COVID vaccines already up to 96x as deadly as Flu Vaccines, according to CDC's own data.

[Giraffe]

AstraZeneca is back. EMA - the very same agency that approved the substance in the first place - has now come to the conclusion that it is save. In Germany many healthcare workers (on one occassion it was more then 50%) didn't make it to their appointment for the first shot. I am sure they will be very relieved if they get a second chance. [/irony]

Care home worker becomes ill shortly after getting vaccinated with AstraZeneca. Died yesterday. She was younger than 55 years. (They won't tell her exact age.)

Klinik Immenstadt: Pflegerin stirbt kurz nach Corona-Impfung | BR24

 

[Inaut]

Poor woman.... Sadly I think the death rate is going to sky rocket in the next year or so.... Does anyone know how many people around the world have been vaccinated so far???

 

[Giraffe]

Does anyone know how many people around the world have been vaccinated so far???

This site is quite useful.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations

Our vaccination dataset uses the most recent official numbers from governments and health ministries worldwide. Population estimates for per-capita metrics are based on the United Nations World Population Prospects. Income groups are based on the World Bank classification. A full list of our...

ourworldindata.org

 

[Peater Pan]

Spoiler: Link

 

[tankasnowgod]

View attachment 22296

Another spoiler... high risk people were NEVER tested in the clinical trials.

Also the same high risk people get other vaccines, like flu shots.

The mental gymnastics you people will do to avoid the obvious conclusion, that these dangerous inadequately tested experimental shots are dangerous, would win you gold metal, had you not lobbied for the Olympics to be cancelled.

Also.... kinda funny how Grandma's life doesn't matter anymore. Last year, we couldn't go to the movies or gym or restaurant or to get our haircut without "killing grandma." But now that pharma companies do it with experimental drugs..... no worries, its totes cool to kill grandma.

 

[tara]

- The protection of multiple methods is so slight their combined improvement is insignificant and not worth the cost

That is not the experience of those countries that have more successfully contained the pandemic.
But if none of the methods are being used with much rigour, it will be less effective.

You can find the ones with low rates by looking at world covid fatality stats, eg at ourworldindata.
Quicker success at stopping spread is worth quite a lot compared with a year of (disruptive but not very effective) lockdown.

- The vaccines are not claimed to stop infection at all

This is still being studied. There is some expectation that lack of symptoms will at least reduce the spread, based on the the way the infection is transmitted.

- Efficacy of masks and these vaccines are unscientific talking points that are based on assertion, not facts and data.

If the science is not yet strong in some specific areas, the best solution is better science, not just more unfounded assertions.

Anti- science, anti- vax, covid denial.

Anti-science: attacks on scientific studies or science in general with little basis other than enthusiasm for a contrary position. (A pro-science approach would involve better science.)

Anti-vax: assertion of completely adamant and unnuanced anti-vaccination opinions that assert with no sound basis that the vaccines are very dangerous and should never be used . (A more skeptical approach would subject such claims to as much rigour as is applied to the vaccines themselves, and would put the risks realistically in the context of the diseases they are developed and used to protect against.). Sometimes combines with anti-science.

Covid denial: assertions along the lines of that the COVID-19 pandemic is basically harmless. Seems to sometimes indicate a lack of care or empathy for the well-being of elders and people with pre-existing conditions. (There is plenty of information, both personal and statistical from which to understand that it has done great harm and can do more.) Sometimes combines with anti-science and anti-vax.

All of the above sometimes served with sides of aggression.

Be honest for a second...... you really don't think Pfizer would be capable of fraud in this type of study when there are potentially tens of billions of dollars on the line?

I wouldn't rely on pfizer's own studies alone. Check out other reputable sources.

This is a largish study on the Israeli vaccinations, published a month ago. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765

This site is quite useful.

Yes, their site is great.

Peat isn’t wrong about adjuvants, read the evidence for yourself.

I don't recall saying that Peat was wrong about adjuvants. If I did, please point me to it, and I'll consider whether to amend.

I don't in general take vaccines for diseases that are not harmful. Where I am, very roughly 1 in 100 infection fatality rate for COVID-19. Most but not all have been elders.
Risks of vaccination can reasonably be considered in the context of the risks of the disease it protects against.

I took an interest in flu vaccine when there were some nastier strains around.

I've never noticed more than very mild temporary localised discomfort from vaccinations myself. Most people around here have the recommended childhood vaccinations. This has been effective. Some people don't because they have ideological issues with them, or because they have specific health situations that contraindicate. They benefit from those of us that do vaccinate.

