Wow, I’m really impressed with Maajid. Imo, one of the best postcasts I’ve ever listened to.
It is pretty long, 3 hours. I will not summarize it, simply because it is worth to be listened to…
(link)
Question to Chris: maybe a candidate as a future guest?
4 Likes
Just listening to this now. Brilliant interview. He is just so articulate and incisive. I highly recommend listening to it. Starts getting topical at the 1 hour mark (before is also very interesting but a summary of his background). One quote from the 1.44 mark that says it all:
“When there’s no such thing as truth, there’s no such thing as reality. And when you can’t define reality, the only thing that matters is power, because power gets to define reality.”
I also think he would be a great PP guest speaker.
5 Likes
‘Apologise’ Rogan
no excuse George Gammon and Alf Peccatiello
https://the-rebel-capitalist-show.simplecast.com/episodes/alf-wMMTHS6d
here’s an earth shattering revelation for you. YOU WILL NEVER GET FULL STORY FROM ANYONE.
there feel better now.
oh btw vaers is perfectly scientific. it is one of many data sets.
3 Likes
No not that #metoo.
I also just finished Rogan & Maajid Nawaz. He’s a no-bullshit kinda guy. Very smart, deep thinker, connects-the-dots, comes with “receipts.”
He used to work for media in the UK. Got fired for (my view) being too old-school about free speech, honest inquiry - the usual. My favorite part:
The Southern Poverty Law Center called him an “anti-Muslim extremist”. (They put him on a “list”). That worked out…poorly for SPLC:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/
At the very same moment, Reuters had a 20-page “terrorism” profile of him on a confidential list called “world-check” - Reuters lost this lawsuit too.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pak7wb/exclusive-secret-blacklist-marking-innocents-as-terrorists-continues-to-grow
How can you be an anti-muslim extremist at the same time you’re a terrorist? The Irony of a woke-security-state.
The world-check list alone is worth reading about.
I digress. This is a super-awesome must-see interview. Another win for Joe Rogan and the long-form-interview. At the end, Joe said that he could do another 15 of these interviews with Maajid Nawaz.
Watch it in stages. 3 hours is a lot of time to block out.
5 Likes
Outside analysis of the VAERS data was completed by experts in June, 2021 to ascertain the degree to which there is causality between vaccines and deaths.
The analysis determined that “there were only 14% of the cases for which a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death.” The report is linked below.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352837543_Analysis_of_COVID-19_vaccine_death_reports_from_the_Vaccine_Adverse_Events_Reporting_System_VAERS_Database_Interim_Results_and_Analysis/link/60dc44c9a6fdccb745f48fc7/download
There are several reports regarding the degree of historical undercounting in VAERS. Below are 2:
https://openvaers.com/images/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-20116.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk/link/61b02f99c2e267424d0fd474/download
Based on the above reports, deaths are between 20x and 100x undercounted in VAERS.
As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned, as an example, if 10 people are asked whether they saw a car accident and 5 people say yes, while 5 people say no, I would conclude that an accident occurred. I would not conclude that an accident did not occur if 5 people say they did not see it while 5 said they saw it. I would not wait for a peer reviewed study on the matter.
This looks like a car wreck to me:
I can’t believe anyone is still questioning this.
4 Likes
I can't believe anyone is still questioning this.None of the critical thinkers here question it Kevin.. just a few of those defenders of the status quo that come here to regurgitate their learnings from MSNBC. As those of us with an open mind know, the evidence stack showing these mRNA injections to be harmful is broad and wide. Many of us could see the early treatment suppression sausage making in real time, before the "vaccines" were even available, and realized that humanity was being railroaded into an injection-only solution. This did not bode well for the "solution" and those fears have been borne out. The trail of vaccine damage can be viewed from many perspectives; Case studies of vaccine damage: https://twitter.com/DrJohnB2 Places where people who want their voices heard call out for help; 12,400 here; https://twitter.com/theysayitsrare > 19,000 and counting in the comments here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb1Xm1uaedU VAERS, European yellow card, DoD database whistleblower data... all saying the same thing, signaling immensely anomalous levels of damage for a "vaccine". And who can forget the Indiana Life insurance exec. decrying a 10 sigma, 40 increase in death for working age folks.
5 Likes
Brzeziński ‘The grand chessboard’ 1997
pdf download
The analysis didn’t do any clinical investigation. You highlight the 14% that ruled out the vaccine being the cause but didn’t mention that the analysis also stated, “For 203 of the 250 (81%) the vaccine may have been a factor in their death; however, many of these patients had one or more chronic or age-related comorbid conditions. Finally, for at least 13 of the 250 deaths (5%) the vaccine was the most likely cause of death;
these patients had strong reactions soon after vaccination and died either on the same day, or during the next couple of days.” The reason given for grouping in the last group is fairly unscientific. And estimates of underreporting are just estimates, and the second link is to a preprint that hasn’t yet been published, as far as I can tell, despite being dated October 2021. That first link is an old piece of research that suggests an overall under-reporting, not stratified for serious events nor during a highly public campaign where reporting of events was a condition of the emergency use authorisation.
I can well believe people would not just believe that VAERS is anything other than a useful tool for identifying trends after proper investigation.
