Topic: A vaccine buffet. (Read 454 times)

Okay, so now you are agreeing that the excess deaths data that I've been sharing for the past 2 years are accurate? The charts that show a massive increase in death from any reason, coinciding exactly with peaks of Covid infections, going back to early 2020, nearly a year before the vaccines were available?



Each data point on that chart shows ~10 unvaccinated deaths per 100,000 unvaccinated population, per week. So multiply 0.0001 by the total number of unvaccinated people, and you have the number of deaths per week. Quite a large number, yes? This isn't "falsifying a few death certs".



I wish you understood data better. The two charts are calculated differently, as explained in my link. The ONS standardise data by 'person-years', the US does not. What is relevant here is the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated within each chart. You can't dismiss this by saying "yeah, but apples and pears are different so it's all invalid". Not that the difference is 20-fold anyway, no idea where you get that from. Are you trying to calculate 25/10?



His actions and inactions in response to Covid have been directly responsible for killing a lot of people, yes. His only motivation is self-interest, he's doing everything he can at the moment to save himself from getting kicked out. I'm sure he'd happily let half the country burn, and millions die, just so long as he came out of it okay. There is never any need to unpick his motivations, self-interest is the only one he has.

The FDA like any crony government organization agrees as long as they get their bilk from the drug companies:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59265269

Here's why:

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/5876rgion4a5/

I saw an even later one going with the same 'UK Health Security Agency' data but which also covered mortality, but don't see it now.  It was similarly alarming, especially considering that it only counted deaths from 'covid'.  Hints of why this is alarming comes from the all-cause mortality figures leaking through, and it appears more and more likely that the 100% increase in catching 'covid' if one is jabbed is simply an artifact of a general immune system decline among the jabbed who are catching other things as well at comparably higher rates.  In other words, VAIDS.  England at least had the good sense to do an about face of forcing the death jab.

As for the American data, when you are down in the 1/100,000 range, you can pay off a few people to falisfy a few death certs and get any rate figures you want.  Stories of paying off hospitals to get desired data have been a fixture of this who scamdemic from the start.  But you are welcome to try to put forth an alternate hypothesis about why the figures are different between the two countries by 20-fold.  I'd be interested to hear it.  Maybe for some reason Bojo wanted to fake like his government is responsible for killing and maiming even more people than they did, but I'd need to have some sort of plausible reason why he would wish to do such a thing.  Or maybe AstraZeneca is just that bad?

Oh yeah, another way the 'case' numbers are faked is to set the PCR to 20-some cycles when testing a jabbed person while leaving them at 40-some for people who are not.  In that manner you can get false positives on pureblood people who die from anything, and again, when you are at 10/100,000 it's not going to take a lot of fraud to get the graphs big Pharma and their 'public health' assets would like to see.

Because the ONS data for England on this specific subject only run to that point. If you are really unable to discern a pattern from that chart, then try the US data, which runs to December.
Or alternatively, desperately try to claim, without any evidence, that before and after the charted period the exact opposite trend was occurring. If that's your argument, then I can see another trend: your ever-diminishing credibility.


https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination



What are you talking about? If you're unable to see the trend in that chart, then it doesn't surprise me that you're also unable to see the note at the bottom: "Note: Unvaccinated people have not received any dose. Partially-vaccinated people are excluded. Fully-vaccinated people have received all doses prescribed by the initial vaccination protocol. The mortality rate is age-standardized to account for the different vaccination rates of older and younger people."

Then why is your chart missing the last four months of data?  Is it because VAIDS is really kicking in in a big way of the last month or two?  I mean, the latest national data seems to show a 100%+ NEGATIVE efficacy for the de-pop shot gene therapy.  In other words, 'it means it's working' so to speak.

Another thing is that when you play the 'jabbed less than 45 days ago are unvaxxed' game, the chickens come home to roost as time goes by.  Especially as you run out of suckers who can be induced to roll up their sleeves.