 

[Perry Staltic]

This is still being studied. There is some expectation that lack of symptoms will at least reduce the spread, based on the the way the infection is transmitted.

Which means that there is no scientific evidence that the vaccines stop infection. It's madness to base such costly policy on expectation and assumption rather than science.

If the science is not yet strong in some specific areas, the best solution is better science, not just more unfounded assertions.

There are at least 15 RCTs that conclude surgical masks offer no significant protection against virus transmission. 14 studied flu (a report on them was published by the CDC in May 2020) and a Danish study studied covid (published late 2020). It's the best science available, yet it is rejected by those with unscientific agendas who don't like the conclusions.

Covid denial: assertions along the lines of that the COVID-19 pandemic is basically harmless. Seems to sometimes indicate a lack of care or empathy for the well-being of elders and people with pre-existing conditions. (There is plenty of information, both personal and statistical from which to understand that it has done great harm and can do more.) Sometimes combines with anti-science and anti-vax.

Straw man. No one is saying covid is harmless, except to the vast majority of people, a conclusion that the data fully support. It can be very harmful to people with serious health issues, as many illnesses can.

Appeal to compassion fallacy. This is just deflecting from the real issue that in significant terms covid really only harms the unhealthy. The same fallacious argument could be made for peanuts (peanut denial) because some people are allergic to them - "if you cared about people who are vulnerable to being harmed by peanuts you wouldn't be so selfish to insist on the right to eat them".

 

[tankasnowgod]

I wouldn't rely on pfizer's own studies alone. Check out other reputable sources.

This is a largish study on the Israeli vaccinations, published a month ago. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765

That's a funny intro. Don't trust Pfizer's studies......... but DO trust them to inject you with their experimental and unapproved drug!

But that study doesn't (and can't) answer any of my concerns. What will be the effect of these never before unleashed on the public mRNA shots at 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? 20 years? Got any studies that show those effects?

It's also an uncontrolled, observational study.

You can do all the (very) short term studies on these radically experimental, rushed to market, and UNAPPROVED shots. And the manufacturers have ZERO liability, should the shots kill you (which you've already acknowledged they can do), or give you kidney failure, autoimmune disease, or Bell's Palsy. All to avoid what is nothing more than a common cold virus, even if it exists? No thanks. Nothing suggests they are safe.

For safe and effective prevention, I will stick with Vitamin D- Nine out of ten COVID-19 deaths may be due to vitamin D deficiency – To Extract Knowledge from Matter

If I do happen to get sick (which hasn't happened since this nonsense started, and I ignore and violate all the so called "mandates" and "guidelines" as much as possible), I will stick with drugs which have a much longer track record and appear to be much safer, such as methylene blue, cyproheptadine, erythromycin, and such. Hydroxychloroquine, Losartan, and Ivermectin would all be far more preferable to me than experimental, gene altering tech.

 

[Inaut]

@tara have you received a vaccine yet? Not sure if you mentioned this in any of your previous posts but I'm just curious

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Anti-vax: assertion of completely adamant and unnuanced anti-vaccination opinions that assert with no sound basis that the vaccines are very dangerous and should never be used . (A more skeptical approach would subject such claims to as much rigour as is applied to the vaccines themselves, and would put the risks realistically in the context of the diseases they are developed and used to protect against.). Sometimes combines with anti-science.

As Travis once said, vaccinations would be hard to object to if they removed the whole proteins and harmful adjuvants( pertussis toxins, aluminum phosphate) and replaced those with amino- acids and calcium phosphate( now we can add extraneous RNA to the toxin list too). It's simply logical to avoid any vaccine that has any of these problems. And don't even say " oh but these vaccines are gonna save more people than it will maim", considering that there are much safer treatments that don't involve the chance of developing allergies or getting brain- damaged. For "covid", the vaccines are an insane decision, considering that they are experimental. There is no proof this vaccine will help anyone, and it has been shown already to be much more troublesome from a side- effect point of view than other vaccines.

Putting the risk of a vaccine in context, you say? And what's that context? A pandemic which has no proof at all for its existence? An experimental vaccine for a "virus" which is nearly harmless( no, there haven't been 2 million deaths "from" covid, and no, there is no proof the vaccine would lower this count, if it was true that is)? You're either brainwashed being belief or are getting paid to post this crap here. Reddit may be a better place for the brainwashed/ shills like you, would you not agree?

