https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...u2DLdJ2cvlreXf3wNMgJ7SXvy4DtT0vwEiaMTsJ8tGmow Analysis of 29m people finds danger of infection with Sars-Cov-2 far outweighs the risks of having jab The data showed that there would be 934 extra cases of thrombocytopenia for every 10 million people after infection, compared with 107 after the first shot of the AstraZeneca jab. For ischaemic strokes, there would be an estimated 1,699 extra cases for every 10 million people after infection, while there would be only 143 extra cases after the first Pfizer jab. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...id-infection-than-with-the-vaccine/ar-AANOAPB
Looks like it will! The vaccinations are not working the way they should. The virus is getting stronger with every passing day. It feels like a dream to even think of a covid-free world.
Covid is over they've renamed the common cold Covid Delta, 100% cold symptoms and incubation time and jabs are making it less severe or maybe it's less severe becaue0se it's a cold doh! People need to wqke up realise there being lied to and brainwashed by the media and fight back, there nit doing all these lies without a very bad reason. ADE. Jabs + covid19 (proper) = death 75% current we've got jabs + cold or flu so no ADE Deep shit!
It was a United Kingdom study and I first saw it on Euronews francais. It showed blood clots are lower in those specific vaccines studied (AstraZeneca and Pfizer) in comparison to those with a Covid-19 infection that “substantially higher and more prolonged”. By the way, there are currently ongoing studies around the world looking into the benefits from covid vaccination (specific vaccines) are giving those that have taken the vaccine (e.g. Rheumatoid arthritis, Flu, Pneumonia, Shingles, Social and Economic). wrbtrader
There is a lot of talk about blood clots so I have copied research paper here confirming a high risk of clotting from the vaccine. It comes from a pay site so I had to copy and paste rather than give a URL. This is only about 20% of the article but ET has a limits postings to 100,000 letters. Toward the end of this post it confirms that when vaccinated people are given the D-Dimer blood test for clotting 62% have shown positive. Why so many Americans are refusing to get vaccinated vaccinetruthAugust 5, 2021 41 Comments Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Opinion Editorial – By VaccineTruth Twitter: @VaccineTruth2 Gab: @VaccineTruth2 Email: vaccinetruth2@protonmail.com Anthony Fauci says he doesn’t understand why so many Americans are refusing to get vaccinated. Recent news articles have looked at the issue of vaccine hesitancy. A New York Times front page article, Who Are the Unvaccinated in America? There’s No One Answer (Aug 1, 2021), examined why people refuse to be vaccinated. A recent MIT study found that the people who refuse vaccination are among the most well informed people in America. Today, with so many organizations considering or adopting mandatory vaccination policies and the FDA working to give formal approval to the vaccines before Labor Day, it is now more important than ever that the decision makers creating these invasive policies understand why nearly half of America is against vaccination with the current COVID vaccines and why these policies are extremely dangerous both to their employees and society at large. We wanted to explain to other Americans (especially those in Congress, the mainstream media, and US government agencies) our reasons for refusing to get vaccinated. Our position is based on facts, scientific evidence, and making reasonable estimates. We are not trying to convince you we are right; we are just offering to share with you some of the reasons why we feel the way we do and why we object to mandatory vaccination policies. Here are some of the most important reasons we are declining to be vaccinated with the current vaccines: Early treatment is far safer and far more effective than any vaccine: Early treatment protocols offer up to 99.76% risk reduction, early treatments never kill or maim you, and you only have to be treated if you get the virus. If people used a proven early treatment, our hospitals would be empty today. The one thing all the patients who are in hospitals today have in common is they followed the CDC advice to stay home and do nothing. The current vaccines aren’t safe: For anyone under 50, the risk-benefit trade off is hard to justify. We estimate that at least 150,000 people have been killed so far from the vaccines (using 10 different methods; see Vaccine Safety FAQ for the details of each method). A recent study done in Germany showed at least 30% of the people who died within 2 weeks of vaccination died because of the vaccine and that’s just a lower bound. D-dimer, which is evidence of recent blot clotting, is seriously elevated in 62% of patients, and remains elevated for months after vaccination as shown in independent tests. Nobody can explain how a safe vaccine can cause this or for how long it lasts. Our issues on safety do not apply to newer vaccines such as Novavax. Because early treatment is a viable option, even people who are over 50 shouldn’t be vaccinated because it exposes people to an unnecessary risk (dying from the vaccine). Vaccines efficacy is a complete red herring. The efficacy argument is a red herring because of safety issues. Data from the UK, Singapore, and Israel all show that the percentage of people vaccinated is nearly the same percentage as the people getting COVID, so it no longer provides protection against infection. Pfizer has admitted the protection wanes over