2 Likes
As those of us with an open mind knowAn open mind doesn't blindly believe the data in VAERS is scientific evidence of anything. An open mind might wonder why there are not now billions of deaths from the more than 10 billion doses of vaccines, or at least severe economic downturns from billions of people being seriously ill from vaccines. An open mind might realise that the true story may not be the official narrative nor the unofficial narrative that contrarians would have us believe.
4 Likes
I think most people agree that VAERS is a useful tool for identifying vaccine safety trends that require investigation to enable making conclusions regarding causality. The CDC and FDA co-own the VAERS database and are responsible for assessing and reporting on the trends to fulfill their duty as regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public.
I’m not aware of any FDA/CDC report(s) that provide thorough explanation for the increase in adverse event rates and that provide comprehensive proof that there is proof of no causality. The close temporal proximity of events to vaccinations indicates causation. Given that this is a safety related question, the burden of proof lies with the people who’s job is is to ensure safety, not with the outside observers who question the obvious safety trends.
Regarding the comment to the statement that “203 of the 250 (81%) the vaccine may have been a factor in their death; however, many of these patients had one or more chronic or age-related comorbid conditions.” However these deaths are categorized, we should consider being consistent with how we categorize the ~90% age and comorbid related conditions in the the official Covid death count since the trends show similar characteristics.
Regarding the comment that reports regarding under reporting are not peer reviewed; There are other recent evaluations by knowledgeable sources with similar conclusions regarding significant under reporting. I’m not aware of any reports that conclude that adverse events with mRNA/adenovirus Covid vaccines are not under reported. I’ll take non peer reviewed reports by knowledgeable sources over no data.
Regarding the comment that safety is measured on a per dose basis; I suggest that vaccine related morbidity and mortality risks should be measured on a per person basis rather than a per dose basis. No one is going to care if it was the 1st dose or the 4th dose if their loved one is injured or dies.
In the opinion of many, the performance of the FDA and CDC has been disgraceful. Absent proper investigation, data transparency***, and comprehensive independently reviewed reports authored by the people who are responsible for reporting on it, the data trends and imperfect outside evaluative reports are the best tools we have. The degree of under reporting and causality, as well as the possible change in both of these over time needs to be quantified by the people responsible for doing so. This is not easy from the outside looking in. Based on the data, under reporting and causality cannot be summarily dismissed.
I stand by my previous post that VAERS trends along with existing imperfect evaluative evidence indicates a car wreck has occurred. “Car wreck” was used earlier in honor of Anthony Fauci’s recent senate hearing statement that ~“if someone gets vaccinated then goes out and gets hit by a car, this can be reported into VAERS as a vaccine death.” Filing a false report in VAERS is a federal crime punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment per 18 U.S. Code § 1001.
-------------------------------------------------
Everyone will get Covid-19. As such, we should evaluate vaccines and boosters from a personal risk perspective rather than on a population basis. Several months ago, I developed a simple but pretty complete model that estimates age stratified risk of hospitalization and death from covid for unvaccinated people using published estimated infection mortality rates versus risk of covid + vaccination + boosters for vaccinated people using various assumptions for VAERS applicability, along with published reports regarding waning of vaccine and booster effectiveness over time. It’s odd that I have not seen this type of personal risk assessment elsewhere.
With this in mind, I believe that:
- Data does not support Covid vaccination and boosters from a personal risk perspective, particularly for young people and since proven effective prevention and treatments exist.
- With the advent of Omicron, for most people, Covid vaccine risks outweigh the benefits when multiple boosters are taken into account. This could change if a significantly more virulent and infectious variant emerges.
- For people who decide to get on the Covid vaccine and booster regimen, they should do so with informed consent based on awareness of existing field data, emerging information, and information that is not yet known about longer term risks.
- Use of existing multiple known Covid prevention and treatment options should be supported for all people.
- Based on 1-4, Covid vaccines should not be required for anyone.
4 Likes
I'm not aware of any FDA/CDC report(s) that provide thorough explanation for the increase in adverse event rates and that provide comprehensive proof that there is proof of no causality. The close temporal proximity of events to vaccinations indicates causation.Whilst I agree that there should be reports on VAERS data (I have no idea if there is though I've seen reports on similar databases elsewhere) no explanation is needed for any rate of reporting. It is the contents of the database that should be reported on after investigation. I also disagree that proximity of events indicates causation. It can only indicate that there may be causation.
Perhaps our friends from the Vaccine Church can explain the German insurance company data? “For some mysterious reason” the number of claims to the company in Q2 2021 increased by a factor of 34 vs Q2 2020.
This chart is the number of claims filed for code T88.1 = other complications after vaccination [immunization] not elsewhere classified.
From the document located here:
https://bkk-provita.de/aktuelles/erlaeuternde-auswertungen-zum-schreiben-an-das-paul-ehrlich-institut/
Note: this insurance company provides coverage to German citizens, who must make a claim if they need medical care. This code (T88.1) was just one out of 4.
Looks like “this isn’t your father’s vaccine.”
2 Likes
Right on schedule… Gotta blame trump.
Suddenly the vax was never properly studied
2 Likes