I've listened to a wide range of opinions on Ukraine, some of them by neocons. Not one of them want war in Ukraine. To the degree they have influence on US policy they are working hard to avoid it. No one besides Putin seems to want a European war.Doug, This statement would be funny if it wasn't so tragically stupid and delusional. Neocons are incorrigible war mongering evil parasites embedded in all of our institutions and media. But the herds of brain dead sheep that credulously ingest their propaganda and enable them are the bigger problem. mm
12 Likes
Yeah. Japan is also 7 times slimmer than America (obesity: 5% incidence vs 36% incidence). If you haven’t been outside lately, America is obese. Fattest large country in the world. Because - science. A fantastic healthcare system. Or whatever.
https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/
There is an 8% increase in hospitalization and death for each BMI point over 23. (HR=1.08 ^ (BMI-23)).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(21)00089-9/fulltext
As everyone now knows, the vaccines prevent neither hospitalization, nor transmission.
But - fat still kills. Someday, long after the danger is past, CNN will tell everyone. Until they permit us to know this, only the “crazies” like us will spread this tasty factoid.
BMI=40? Your COVID hospitalization & death risk is 3.7x normal.
Obesity is the anti-vaccine. Not safe at all, but very, very effective. Works for every variant.
To paraphrase Clinton - only a slight oversimplification: “its the fat, stupid.”
8 Likes
We finally agree on something. Obesity is a plague. According to noted medical expert, Bill Maher, 78% of covid deaths were obese.
1 Like
Hey Doug thanks for the response.
I can’t help but notice you dodged my central point - All Cause Mortality. No worries though, I expected that’s how it would go.
Yes my groups are unusual.
Many are healthcare workers. Double vaxxed, triple-vaxxed, quadruple-vaxxed, quintuple-vaxxed. All got COVID. My sister - unvaxxed. She got COVID too. That was all of 3 days. I have yet to get it. I’m guessing that’s due to artemisia annua, but that’s a story for another time. A couple of those HCWs got a “reversible stroke” from their “safe” vaccine. Another got tinnitus and sleep disregulation for a month. COVID wasn’t as impactful. You try to sleep after your 12-hour hospital shift with a noise ringing in your ear that nobody else can hear - for a month. Oh but I know. “Safe and effective.” That one got COVID too. Because the vaccine works. A pair of SAEs plus no protection at all. “Safe & Effective.”
Kinda like: “WMD in Iraq.” You know they are lying - when their lips are moving. I notice you never talk about WMD in Iraq either. Why is that, do we think?
Who said anything about invading Russia? I’m talking about fighting a war within Ukraine. Kinda like we did in South Vietnam. “To save South Vietnam” from the evil North Vietnamese. 50 years later, how did that go again? Everyone is all friends. (Minus the 50,000 dead US servicemen, and all the PTSD from the conflict.) Same thing here.
Ukraine: Not a US strategic interest. Its not, it never has been, it never will be. (Plus, there’s the Nazi thing. But they try to keep that one quiet. Ssssh, don’t talk about that.) And a horribly corrupt country. How about we focus on our sphere of influence, and let Russia focus on theirs?
Besides, we’ve vaxxed our warfighters. They won’t do well anyway.
I hear Xi laughing in the background.
[EDIT]
Thanks for the note of agreement. Obesity is definitely a plague. But every cloud has its silver lining: the obesity epidemic provides a huge overhang of chronic disease that Pharma can charge big money to treat - for decades, and decades, and decades. Higher cancer incidence - that one alone is worth fattening America up over. Its almost like the population is a big Milk Cow. Or something.
7 Likes
Doug,
There are more problems with the “effective vaccine narrative” than just that.
Japan can’t get credit for having a lower death rate than the United States (based upon the vaccine) since Japan started vaccinating later. They should have had a higher death rate per capita since they went longer into the pandemic “without protection.” But they didn’t have a higher death rates per capita than the USA. They had a lower death rate than the USA. Thus comparing death rates to the United States doesn’t support vaccine efficacy. The overall difference in death rates between the two countries was undoubtedly due to diet and factors such as obesity.
But after the Japanese were vaccinated, it made no difference. As soon as Omicron came around the Japanese death rates spiked. And, importantly, that “spike in deaths” did not happen in countries with lower vaccination rates.