time. Although the latest data out of Israel (included below) show that the vaccines do reduce the relative risk of hospitalization for severe disease by up to 80%, the absolute benefit is small, especially for younger people. Early treatment with repurposed drugs has a superior risk-benefit for all ages compared to the vaccines. Until vaccines can compete on safety and efficacy against early treatment, they should not be used. And any vaccine that kills over 50 people a year is toxic and should not be licensed especially when safer proven alternatives are available. The vaccines have too many unknown risks because they were never properly tested: FDA insiders admit that the FDA made a crucial mistake by regulating the vaccines as traditional vaccines rather than as a vaccine and gene therapy. The required tests were never done and we still don’t know the amount, duration, and distribution of the spike protein that is . ADE, where the vaccine helps the virus invade your body, was acknowledged by the FDA as a clear risk, but they decided to roll it out to the public anyway, months before starting the proper testing. If ADE is confirmed, then vaccination will help the virus to replicate inside your body. Nobody knows what the long term effects of vaccination with these vaccines are. There are other serious concerns including effect on pregnancy, risk of prion diseases, implication of the generation of lewy bodies, linked epitope suppression, the long term effects of having spike protein in our bodies for an unknown amount of time, and the antibody response to syncytin-1. We don’t trust what the HHS agencies are telling us: The CDC missed dozens of safety signals on serious cardiovascular and neurological events. There is a crucial error in their formula for generating safety signals. The CDC, FDA, and NIH all claim nobody has died from the vaccine. Yet, in nearly 90% of all reports, the causes of deaths are consistent with elevated side-effects from the vaccine. For example, healthy 24-year olds never die in their sleep less than 24 hours after getting vaccinated. How do people in perfect health suddenly die of multiple organ failure shortly after the jab? The media coverage has been biased and reporters who try to go against the narrative have been censored. We did our own survey in full public view of 10,000 randomly selected people on Twitter which showed the vaccines have killed nearly as many people as COVID. There were no signs of gaming. If the vaccines are perfectly safe, then how can anyone explain this result? When people have heart attacks, strokes, or die shortly after being vaccinated, those relevant facts are always omitted in news stories. We know of reporters at the NY Times and NPR who have been silenced. The Washington Post refuses to respond to facts which directly contradict their fact checks. There is not a mass conspiracy. The press is deliberately covering it up because they believe that only 100 people have been killed by the vaccines and that is better than 600,000 people killed by the virus. They have no clue that the number killed by the vaccines could be more like 250,000. They justify their behavior by reasoning that if they report the truth, nobody will get vaccinated and more people will die. So concealing the truth by “deprioritizing” reporting on deaths isn’t lying (it is selective reporting) and it is seen as being the better outcome for society. However, nobody does the math. Nobody knows if you are under 30, the vaccines kill more people than they save. Nobody does the cost benefit analysis. There are no numbers to do this from the CDC. And the media and academia still believe that early treatment protocols don’t work even though there isn’t a shred of evidence to dispute the remarkable outcomes of clinics like Fareed and Tyson and others. Our issues on safety do not apply to newer vaccines such as Novavax. We are not anti-vax. We are anti-unsafe vax. This document does not apply to Novavax which is another COVID19 vaccine, developed by a US company, that nobody talks about because it has a much better safety profile than the current vaccines because the antigens are all produced outside the body and it leads to a very precise metering of the antigen into each person’s body. If people knew about Novavax, this would produce vaccine hesitancy so the press doesn’t cover it, nobody asks about it, and Fauci never talks about it. Leading authorities refuse to have an open public debate with qualified experts on any issue listed in this document: Nobody from any HHS agency or any drug company is willing to discuss in a public forum the findings from our team of experts on any of the 50 points below. We reached out to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) team at FDA. No response. We reached out to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) team at CDC. They recommended we send comments to a black hole. We were able to speak with top vaccine experts at Stanford University for just 30 minutes. They said they couldn’t dispute any of our points and that further conversations would be “unproductive.” No amount of scientific evidence showing harm would change their decision to mandate vaccination for their students. Multiple attempts to engage in public discourse with anyone at other leading medical institutions were rejected or ignored. We’ve listed below over 70 reasons why we are not taking the jab. We apologize that this list is 85 pages long, but vaccine hesitancy is a very important issue, so we wanted to provide a comprehensive list of issues and thoroughly explain our thinking on each issue so that