 

[Perry Staltic]

Yes there are risks, but in SF you can get free fries and chips & salsa if you get vaccinated. For some reason when I read the title I read "Vaginated"

Two more Bay Area restaurants offer freebies for vaccinated folks

Krispy Kreme doughnuts aren't the only freebie your COVID-19 vaccination can get you in...

www.sfgate.com

 

[Drareg]

That is not the experience of those countries that have more successfully contained the pandemic.
But if none of the methods are being used with much rigour, it will be less effective.

You can find the ones with low rates by looking at world covid fatality stats, eg at ourworldindata.
Quicker success at stopping spread is worth quite a lot compared with a year of (disruptive but not very effective) lockdown.

This is still being studied. There is some expectation that lack of symptoms will at least reduce the spread, based on the the way the infection is transmitted.

If the science is not yet strong in some specific areas, the best solution is better science, not just more unfounded assertions.


Anti-science: attacks on scientific studies or science in general with little basis other than enthusiasm for a contrary position. (A pro-science approach would involve better science.)

Anti-vax: assertion of completely adamant and unnuanced anti-vaccination opinions that assert with no sound basis that the vaccines are very dangerous and should never be used . (A more skeptical approach would subject such claims to as much rigour as is applied to the vaccines themselves, and would put the risks realistically in the context of the diseases they are developed and used to protect against.). Sometimes combines with anti-science.

Covid denial: assertions along the lines of that the COVID-19 pandemic is basically harmless. Seems to sometimes indicate a lack of care or empathy for the well-being of elders and people with pre-existing conditions. (There is plenty of information, both personal and statistical from which to understand that it has done great harm and can do more.) Sometimes combines with anti-science and anti-vax.

All of the above sometimes served with sides of aggression.

I wouldn't rely on pfizer's own studies alone. Check out other reputable sources.

This is a largish study on the Israeli vaccinations, published a month ago. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765


Yes, their site is great.


I don't recall saying that Peat was wrong about adjuvants. If I did, please point me to it, and I'll consider whether to amend.

I don't in general take vaccines for diseases that are not harmful. Where I am, very roughly 1 in 100 infection fatality rate for COVID-19. Most but not all have been elders.
Risks of vaccination can reasonably be considered in the context of the risks of the disease it protects against.

I took an interest in flu vaccine when there were some nastier strains around.

I've never noticed more than very mild temporary localised discomfort from vaccinations myself. Most people around here have the recommended childhood vaccinations. This has been effective. Some people don't because they have ideological issues with them, or because they have specific health situations that contraindicate. They benefit from those of us that do vaccinate.

There is nothing reasonable about the covid vaccines or the requirement for them, people are clearly dying from them, these folks would have been better off to risk infection from covid.
We have a huge amount of data on here highlighting the response to covid has been a disaster and continues to be, from categorization of deaths, lockdowns and masks, the medical establishment has proven its a failure, your infection rates are based on the misuse of PCR tests, misuse is being polite, I suspect fraud.

I’m not going to get into a back and forth on this, the forum is packed with covid data for people to make their own mind up.

 

[Drareg]

Yes there are risks, but in SF you can get free fries and chips & salsa if you get vaccinated. For some reason when I read the title I read "Vaginated"

Two more Bay Area restaurants offer freebies for vaccinated folks

Krispy Kreme doughnuts aren't the only freebie your COVID-19 vaccination can get you in...

www.sfgate.com

Wow, I’m sure many have pointed out obesity correlating with worse outcomes in relation to covid in the comments section in that article, what they don’t get is doughnuts and fries are fried in PUFA, the health conscious types eating chia seeds with flax seed oil on their oats will be the first raging in the comments.

 

[tara]

Straw man. No one is saying covid is harmless, except to the vast majority of people, a conclusion that the data fully support. It can be very harmful to people with serious health issues, as many illnesses can.

Claiming there's no pandemic is pretty direct denial. I think presenting COVID-19 as though it is just like any of the other diseases in regular circulation round the world, like colds, also seems like COVID-19 denial to me too. These ideas have been expressed here.

While people with prior health conditions are more vulnerable, a number of people who were apparently healthy have also died of COVID-19.

For safe and effective prevention, I will stick with Vitamin D ...

Seems like a good idea to maintain vit D levels.

If I do happen to get sick (which hasn't happened since this nonsense started, and I ignore and violate all the so called "mandates" and "guidelines" as much as possible), I will stick with drugs which have a much longer track record and appear to be much safer, such as methylene blue, cyproheptadine, erythromycin, and such. Hydroxychloroquine, Losartan, and Ivermectin would all be far more preferable to me than experimental, gene altering tech.