For instance, in South Africa, a largely unvaccinated country. Cases increased with Omicron but deaths did not skyrocket, as happened in Japan. In South Africa, deaths increased a bit but did not skyrocket like in Japan.
So Japan (highly vaccinated) ended up with more cases and many more deaths. In South Africa (very few vaccinated) there were more cases with Omicron but only a slight increase in deaths. It seems like the vaccine has negative efficacy in preventing deaths.
Indeed, in Denmark the vaccine has been shown to have negative efficacy.
So I think that there is more than a little evidence that the vaccine fails the “efficacy” test.
6 Likes
Everyone else in my circle who got sick was double or triple jabbed. One poor person is on bout 2 now, disabled for 2 weeks each time.
OK, I got it too, so can’t be too smug. It is happy fact for me that I didn’t have to risk blood clots, myocarditis, paralysis, seizures and so on to get my immunity. My immune system is one of my most favorite people these days. No WAY am I going to subject it to whatever they’ve put in the latest batches. Nuh-Uh.
I mean, by now everybody knows the jabs don’t work on Omicron anyway. See page 30 below if anybody forgot to pay attention last month.
https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11089/22-01-12-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf
And then there is this, which is just grisly but needs to be seen.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/keoCmPh3vuiG/
The weird thing is how nobody cares that they got the triple jabs AND got sick from CV. Baffling.
Susan
8 Likes
They think the vaccine kept their bout with COVID from being worse. I hear that all the time.
3 Likes
Yes, there are differences between countries and cultures. It’s all scientifically interesting and will be researched in the long run. We need to keep in mind that this is still a new virus and we have been playing catch up since the beginning. The catch is to distinguish between actual science and conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, this site and other right wing sources tend toward the latter.
Doug,
With all respect, I am providing facts. And there are many more facts that I could provide to show that the vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Others here have done the same in relation to your assertion that the vaccines are “safe and effective.” A reply that simply says that the people here tend to be “conspiracy theorists” really does not advance your original position that the vaccines were “safe and effective.”
And I really don’t think it is fair for you to characterize this site as a “right wing site.” Many of the posters here, including myself, long considered themselves to be left wing. Many of them, including myself, abandoned progressive political parties when the “progressives” sided with multi-national drug companies to try to compel the injection of experimental treatments of dubious efficacy and safety on the citizenry en masse.
These are legitimate issues being raised in good faith by the people here. We are legitimately concerned with public/private misfeasance and denial of the most basic of human rights.
6 Likes
How many videos of Chris have you watched and is there a particular one that is feeding “conspiracy theories” rather than looking at if from a scientific view?
3 Likes
This site gives you the incidence of various adverse events associated with vaccines.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
You’ll have to do some clicking around, but generally the incidence of adverse events measure in the single digits out of millions vaccinated. And those are not necessarily causative, just associated with having been vaccinated.
This site takes you to the stats of effectiveness along with academic research:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/effectiveness-research/protocols.html
This is just one test:
TABLE 2. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among health care personnel case-patients and controls, by number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received before SARS-CoV-2 test date — 33 U.S. sites, January–March 2021
| Interval from dose to test date | No. (%) | Vaccine effectiveness† % (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case-patients* (N = 623) | Controls* (N = 1,220) | Unadjusted | Adjusted§ | |
| Dose 1 | ||||
| ≥14 days | 64 (10) | 241 (20) | 82.2 (75.1–87.3) | 81.7 (74.3–86.9) |
| Dose 2 | ||||
| ≤2 days | 5 (<1) | 109 (9) | ||
| 3–6 days | 16 (3) | 85 (7) | ||
| ≥7 days | 19 (3) | 184 (15) | 93.4 (86.4–96.8) | 93.5 (86.5–96.9) |
1 Like
Doug,
Here is some information on the issues of safety and efficacy.
Vaccine Is Not Safe
The last time I checked, (which was a while back) there were a minimum of 725,000 Covid vaccine injuries recorded in VAERS, there are over 15,000 deaths reported to VAERS with one-third of those deaths occurring within 48 hours of receiving the vaccine. And the VAERS numbers are conceded to understate the actual amount of adverse events. The understatement may be as much as 100 unreported cases to 1 actually reported cases.
In fact, the nation of Taiwan had reported more Vaccine-related deaths than Covid 19 deaths and people have been permanently injured by the vaccine.