There is an abundance of data out there. I mean, it's certainly clear that you are vastly more likely to die of Covid if you're unvaccinated.


https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/england-covid-19-mortality-rate-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages


And the data do suggest quite clearly again that irrespective of reason for death, you are more likely to die (all causes) if you are unvaccinated.
You can look at the data yourself if you want. For the UK, the ONS has everything you'll need. This is a good starter.
And this analysis of the ONS data seems quite robust, so is worth a look if you don't want to build the charts yourself. It particular, it includes a good demonstration of one chart that may lead to an erroneous conclusion if context is not considered very carefully.

News articles can be misleading if they are removed from their context (which they usually are). 'An increase in heart attacks' doesn't mean anything. A 50% increase? A 0.0000001% increase? And under what circumstances, etc.

I guess this is the part that makes it hard to prove whether it's a side-effect or not. So far the only thing I've seen in some articles is an apparent increase in heart attack cases in some of the fully vaxxed but I don't think they've done a study to check whether the heart health of those people has decreased after the vaxx.

As Cnut237 mentioned, history has showed us that vaccines are unlikely to pose such risks in the long-term and most are found within the first few days. On top of that, the framework around side effects is pretty vague, every week, hundreds of people die for a variety of reasons, the chance of someone being vaccinated and dying by something else a few days or even weeks later is overlapping with statistics and it could be a simple coincidence. However, such incidents have to be recorded as possible side effects, which might have nothing to do with vaccinations themselves.

I didn't said it's not impossible, more like I'm wondering what these effects would be and how widespread they would be. Would it be something like 1/100, etc.

If I do get one and it's a very rare long-term side-effect, they I can at least tell myself that I took the right risk - it's rare and I'm just unlucky to be one of the few to get it.

If it is widespread though, I can imagine an outrage happening (assuming they can actually trace it back to the vaccine). On the bright side I'd have a lot of people to empathize with and share complaints, etc. "We Are All In This Together" amirite? 

Well of course, it's not impossible that there will be unknown effects that manifest several years (or later) down the line... but you have to ask yourself how likely this is.

A vaccine isn't like some pill that you take every day, that builds up in your body and continually replenishes itself. You only have a few doses of the vaccine, ever. Once you've had it, it degrades quickly because the substance isn't replenished, because you're not having a follow-up shot the next day. We have decades of vaccine history, and we don't have any evidence of late-manifesting effects. It's not impossible in the sense that nothing is impossible, but really it's incredibly unlikely. A vaccine is more like a set of one-time instructions to learn, rather than a continually replenishing shield.

If you drink a lot of alcohol regularly, you may get liver damage further down the line, due to cumulative damage from many years of heavy drinking.
If you never drink, but have one isolated night of heavy drinking, this isn't going to suddenly manifest as liver damage 30 years later. Your liver is either damaged right now, or it's not. There's no continually replenishing source of alcohol in your body to build up the damage.

Continuing with my Ivermectin notes from above:

Whatever 'sickness' I had for this last episode threatened to cause more joint pain than the last.  Another difference is that it is having at least some impact on my upper lungs.  I have unusually strong lungs I think just based on my history which I won't go into.  This morning I felt a little more shitty, and if I coughed hard I could even feel a little bit of pain in the upper part of my lungs.  Maybe.  Anyway, I downed two Ivermectin.

The results so far have been typical.  Noticeable relief in 4 hours, and almost complete alleviation within 6.  Now, 12 hours after the dose, I feel basically fine, but I do have dense but modest amounts of phlem in my nose and trachea at least.  I haven't been able to generate a good oyster since I quite smoking (25 years ago) and still cannot under my present condition.

At this point in my Ivermectin experiments I can with decent reliability predict what impact it will have at what times for whatever family of 'flu-like' ailments is going around my present city and country of domicile.  Many many people are complaining of very similar observations: Seemingly individual instances of ailment often with a short duration fever, and it has now been maybe 6 weeks since the complaints started.