I hope you don't need to follow through with this, but if it comes to pass, please do update us with your experience. It would interesting to know if any of these proved more effective against COVID-19 (by wider trial) than other treatments being used.

@tara have you received a vaccine yet? Not sure if you mentioned this in any of your previous posts but I'm just curious

It is not available to me at this time. When it is, I will look at up-to-date data for the one available, and go from there. I am probably not particularly vulnerable, but who knows. I've never had a bad reaction to any previous vaccine.

 

[Jam]

While people with prior health conditions are more vulnerable, a number of people who were apparently healthy have also died of COVID-19.

It's so easy to be fooled. Tens of thousands of apparently healthy people world-wide died every year before COVID-19 of the common cold, flu, and other banal infections, but beyond certain celebrity cases, not much noise was ever made of them. Such deaths continue on into the COVID era, but now even totally unrelated ones (such as fatal motorcycle accidents) are all tagged as COVID-19 deaths if the corpse fails a PCR test on autopsy.

 

[rei]

Claiming there's no pandemic is pretty direct denial. I think presenting COVID-19 as though it is just like any of the other diseases in regular circulation round the world, like colds, also seems like COVID-19 denial to me too. These ideas have been expressed here.

While people with prior health conditions are more vulnerable, a number of people who were apparently healthy have also died of COVID-19.


Seems like a good idea to maintain vit D levels.


I hope you don't need to follow through with this, but if it comes to pass, please do update us with your experience. It would interesting to know if any of these proved more effective against COVID-19 (by wider trial) than other treatments being used.

It is not available to me at this time. When it is, I will look at up-to-date data for the one available, and go from there. I am probably not particularly vulnerable, but who knows. I've never had a bad reaction to any previous vaccine.

Believing in it without any scientific proof is delusional. Show me the study that has design capacity to determine causality. If you love to masturbate around correlations and draw conclusions from that, may i present to you: 15 Insane Things That Correlate With Each Other

 

[Maljam]

I've never noticed more than very mild temporary localised discomfort from vaccinations myself.

Those were vaccines that had taken years to develop and study. This mrna vaccine is unlike any other vaccine that you have had experienced, so it seems pointless to compare to previous ones. People don't talk about pharmaceuticals like this. Older anti histamine drugs have completely different safety profiles than newer ones but it would be silly to say "well I reacted fine to the old anti histamines."

 

[Perry Staltic]

Claiming there's no pandemic is pretty direct denial. I think presenting COVID-19 as though it is just like any of the other diseases in regular circulation round the world, like colds, also seems like COVID-19 denial to me too. These ideas have been expressed here.

Before covid, the WHO changed the definition of pandemic to be able to declare virtually anything a pandemic. In terms of how it used to be defined (included mortality), there is no pandemic. Every point you try to make is based on word redefinitions and reframings.

 

[Perry Staltic]

While people with prior health conditions are more vulnerable, a number of people who were apparently healthy have also died of COVID-19.

People with prior health conditions comprise virtually all of the fatalities. There are outliers, but outliers have always existed; some small number of young, healthy people are always dying for no explainable reason.

 

[RealNeat]

An update addressing critics; Reader Mail: COVID Vaccine Risks, and COVID-19’s True Fatality Rate

side note, it’s amazing to me that people
like @tara believe the word “believe” that the tv shills love to say when asked about asymptomatic spread after vaccination. The double standard is quite apparent is it not?

If they claim vaccines decrease symptoms, hence spread, the same line of thought should apply to unvaccinated so called asymptomatic (majority) people. The current overblown response of mass masking and lockdowns is nothing but a public science experiment and to base policy off of non existent or dodgy science is nothing less than criminal. I couldn’t say it better than Dr. Peat, who chose to use the word “guinea pigs” to describe those accepting these vaccines and masks.

The weight given to the adaptive immune system is just a huge red flag that these people have an incomplete understanding of the immune system at best. Dr. Peat has clarified this in many articles and interviews yet people cling to this antibody rhetoric.

If good evidence didn’t exist for the benefits of viral exposure during childhood into adulthood it would be one thing, but when we see major benefits and strengthening of the immune system we have to step back and ask questions that can turn the mainstream view of “immunology” on its head.

Like, “are we doing our species a disservice by calling and treating the symptoms experienced early in life as diseases. What do we lose by vaccinating against them and do we understand the risk to benefit ratio as well as we should, have we considered all of the variables.“