More doctors disagreeing forcefully with mainstream safe/effective and stating the mRNA JABS ARE DANGEROUS. But... uh, GWB knows better than the medical pros, don't he? There follows a public statement by a group of five senior Swedish doctors who, in collaboration with Dr. Johan Eddebo, a researcher in digitalisation and human rights, are raising the alert about the Covid vaccines, which they describe as “obviously dangerous”. They say there should be an “immediate halt” to the mass vaccination pending “thorough investigations” of the true incidence and severity of adverse effects. The true character and scope of the harm caused by the unprecedented mass vaccinations for COVID-19 is just now beginning to become clear. Leading scientific journals have finally begun publishing data corroborating what the underground research community has observed over the last two years, especially in relation to complex problems of immune suppression. Truly concerning numbers pertaining to both births and mortality are also emerging. At this moment in time, a new, allegedly super-infectious Omicron variant is all over the headlines. A sub-variant of XXB, this strain is said to possess immune escape capabilities of precisely the type that some independent researchers predicted would follow on the heels of the mass vaccinations’ narrow antigenic fixation. The WHO maintains that worldwide, 10,000 people still die due to Covid every single day, an implausible death toll more than ten times that of an average flu. It reiterates the urgent need for vaccinations, especially in light of China’s reopening and allegedly falsified data on mortality and infections. The EU has even called an emergency summit in light of the purported Chinese “Covid chaos” that “calls to mind how everything began in Wuhan, three years ago”. In Sweden, the Minister for Health and Social Affairs has said he cannot rule out new restrictions, and states that everyone must take “their three doses”, since “only” 85% of the population is ‘fully inoculated’. That such an extensive vaccine coverage has not yielded better results after nearly two years is a remarkable fact. Even more so in light of some individuals receiving four or more repeated exposures to the same vaccine antigen, yet still contracting the disease they are supposedly immunised against. At the same time, even more ominous warning signs abound. One such warning sign is the fact that average mortality in many Western states is still at a remarkably high level, in spite of the direct effects of the coronavirus being marginal for more than a year. Data from EuroMOMO indicate a marked excess mortality in the EU for all of 2022, and the German Bureau of Statistics reports that the country’s mortality in October was more than 19% over the median value of the preceding years. Is this due to Covid, as the WHO’s ’10 000 per day’ figure would seem to indicate? Blame is placed at the feet of ‘Long Covid‘ as well as the regular acute infections, but according to the EuroMOMO and Our World in Data stats, the bulk of the excess deaths in Europe during 2022 are actually not due to clinically manifest coronavirus infections. Moreover, we shouldn’t see continued excess deaths from a respiratory virus of this kind after three years of global exposure due to the inevitable consolidation of natural immunity. If such a situation persists, the hypothetical connection to a vaccine-related immunity suppression that just now has come into focus becomes pertinent to investigate in detail. If, as has been argued, the vaccinations, and especially the boosters, alter the immune profile of recipients such that Covid infections get ‘tolerated’ by the immune system, it’s possible that vaccinated individuals will tend towards a situation of long-term, repeat infections that do not get cleared, and do not present with obvious symptoms, while still promoting systemic damage. The literature now indicates an extensive substitution in the vaccinated of virus-neutralising antibodies for non-inflammatory ones, a ‘class switch’ from antibodies that work towards clearing the virus from our system, to a category of antibodies whose purpose is to desensitise us to irritants and allergens. The net effect is that the inflammatory response to Covid infection gets down-regulated (reduced). This means that full-blown infections will present with milder symptoms, and that they won’t get cleared as effectively (partly since fever and inflammation are essential to your body getting rid of a pathogen). That these developments alone aren’t cause for an immediate halt to the mass vaccinations, as well as thorough investigations, is astonishing. There is of course another, and more well-known, potential partial explanation of the surprising excess mortality. We have indications of clotting disorders connected to the Covid vaccines, evident in a new major Nordic study, while repeated studies evidence a clear correlation between heart disease and Covid vaccination (see Le Vu et al., Karlstad et al. and Patone et al.). A newly published Thai study moreover indicated that almost a third of the vaccinated youth enrolled exhibited cardiovascular manifestations, and a yet unpublished