Yeah, it appears those who suffered from immediate side-effects (like the woman I saw on TV that started bleeding in the gums and other part) seemed to be just a small portion of those who got vaccinated. The thing we probably need to observe now would be if there's any long-term effects but with the amount of people who got it and probably the time it'll take to appear, might be hard to isolate.

Indeed you are, glad to hear everyone is mending/mended!

Curious if you are willing to share at which point in the timeline the peyronie's disease occurred?

---

Sorry, I'm still a no for this 'buffet', I have no trust for the guys creating and distributing this, it's not as tested as everyone claims, and it really shouldn't even be called a 'vaccine'. I'll keep my 'buffet' desires for food.

As for injecting children with 3 shots of this, the 5-12 (or even <18) age range is definitely a no for me.

This article points out some of the reasons why I'd be concerned:
ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8437699/     [Full disclosure, a research company who appears to have done some work with Pfizer in the past has an 'expression of concern' against this article, and is "re-reviewing" it, as of December.]

I've seen no real standards in collecting or reporting, everywhere seems to do it a bit differently and much of it relies on human entry, some places seem to take word-of-mouth numbers from facilities/humans, which just opens up multiple levels of error and corruption, and then some guy at the top aggregates it, puts his spin on it, and presents it to everyone. Multiple levels of human error and/or human corruption (which stems primarily from political, social and institutional pressures) can, and will, occur.. the environment COVID and the governments have created via mandates, shutdowns, etc. help increase those pressures, and I believe further skew the data.


Data feels too inaccurate for the types of decisions being pushed on a mass scale, and solely basing it on one side of the data, it seems like an inhumane decision based on politics, finances, and minimal data & trials... combined with a big-headed scientific medical community.

I know several people who vaccinated simply due to the social stigma of being 'unvaccinated', that shouldn't happen.
Others are probably just buying/printing fake vaccination cards.  

The data doesn't feel accurate enough to make these types of blanket decisions on a mass scale.. I really don't think it can be accurate in this environment, and I think that's [at least, partially] intentionally done.

Nothing is GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) absent as much data as is needed to assess safety.  At least not before the regulators were totally bought and paid for by the entities they are supposed to be regulating.  Long term safety data associated with the particular types of lipid nanopartical formations use in the two mRNA gene therapies in question is missing, or locked up as a trade secret.  The FDA wants 70 YEARS to release this data and have gone to court to try to get it that much time.

Prior to the 'new normal' a part of 'approving' a drug was letting the victim and their doctor know what was in it (via an 'insert' which is still to my knowledge 'intentionally left blank' in all cases so far.)  The argument about 'trade secrets' is bogus because nobody else could get approval with stolen technology.


One of the main problems was that the initial story circulated to the peeps (medical professionals, John Doe, etc) is that the injection components stayed in the muscle into which it was injected.  That was a bald-faced fuckin' lie.  Authority to tell any lie necessary to get needles into arms seems to have been granted.  Maybe under 'national security' prerogatives?

Anyway, these LNPs have an affinity for certain organ tissues and migrate to them over a period of time.  The ovaries and spleen where the two main organs which had such an affinity (with Pfizer at least) and that is known because the Japanese requested the biodistribution surveys from Pfizer and the data leaked.  (Japan declined Pfizer, at least initially, and also rejected batches of Moderna which were full of metal chunks and other weird shit.)

What, exactly, the U.S. FDA knew about the bio-distribution issue remains to be seen, and again, if they get their way, that could be 70 years out.


It seems quite clear to me that if an injection is mis-applied and goes into an artery or vein, a lot more of the the LNPs than desired hit the heart.  Athletic people have bigger arteries for increased blood-flow, and probably more well functioning hearts which make them even more prone to damage when the mRNA infects heart cells.  Seems to me that the designers of the scamdemic kinda wanted to see what would happen in the case of an accidental 'mainline' because the the guidance for this intermuscular injection was to NOT aspirate which is a method whereby a person doing the injection can detect if they hit a vessel or not.