And in Heidelberg, Germany autopsies have confirmed a direct link of at least 30 to 40% of the suspected vaccine deaths to the actions of the vaccine.
Vaccine is Not Effective
Although the vaccine makers claimed 95% effectiveness. They were talking about relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction.
Absolute risk reduction is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine and considers the whole population. ARR tells us about the effectiveness of that vaccine-related to an individual. ARR is considered to be the more valid measure of the efficacy of a vaccine.
Absolute risk reduction
https://drjessesantiano.com/know-the-absolute-risk-reduction-of-the-covid-19-vaccines/
The absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is .84%, that is, less than a one percent reduction in risk.
The real world absolute risk reduction found in Israel was only .46 percent, that is, less than one half of one percent.
And that protection is only temporary, even against a single variant.
By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, even the relative risk reduction measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The relative risk effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.
And most strikingly, the relative risk reduction of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.
https://news.yahoo.com/study-shows-dramatic-decline-effectiveness-025801001.html
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2.full.pdf+html
And against the Omicron variant the vaccines literally had negative effectiveness. In other words, you were more likely to get severely ill if you had gotten the vaccine than if you had remained unvaccinated.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/theres-something-antigenic-in-denmark
Negative efficacy is reported right out of the official reports of Public Health - Scotland.
https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11089/22-01-12-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf
See Page 36-37
4 Likes
No come on Doug. That’s unfair. Call a spade a spade.
Where, which video. Tell me.
Doug,
In my limited circle, in the last six months, about a dozen friends or relatives have either died or gotten life altering seriously ill. ALL have been fully vaxxed, some with booster shots. It’s disturbing watching people suddenly get sick and even die. Even today, I’m waiting for my oldest’s future mother in law to pass. She had bad leg clotting, they put a stint in and then clot(s?) moved to her heart and damaging a valve, which is been replaced TWICE now, and it still leaks.
Close friend who is upset with me for staying a true blood, he is suddenly developing massive non localized pains, and none of the doctors can explain it.
Clotting, heart damage, failed kidneys, sudden cancer, strokes, even covid.
9 Likes
Hey Doug! Thanks for providing the data that backs up your worldview. Things make more sense now.
Did you check the date on that MMWR?
You are relying on data that dates back to Jan-March 2021.
[Sympathies to your inability to copy the table - happens to me all the time too - hope the new site is better]
We know, a year later, that the shots don’t last very long. And most especially, they no longer work for Omicron at all. So this MMWR is literally the best case you could ever get: during the period of max vax efficacy, focused on Alpha - a strain of the virus where the shot had a chance of working. This strain no longer exists.
Some fun questions. If the shots work, why do we need boosters? And now, booster-boosters? And soon - booster-booster-boosters?
And why did all my HCW vaxxed, triple-vaxxed, quadruple-vaxxed nurses - why did they all get COVID? Especially omicron?
They did their duty, suffered their SAEs, and got no protection. Most were young enough that this would have been a 3-day event, much like it was for my sister. Wait - that’s not fair - my sister got early treatment. The nurses wouldn’t have received early treatment, because the top-down healthcare system largely doesn’t believe it exists. But I digress.
But my central point - which remains unaddressed by your MMWR - is that the shots kill more than they save. That’s Pfizer’s own data, from their very own gold-standard RCT.
All cause mortality, in a gold-standard RCT, is the top level of evidence in the hierarchy. Anything else is just “nonsense” - by comparison.
Shots. Kill. More. Than. They. Save.
As for that “right wing” label - just curious, does contributing to Obama’s campaign in 2008 qualify me as “right wing”? I guess “Team Oligarchy” considers Obama to be “right wing” these days.
I do admit though, turnabout is fair play. I suggested that Doug was a rule-following bureaucrat who had difficulty coloring outside the lines, and he came back by suggesting I’m “right wing.” Fair is fair.
But this is a new piece of information. Obama = right wing! Who knew?
4 Likes
Dave, There is even a deeper problem with the study quoted by Doug.
As is typically done in the studies of efficacy, that study waited a specified number of days after the first and second shots before checking to see if someone was infected.
However, that would give misleading results if - during that delay - the injections served to decrease natural immunity causing more infections just after the shots. In that way the shots would be reported as decreasing infection - since the post shot infections would be counted as infections of “unvaccinated” since the infection occurred during the “wait” period - even though the shots themselves caused a greater rate of infection.