Swiss study suggests that as many as 3% of everyone vaccinated manifest heart muscle damage. And as stated above, we also see signals pertaining to fertility disturbances connected to the Covid vaccines. An Israeli study shows impaired motility and sperm concentrations after both Pfizer and Moderna vaccination. The safety committee of the European Medicines Agency has also affirmed that the vaccines may cause menstrual disturbances, and Pfizer’s own studies indicate that the lipid nanoparticles of the mRNA-vaccines cluster in the reproductive organs. The hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccinations influence fertility is supported by a significant and unprecedented decline in the Swedish birth rate during the first months of 2022. According to Swedish demographers, the decline is ”surprising”. There are similar data from many other Western countries, and to continue the mass vaccinations for low-risk groups such as children or pregnant women is utterly irresponsible – especially since the vaccinations do little or nothing to stop the spread as was initially promised, and is often still falsely maintained. One hopes that the hypothesis of a decline in birth rates due to the vaccinations can be falsified through a thorough and independent investigation as soon as possible. The numbers are truly worrying. Yet the fact that Pfizer’s data pertaining to fertility disturbances had been hidden away and needed to be discovered through a FOIA request is typical for the entire situation. There’s almost no independent public debate on these issues, and critical perspectives are actively suppressed by the major digital platforms. Public watchdogs such as the European Medicines Agency are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and often base their recommendations on Big Pharma’s in-house studies. The independence of our scientific and academic institutions is threatened, and we see a confluence between scientific research, private corporate interests and political and ideological objectives on every level. To place a digital filter of censorship on top of all of this, where proprietary algorithms micromanage the flow of information and the public debate in accordance with the intentions of their owners, in practice means to abolish the open democratic society and independent scientific research. Recent disclosures also show that the digital platforms have actively worked towards suppressing critical perspectives on the Covid policies and the mass vaccinations. Twitter has for this purpose developed clandestine censorship strategies and employed so-called ‘shadowbanning’ with the effect of an almost undetectable suppression of the visibility of posts and accounts connected to undesirable perspectives and analyses. Facebook took down more than seven million posts to influence the debate on Covid only during the second quarter of 2020. YouTube has banned publishing of video material that contains critical perspectives on the Covid vaccinations. Such content is designated ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ whether or not it is supported by relevant data. These kinds of measures have very serious consequences. Digitalisation’s centralised control of the flow of information doesn’t just affect policy on the local and regional level, but also influences the way in which scientific and journalistic work can be designed and carried out. It creates structures that immediately repress heterodox views and silences critical voices through fear and indirect persecution. Public trust in our common institutions will inevitably be eroded by this development. The open society now desperately needs a renaissance. The democratic and scientific discourses must be rebuilt from the ground up, and in a way which respects the new and unique risks of our contemporary situation, and which protects and emphasises the responsibility of the individual citizen. Key to this in our current predicament is to press on with critical questions pertaining to the obviously dangerous mass vaccinations and to investigate the corruption of our political and scientific institutions that the Covid situation has shed light on. It is critical that we immediately begin to remedy the significant damage that has been rendered to global public health, and to the open society as such. Johan Eddebo, Ph.D, researcher in digitalisation and human rights Sture Blomberg, MD, Ph.D, Associate Professor in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and former senior physician Ragnar Hultborn, Professor Emeritus, specialist in oncology Sven Román, MD, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, since 2015 Consultant Psychiatrist working in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry throughout Sweden Lilian Weiss, Associate Professor, specialist in surgery Nils Littorin, resident in psychiatry, MD in clinical microbiology The authors are members of the bio-medico-legal network of Läkaruppropet. They are organising a conference in Stockholm on January 21st-22nd in conjunction with the Swedish Doctors’ Appeal network. Its main focus will be on the consequences of the global COVID-19 politics and the effects of the Covid vaccines.