An amazing amount of stuff about this 'covid-19' operation stinks to high-heaven.  In fact, almost every aspect which can be seen at all.

mRNA technology and lipid nanoparticle tech that are used in the top two vaccines, Pfizer/BioNTech & Moderna haven't been around for decades. We understand them to be generally safe, absent of any long term data. There's research dating back years involving lipid nanoparticle cytotoxicity, and it is only recently that it's being uncovered that some of the potent side effects from the vaccines are in fact caused by LNP's and not the spike proteins formed by the mRNA. Not a bad trade if you're dealing with someone that has managed to be unexposed to COVID and has significant underlying conditions. Though I'm skeptical after 2 years of anyone that hasn't been in contact with COVID in some way.

Issue is, vaccination is being pushed onto people who don't need it (ie the naturally immune and/or young folks).

I'd say it's unreasonable to be concerned about immediate side-effects, at least if you're taking one of the major vaccines. Over 10.2 billion doses have been administered, so we have a lot of data on this. It's not like we're guessing, and it's simply not true that "the studies haven't even been done yet".

It's less unreasonable to be concerned about some unknown side-effects manifesting at some future point. Obviously we can know what happens now, but can only predict what will happen in future. Nevertheless, vaccination has a long history, and we can examine that history in order to gain a better understanding of likely future behaviour. Vaccine side-effects generally show up within a few weeks or at most a few months. We can certainly go back to the 1960s with this pattern. We can't say it's impossible that there will be delayed side-effects in future, but we can make an educated guess rather than a blind guess.

This is the issue, people are being forced to get vaccinated with mandates. Issuing a vaccine mandate, putting someone in the position to decide between their job/livelihood or getting the vaccine is forcing the vaccine. No one serious disputes the vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalization or death; surely they serve some efficacy in reducing severe COVID illness. Ignored in the "safe and effective" conversation of vaccines are the pertinent safety issues that might arise from side effects. There is no long term data on the vaccines, someone performing a cost/benefit calculation derives a different conclusion depending on their own personal circumstances. The logic doesn't hold up for a vaccine mandate with a preventative therapeutic still requires long term studies for side effects.

Do you believe it is unreasonable to be concerned about long term side effects, or even immediate side effects, when the studies haven't even been done yet?

Pre-COVID, I've never seen anyone be called an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist for inquiring about side effects from therapeutics with limited clinical trial info. I wonder what happened.

Firstly, I never mentioned that I got infected while having 3 doses administered, I had two, while almost 7 months had passed from my second dose, if that matters anyway. Although, no one is forcing anyone to get vaccinated, whether we like it or not, vaccines have been proven effective, while there's no need to worry about these so-called future side effects.

While sanitizing and wearing a mask is part of being cautious, vaccines also provide precautionary safety measures, firstly, by decreasing chances of infection, and secondly, severely decreasing chances of death or severe illness.

I'd say look at the data, and particularly the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated (as a proportion of total vaccinated and unvaccinated) for infection, hospitalisation and death. You are less likely to become infected if you've been vaccinated. You are far less likely to require hospitalisation if you've been vaccinated. You are vastly less likely to die if you've been vaccinated. I've shared the charts on this many times, as have others. We have abundant data now, so we can rely on facts rather than guesswork.


I don't think that's true.


We predict the future based on what we know in the present, which is that the vaccines are safe and effective. 10 billion doses administered, countless lives saved. "Let's not save lives because there may be serious side-effects in the future despite no evidence pointing to this" is not a valid argument.


Sanitising and wearing masks helps to slow the spread, and to save lives, yes. As does vaccination.

Nowadays I'm thinking awareness is more important.
I don't think the vaccine helps. Because people are getting infected even after getting vaccinated. Just like you got infected from Coronavirus even after getting 3 doses of vaccine!!

In every country, the government is forcibly vaccinating almost everyone. But no one is thinking about the side effects that can cause great harm in the future, the only way to keep yourself safe is to keep your hands sanitized, keep yourself clean and use a mask.