And, for the same reason, make it look as if it was the “unvaccinated” who were getting more infections. This would due to the way “unvaccinated” is defined (by including a delay after the injection and treating infections in the period as being infections of the “unvaccinated.”) It would, thus, factor out the increased infections due to the vaccination itself.
In fact, there is evidence that this happens. The study below noted that there was an a decrease in Type 1 interferon after vaccination. Type 1 interferon is a key factor in many types of immune response.
Comprehensive investigations revealed consistent pathophysiological alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines
There it was noted that:
Surprisingly, type I interferon responses, which had been linked to reduced damages after SARS-CoV-2 infection and milder symptoms, appeared to be reduced after vaccination, at least by 28 days post the 1st inoculation. This might suggest that in the short-term (1 month) after vaccination, a person’s immune system is in a non-privileged state, and may require more protection.See also: Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs
2 Likes
Mike-
Yeah, if you don’t define “fully vaccinated” until 14 days post-vaccination, then you get to define-away the immune suppression that happens in days 1-14 days.
A good point, one I forgot.
There’s a reason why they defined “vaccinated” as “after 14 days.”
5 Likes
So, some commenters say they know loads of people who’ve suffered badly from the vaccines, whilst others state they know no-one who has. No-one here know who is telling the truth on that. Scientific research is one way to look at the real story and Chris used to place a lot of weight on peer reviewed science. Parroting VAERS (or similar systems) is not scientific, in the least. What is clear is that we’ll never get the full story from, mostly anonymous, commenters on this site, including myself.
1 Like
I can agree using VAERS isn’t research, but it’s telling the number of people who get added. Think about an approved drug that has this many entries, would normally be pulled from the market, but not this one. Why?
3 Likes
Science is a highly cerebral, expensive, and time consuming activity. When our ancestors roamed the savanna’s, there wasn’t any scientific proof that saber tooth tigers were always dangerous. Still, a heuristics was developed, and autonomous bodily reactions to perceived, unproven threats. If some of our ancestors would have demanded proof to guide our actions, we wouldn’t have this discussion at all.
There is a hierarchy of proof, unbeknownst to many people, the holy RCT isn’t without some pretty severe flaws, but it is touted as the best we (will ever?) have. Anecdotes are the lowest in this hierarchy. Still, in absence of time, and resources, actions could, and imo, should be based on anecdotes. And as time progresses, knowledge increases so we can adapt out actions and policies accordingly.
Wrt Vaers. This could be considered as a set of (ever growing) anecdotes. Within the highly cerebral and myopic paradigm of “we need proof”, this is the best we have as long as MSM, “science”, politicians, managers, psychopaths prevent actual research. The sheer fact that there is this thread about why JAMA would have published the myocarditis paper is an actual indication of the suppression. “They” repress actual research, and then say that anecdotes have no value.
For me anecdotes are sufficient to guide my first responses, and I adapt once knowledge increases.
But, there is also information in the suppression itself, the fact of the so-called lack of actual proof by suppression, gives me information about the nature of this missing proof. Is this science? Actually yes. Classical statisticians could use Bayesian inference. I use information theory. The details go to far, it is a highly technical subject, but the “information” send in the form “no events” given Vaers containing events, is close to 1 bit…
The method is, imo simpler than a Bayesian approach. We consider the times that Vaers did trigger a change in policy, of course we should incorporate a temporal delay. Historically, once 25 deaths were reported, flags were raised. This would lead to papers about the suspected issues. So, the “communication chain” would be:
Vaers —>Papers —>Action.
To get an idea about how to interpret this:
- If Vaers “sends” out a “0” (zero), e.g., deaths below a certain threshold, then
- the amount of research papers finding severe side effects is larger than the amount of papers finding nothing “1”, or, it will be “0”. The latter means that there are more papers reporting nothing than papers reporting severe effects.
- This will trigger an action: either retract’ “1”, or continue “0”.
- only peer reviewed papers could trigger an action.
- I furthermore assumed that peer reviewed papers have a huge inpact on policy. The model can be finetuned. Populated with more precise data.
- Vaers signal =1 leads to a follow up. So, the probability if ignoring several signals on a row —every time 5o more deaths are added— leads to a response in Papers and Actions.
6 Likes