The British medical community has strongly condemned the nonsense from this Covidiot being pushed on BBC. They have demanded the BBC apologize for pushing misinformation from this anti-vax liar as well as outlining the actual facts --- coupled with all the previous misinformation pushed by Assem Malhortra. BBC criticised for letting cardiologist ‘hijack’ interview with false Covid jab claim Aseem Malhotra’s ‘misguided’ views linking some Covid vaccines to excess heart disease deaths should not have aired, say experts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...otra-links-covid-jabs-to-heart-disease-deaths The BBC has come under fire from scientists for interviewing a cardiologist who claimed certain Covid vaccines could be behind excess deaths from coronary artery disease. Experts have criticised Dr Aseem Malhotra’s appearance on the corporation’s news channel on Friday, accusing him of pushing “extreme fringe” views, which are “misguided”, “dangerous” and could mislead the public. Scientists have described the doctor as “hijacking” an interview on statins to air his views, causing BBC staff to be “alarmed and embarrassed” by their booking. Malhotra recently retweeted a video by the MP Andrew Bridgen, who had the Tory whip removed on Wednesday after comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust. After criticising new guidance on statins, he cited British Heart Foundation (BHF) figures that suggested there had been more than 30,000 excess deaths linked to heart disease since Covid first arrived. Malhotra, a cardiologist at ROC Private Clinic, claimed mRNA Covid vaccines play a role, saying his “own research” showed “Covid mRNA vaccines do carry a cardiovascular risk”. He added that he has called for the vaccine rollout to be suspended pending an inquiry because of the “uncertainty” behind excess deaths. The BHF has said that, while Covid infections probably contributed significantly during the first year of the pandemic, ambulance delays, inaccessible care and lengthy waiting lists are now the key factors. Malhotra has become a vocal figure for hesitancy about Covid vaccines, claiming they pose a greater threat than the virus itself – a view repeatedly debunked by factcheckers. On Friday, he reiterated his claim the jabs were a likely cause of his father’s death. Peter Openshaw, a professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London, was also interviewed by the BBC on Friday. “I did a rapid response interview on the BBC news channel this morning to say that vaccine side-effects very, very rare in comparison with the preventable risks of Covid-19. The staff seemed alarmed and embarrassed that they had given him [Malhotra] a platform,” he tweeted. Dr Stephen Griffin, a virologist at the University of Leeds, said: “I am genuinely astonished by the BBC allowing someone with a known extreme fringe view on mRNA vaccines and the extent to which they are associated with cardiovascular problems to either hijack an interview on a tenuously related topic to express these views, or indeed to appear at all following even a cursory background check.” Prof Marc Dweck, the chair of clinical cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian: “I think that Dr Malhotra’s opinions on both statins and Covid vaccines are misguided and in fact dangerous. The vast majority of cardiologists do not agree with his views and they are not based upon robust science. “I would strongly urge patients to disregard his comments, which seem to be more concerned with furthering his profile (he does not have a cardiology career to speak of) rather than the wellbeing of the public. The BBC should not provide a platform for his views and should go to much greater lengths to research the people they invite to comment.” The BHF said: “The scientific consensus is that the benefits of Covid-19 vaccination, including a reduced risk of severe illness or death, far outweigh the very small risk of rare side-effects.” A BBC spokesperson said: “Dr Aseem Malhotra was invited on to the BBC News Channel to talk about the latest Nice recommendations on statins. During the discussion he made unprompted claims about the Covid mRNA vaccine. “We then asked Prof Peter Openshaw, who represents the overwhelming scientific consensus on the vaccine, to be interviewed on air on this topic and he challenged and rebutted the claims that had been made.” Malhotra told the Guardian: “Medical science is ever-evolving – discussing new developments openly is hard because the complicit media wants to only frame mRNA as right or wrong, to conflate mRNA vaccine debate as an entire attack on all vaccines, and to politicise views as left or right. “I’ve promoted vaccines my entire career, including Covid vaccines on Good Morning Britain in early 2021. Labelling individuals who flag mRNA vaccine concerns as anti-vaxxers – pursuing personal attacks rather than analysing the latest data (with now overwhelming evidence of serious and common cardiac harms) and who funds it – sows public distrust and leads to a dangerous fall in safe vaccine uptake.” Dr Matt Kneale, the co-chair of the Doctors’ Association, said Malhotra’s appearance was “deeply dangerous behaviour” and called on the General Medical Council to take action.