the relevant HHS agencies (CDC, FDA, and NIH) can prepare a response to each point. Unfortunately, dueling written documents is not the best way to sway public opinion in an emergency where time is of the essence. It would just create confusion as we see from the first two letters in this exchange with the HHS. The third letter (88 pages long) which took almost a year to prepare, then gets much too complicated for mainstream public consumption. We would like to have a live discussion in a public forum for everyone to see with the FDA, CDC, and NIH experts on one side and our experts on the other side. If they truly want to end vaccine hesitancy, they will agree to a live discussion on each of the points below. Attempting to censor our reasoning or simply avoid addressing the key issues is not a dispute resolution method that is supported by the American people. It never has been and it never will be. However, if the HHS agencies would like to only focus the discussion on the most important issues listed below, that’s fine as well. We are ready at any time. The purpose of this document includes: To help people who are currently undecided about vaccination to make the right decision by informing them of the other point of view. We should encourage everyone making an irreversible decision to be fully informed before making that decision. inspire more doctors and nurses to speak out. To give HHS agencies a complete list of points to try to counter if they wish to persuade the “vaccine hesitant” To give the honest mainstream press a list of questions that they should be asking if they were really unbiased To show the public that the mainstream press is not asking the questions that they should be asking To provide a handy document that those who choose not to vaccinate can refer to their friends and family who want to know their rationale for refusing vaccination. When asked, they can say “read this document.” This ends the discussion pretty fast. A list of discussion points should anyone from HHS wish to engage our experts in a debate in an effort to reduce vaccine hesitancy. It documents the points that the HHS refuses to debate. Their refusal to engage on any of these points validates all the points in this document. For mainstream media reporters including Chris Cuomo and Gary Tuchman, this is a list of reasons as to why people who reject vaccination like Rep. Byron Donalds and Pastor Ken Graves are on solid scientific grounds and should not be berated on national TV like they are now. It was particularly nonsensical for Cuomo to berate Rep. Donalds since Donalds and his family are already immune to COVID (since they had been previously infected) and telling him to get vaccinated not only has no basis in scientific research (which shows it has no effect), but could actually risk linked epitope suppression which Cuomo seems clueless about. And Cuomo ignores all the lack of safety data and all the other serious issues raised in this document including the lack of informed consent and the violation of the Nuremberg Code. To provide cover for heroic Olympic athletes like Michael Andrew who made the right decision to skip vaccination. To arm people like Rep. Donalds and Pastor Graves with the information they need to fight back the next time they are on CNN. To show the entire world that the false narrative is absurd; there are more than 80 reasons people choose not to be vaccinated and that the HHS agencies and academics are all afraid to debate any of them. To provide reference material to those who want to make derivative works of this to provide 1 pagers, ads, etc. to convince those people who are undecided that avoiding vaccination with the current gene-based vaccines (which includes all 3 US vaccines) is the right decision. To validate the decision of those people who chose not to vaccinate that they made the correct decision even if they didn’t know all the reasons at the time they made the decision. This document will help to cement their decision and provide rationale for resisting the “carrot and stick” techniques designed to cause them to revisit their decision. To document, in a public record, the fact that Congress, the mainstream media, medical academia, medical journals, the HHS agencies (NIH, CDC, FDA) are all participating in a massive coverup of the safety of these vaccines To document what is going on for those members of Congressional staff and employees of high tech companies involved in censorship of lifesaving information so that they know by suppressing this information and doing a great public disservice. To put state medical boards on notice that any doctor who publicly claims the vaccines are “safe” are violating the rule that they just adopted and should have their medical licenses immediately suspended for spreading misinformation that can endanger lives. To provide a comprehensive list of reasons for lawyers suing the government, state actors, employers, and universities for why the vaccines should be stopped and not mandated. To inspire academics who are not afraid to speak out to write papers on topics such as determining the number of people killed by the vaccines, listing the adverse events in VAERS that the CDC isn’t able to see, and showing how when the vaccines rolled out, death rates increased, and other similar topics. To inspire groups of pathologists to demand autopsies and 100% reporting for anyone who dies within 3 days after vaccination. The national association of pathologists in Germany tried to get this mandated and failed, but perhaps their efforts will inspire efforts in other countries. To explain to policy makers