFK's ghost wandering about Dealey Plaza ".
I would refer you to Kurtis Hagen:
https://kurtishagen.com/
\\][//
We have had entirely synthetic, "acellular", vaccines for decades. Acellular pertussis springs immediately to mind. Acellular vaccines have their pros and cons but are still "vaccines" by a long-standing and non-controversial definition. The tetnus vaccine has always been acellular because it is not intended to protect against the bacterium but rather the toxin produced.
The authors' explanation is that "A vaccine is legally defined as any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of one or more diseases". They say that since the covid-19 "vaccines" cannot prevent infection by the virus, and their main function is symptom suppression, they should be called "inoculations" or "treatments".
"They say that... cannot prevent infection..."
And by that (nonsensical) definition, we don't have any vaccines, including the original vaccinium using cowpox to protect against smallpox. The smallpox vaccine did nothing (and could do nothing) until smallpox was in the bloodstream for the immune system to react to. In other words, the definition of "infection" has suddenly been switched from the onset of clinical symptoms to entry into the body. Both definitions +can+ be valid in the appropriate context but only one makes sense in the context of a vaccine. Only one of them was possible to detect when the term "vaccine" came into use.
And this has to do with mRNA serums in what way?
*Published: 12 January 2018*
mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology
Norbert Pardi, Michael J. Hogan, Frederick W. Porter & Drew Weissman
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
\\][//
Great article by Jeremy Beckham.
For extra credit, he should have also have looked at the correlation between the % of blacks (who voted 95% Democrat) in a county and its (alleged) covid death rate. Simply because Trump carried the South, the correlation between county-level black population % and covid death rates will also be very high. This would further negate the NYT's "Red Covid" propaganda narrative.
….and lurking behind all of these arguments over proper statistical procedure is the widely acknowledged fact that the PCR test isn’t accurate and that there is really no strong correlation between “cases” and disease. This is akin to critiquing the methodology of a horoscope! Proper methodology or not, IT’S STILL ASTROLOGY!
All those PCR tests that were run up until Jan 2021 (when they changed the range to "less than 35") should be analyzed for Cycle Threshold and anything over 25-30 should be tossed out as a case of "Covid".
Excellent piece. Thanks. The media sources like the NYT that scream “follow the science” do a piss poor job of it.
The last line of the article sums up left-wing MSM: "We may not be better informed, but at least we know who to hate." This summarizes the purpose of the NYT perfectly- It is pure propaganda.
I'm a pacifist, but that line makes me want to rack a shotgun. What horseshit.