Vaccine clearly working great at sending people to hospital with Covid. NSW, Australia. Unvaxxed is left side of each chart. Most vaxxed is right side.
So tell us what percentage of the Australian population is vaccinated. You do understand that the intent of a vaccination campaign is to have most of the hospital admissions to be vaccinated --- because there are so few unvaccinated in the community. Do you understand the concept of base rate fallacy. Get back to us with figures on what percentage of the unvaccinated population is hospitalized versus the percentage of the vaccinated population that is hospitalized. This is the only meaningful figure.
What proof that the jabs are crap today? Ooh, I know. Let's post official government data that shows the vexines are killing children! https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland analysis: https://expose-news.com/2023/01/17/fauci-lied-hundreds-thousands-children-died/
This has already been debunked as complete bullshiat quite a while ago in September. Of course, the anti-vax clowns are circulating this nonsense again. During the majority of this time period in the U.K. only very high risk children were vaccinated. Let's provide the facts. UK data skewed to claim vaccines raise child mortality rates https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/uk-data-skewed-to-claim-vaccines-raise-child-mortality-rates/ WHAT WAS CLAIMED Children in England vaccinated against COVID-19 are 13,633 per cent more likely to die with the virus and 4423 per cent more likely to die from any cause. OUR VERDICT Misleading. High-risk children were more likely to be vaccinated. The data does not account for health differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. A New Zealand group, which advocates against COVID-19 jabs for children, claims in a social media post that data shows vaccinated children in England are 13,633 per cent more likely to die with COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children. The claim is misleading. Experts say the data analysis used in the claim does not account for the high-risk health status of children who had been fully vaccinated. In an Instagram post, the group said: “Shocking: UK Government Admits COVID Vaccinated Children Are 4423% More Likely to Die of Any Cause & 13,633% More Likely to Die of COVID-19 Than Unvaccinated Children.” The post includes a link to the claim’s source, a July 27 article from a website called The Exposé, a misinformation platform which has previously misused official data to make false claims about COVID-19. The article said its claim was based on ‘deaths by vaccination status‘ data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS). The dataset included details of deaths in England for the 17-month period between January 1, 2021, and May 31, 2022. The ONS dataset included mortality rates for adults – calculated as the number of deaths per 100,000 person-years – but the article claimed mortality rates for children aged 10-14 years were intentionally omitted. “Unfortunately for the ONS… they still provide us with enough information for us to calculate the mortality rates ourselves,” the article said. It goes on to provide its own mortality rate figures for 10 to 14-year-olds, claiming the calculations show death rates went “from bad to worse following the administration of each injection”. “The all-cause death mortality rate equates to 97.28 among double-vaccinated children, and a shocking 289.02 per 100,000 person-years among triple-vaccinated children,” the article said. “This means, according to the UK Governments (sic) own official data, double vaccinated children are 1422% / 15.22x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated children … triple vaccinated children are 4423% / 45.23x more likely to die of any cause than unvaccinated children.” However, an ONS spokesman told AAP FactCheck that child COVID-19 mortality rates were not meaningful because of the way children at risk of serious ill-health were prioritised in the vaccine rollout. “For the bulk of the period (January to October 2021), only clinically vulnerable children were allowed to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and clinically vulnerable young people were vaccinated much earlier than those with no comorbidities,” the ONS spokesman said in an email. “Clinically vulnerable children and young people have a higher mortality rate than those with no comorbidities, and this explains why vaccinated teenagers have higher rate of death than those who remained unvaccinated.” As explained here, the ONS uses “person-years” in its data instead of “number of people” because the number in each group is fluid, dependent on changing vaccination status. “For example, if someone was unvaccinated for 3 months when they had a first dose, and then 6 months later had a second dose, they would contribute 0.25 person years to the unvaccinated total, 0.5 to the first dose groups and 0.25 to the second dose groups,” the ONS wrote in March 2022. Professor David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, said the article’s data analysis was unfairly skewed because it did not allow for the fact children in England under 15 were not routinely vaccinated. “The only ones to get boosters are at high-risk, i.e. they have serious health conditions,” Prof Spiegelhlater told AAP FactCheck in an email. “We can therefore expect the very few who get vaccinated to be very vulnerable.” Prof Spiegelhalter said the article’s calculations were based on very small numbers of deaths across all vaccination statuses within the 10-14 age group. For example, only one COVID-19 death and six non-COVID deaths were recorded among triple-vaccinated children in that age group. The article also appears to have wrongly transcribed one of it own figures in its final graph, leading it to falsely claim a mortality rate of 2.83 deaths per 100,000 person-years for triple-vaccinated teenagers aged 15-19 years. The Exposé’s calculations elsewhere in the article put this figure at 0.62 deaths per 100,000 person-years. The article used the wrongly transcribed figure to conclude triple-vaccinated 15 to 19-year-olds were “136% / 2.35x more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated teenagers”. However, correcting for the transcription error should have led the article to conclude triple-vaccinated 15 to 19-year-olds were about half as likely to have died with COVID-19, when compared to unvaccinated people in the same age group – not more than twice as likely, as the article claimed. Professor Sheila Bird, from the MRC Biostatistics Unit at Cambridge University, also told AAP FactCheck the article’s data analysis was flawed. “Beware age-difference and selection bias in those children who have/have not been vaccinated,” Prof Bird said in an email. “Not all ages are offered COVID-19 vaccine.” Similar misleading claims about child mortality in England have been debunked here and here. The Verdict The claim vaccinated children in England are more likely to die with COVID-19 is misleading. The interpretation of the data is flawed because it fails to account for the fact only vulnerable children at higher risk of serious illness received COVID-19 vaccines for most of the period under review. Statistics experts and the UK’s Office of National Statistics say for this reason, mortality rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated children are not meaningful and cannot be compared the way the post suggests. Misleading – The claim is accurate in parts but information has also been presented incorrectly, out of context or omitted.
Let's see how things are going with Republican county officials in Nevada who cite Ron DeSantis as their inspiration. Oh, they are going to ban the Covid and Flu vaccines. What's up next? Burning vaccinated people at the stake? Elko County health board to consider banning COVID, flu vaccines https://www.reviewjournal.com/local...-consider-banning-covid-flu-vaccines-2713830/
The BBC forced to apologize for putting anti-vax nutcase on the air who spewed misinformation. As noted BBC totally failed in its responsibilities. The section was supposed to be about satins and heart information -- not a platform to allow a well-know misinformation spreader to spew lies. BBC Apologizes For Interview With Cardiologist Who Said Covid Jabs Can Cause Heart Damage https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bbc-apologizes-interview-cardiologist-said-111950610.html The BBC has apologized for not properly challenging the views of a vaccine skeptic, who claimed that Covid jabs cause heart damage during an interview on BBC News. In a statement on Thursday, the UK broadcaster said it should have been better prepared for a live exchange with Dr Aseem Malhotra given his history of promoting vaccine hesitancy. The interview took place on the BBC News channel last Friday, when Malhotra hijacked a conversation about cholesterol medication to claim that coronavirus vaccines “carry a cardiovascular risk.” He was virtually unchallenged by presenter Lukwesa Burak, who simply asked: “That’s been proven medically, has it?” Malhotra replied that there is “lots of data” to support his claim, before calling for the suspension of the vaccine rollout. The reality is that Malhotra’s research has been debunked by Health Feedback, a World Health Organization-backed group that verifies scientific claims made about vaccine safety in the media. Numerous studies have shown vaccines are safe and effective. The BBC said: “We agree that we should have been better prepared to challenge what Dr Malhotra said, given his past comments about the vaccination programme, and we are sorry that this did not happen.” The broadcaster also published a correction citing British Heart Foundation research. The BBC said: “People who are vaccinated have a much lower risk of getting other serious complications caused by Covid-19.” The BBC received 253 complaints from viewers about the BBC News channel interview. The corporation said Malhotra’s claims were rebutted later in on Friday morning by Professor Peter Openshaw, a member of the UK Vaccine Network. It did not stop Malhotra’s remarks from being celebrated by the anti-vax community, who said their views had been acknowledged by a mainstream media organization.