why vaccination mandates are a very bad idea. To expose the truth. Mike Yeadon uses a similar technique with a smaller list. He wrote us: I use the “eight COVID lies” with people & invite them to pick the one they regard as the weakest & easiest to rebut. When they cannot, they get angry. Treating the virus with repurposed drugs is always safer and more effective than with a novel vaccine All vaccines have risks, and we are not convinced that we are better off preventing a disease that we may never get and is treatable with existing drugs. We have compelling evidence that no one has been able to refute that clearly shows that treating the virus with repurposed drugs is far safer and far more effective against all variants than using the current unsafe and relatively ineffective vaccines. Physicians with thousands of real life cases are reporting very few COVID hospitalizations and a near 100% record in preventing death from COVID and zero deaths or disabilities from the treatment itself. Patients treated early do not end up with long-haul COVID symptoms (whereas 20% of vaccinated patients do). So we’ve never understood why we aren’t skipping the vaccine and just treating COVID with early treatments? All the metrics are better. This is all based on real-world data in tens of thousands of patients. For example, Doctors Fareed and Tyson have treated over 6,000 patients with only a few hospitalizations. The few patients who have died were those who followed the NIH advice to stay home and avoid early treatments. Dr. Shankara Chetty has treated over 4,000 patients in South Africa without a single death. There is no evidence that disputes any of these claims. Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine, just sent us an email reporting over 130,000 patients treated in the US using early treatment protocols with “almost no deaths.” The reason we are ignoring this data is because the NIH has expressed no interest in looking at this real-world evidence and has never contacted the physicians nor called the surrounding hospitals to verify that the physicians are telling the truth. Instead, these remarkable success stories are all completely ignored as if they don’t exist. To win us over to your side on this point, all you have to do is show us that Fareed and Tyson faked the data or show us the confounder or bias that explains the amazing result. On April 21, 2021, Philip McDunnough, professor of statistics at the University of Toronto, asked public health authorities to explain Fareed and Tyson’s virtually non-existent COVID mortality in this tweet. Few people saw his post. AVUC is the Fareed-Tyson clinic which is located in the heart of Imperial County which has one of the highest COVID mortality rates in the country as you can see from the chart below. That chart shows that Fareed and Tyson achieved a 97.9% relative risk reduction compared to the mortality rate in their community. The average age of their patients is 60. They never turn down patients and their patient mix is the same as the community at large. This is a better outcome than any vaccine, and there are no side effects. Because the treatments are not targeted to a specific variant, but use existing approved drugs, the effectiveness has not changed with the Delta variant. Today, the argument is even stronger than before. There is a paper that will be submitted showing that the Fareed-Tyson protocol achieves a 99.76% risk reduction. It is both safer and it is more effective than any other option. The natural immunity gained is more robust than vaccine-induced immunity (a factor of 6.72 less likely to be infected according to numbers presented to the Israeli Health Ministry). In the current environment where the vaccines are ineffective against preventing infection with the delta variant (more on that shortly) and early protocols continue to work the same today as in the past, how can you argue that the vaccines are either more effective or safer? Here are examples of some of the successful protocols that are proven in thousands of cases: Fareed and Tyson protocol: 99.76% risk reduction. Chetty protocol: Described in this paper, it has over 99% risk reduction. Italy protocol: Only 4 out of 66,000 patients died in Italy on this protocol. None of the people who are dying in hospitals today were treated early People say all these people dying in the hospitals were not vaccinated and we are risking lives by telling people not to get vaccinated. Guess what? None of them got early treatment either! But people never focus on THAT fact. It is never mentioned in news reports or by the CDC. It’s all about whether they got the unsafe vaccine or not. Who’s fault is that? The NIH of course. Fauci has been stonewalling early treatment for 1.5 years. Now he’s finally realized we were right but only after a big drug company came up with a proprietary new drug that they think is effective (all paid for by the US government). If you want a villain, blame Fauci. The solution was in plain sight the whole time. In fact, one drug, Interferon Lambda made by Eiger, is a simple one shot solution that was proven very early in the pandemic and then ignored. They should have looked at the D-dimer results and the dramatic decrease in viral load. Ignoring that was dumb. It was in plain sight of the medical community since May 2021. A nice summary of the study is here which points out the D-dimer and viral load reductions. That is hugely significant yet was ignored. We will be proven to be right about this. Of the drugs identified for treating COVID, this drug has the most remarkable results in areas that are the most meaningful: preventing the inflammation and clotting. If everyone who got COVID got a single shot of interferon lambda, there would be near zero hospitalizations. Interferon Lambda is an extremely safe drug with zero side effects and absolutely remarkable efficacy against the virus. It is impossible that it doesn’t work. The FDA and NIH should be rushing to get an EUA on this, but are doing absolutely nothing to pursue this. No sense of urgency. Simple solutions like betadine (available as a mouthwash and nasal spray) and ARGOVIT that are highly effective are ignored. The vaccines aren’t safe The adverse events reported in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) are off-the-charts with dozens of cardiovascular and neurological symptoms that we can show using the Bradford-Hill criteria as being caused by the vaccines. Serious adverse events and deaths reported against the COVID-19 vaccines in just 7 months total more than all 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years. This is the most dangerous vaccine in recent history. Here’s the chart. Can you spot which year the COVID19 vaccine was introduced? Note: Due to under reporting, multiply the reported deaths by 50 to get the actual number of deaths. We’ll justify the 50X multiplier shortly. Based on user surveys, doctor surveys, pilot death data, VAERS under-reporting rates, and more, we believe over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the vaccines. The true number may be substantially higher. As of Jul 23, 2021, there are 11,940 fatality reports in VAERS that we’d like to review with the CDC so they can explain to us why they believe that none of them could have been caused by the vaccine. We believe we can satisfy the Bradford-Hill criteria showing causality in approximately 86% of these cases. In order to quickly prove our point, we can do a thorough examination of 100 randomly selected reports (if the CDC doesn’t believe the analysis in the Mclachlan paper). There was an independent study led by Peter Schirmacher, Professor of Pathology and Director, Institute of Pathology at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He is also a member of the German National Academy of Sciences and the chief pathologist at the University. They closely examined the actual bodies of 40 people who died within 2 weeks after vaccination. They determined that 30% to 40% really did die from the vaccine (you have to read the original German version to see this nuance, not the translated version). They believe that deaths following vaccination are underreported. However, Dr. Schirmacher did not have the benefit of our VAERS analysis in making this determination. We have reached out to him to inform him of our findings and expect that this will enable him to greatly increase the percentage of patients he determined were killed by the vaccines. Schirmacher’s findings were of course immediately disputed by the medical community. “The statements that there is currently too little knowledge about side effects and the dangers of vaccination are underestimated are incomprehensible,” said the Paul Ehrlich Institute. “I do not know of any data that would allow a reasonable statement to be made here and I do not start from an unreported number,” said the head of the Standing Vaccination Commission, Thomas Mertens. None of these so-called experts who dispute Schirmacher’s findings ever examined the bodies, examined the data, or pointed out any flaws in the analysis. There are no studies in the medical literature that dispute his findings because no such study has ever been done before (and if it was done, no journal would publish it because it would be too damaging to the “safe and effective” narrative). In our opinion, Schirmacher has given a number that is far too conservative rather than too high. That’s what we’ve found when we’ve examined the fatality reports in the VAERS system. We can show more than 10 different ways (each of which we think would be hard to dispute) that there was no over-reporting to VAERS this year. There were more events this year because the vaccines are so toxic. It’s not that complicated. We explain below why we believe that only 2% of the serious events are reported. We’ve copied part of the table from our July 16, 2021 VAERS analysis just to make the point. As you can see, the CDC has missed many serious safety signals that are above normal. We did not do an exhaustive test of every serious adverse event. What we found in nearly every event we did test was very troubling. A more thorough analysis should, at a minimum, examine each of the conditions listed in Appendix B of this letter to HHS. The CDC should do this analysis and report the results to the public. In this table below, a value of 473 means the rate reported in VAERS for the COVID19 vaccines in 2021 was 473 times higher than the annual VAERS incidence rate reported for all vaccines over the period from 2015-2019 for ages 20 to 60. We did the age limitation to show that these events are affecting young people and not just the elderly. Also, the signal to noise ratio is much stronger in this age group since they are less likely to suffer “background” adverse events than the elderly. It is important to note that the rate of vaccination in the comparison years has been quite strong so the numbers are not reflective of a lower vaccination rate in previous years. For example, here are the vaccination rates shown in a CDC report for just one of the 70 vaccines included in the comparison: Symptom Incidence rate in COVID19 vax/Avg annual rate Pulmonary embolism 473 Stroke 326 Deep vein thrombosis 264.3 Thrombosis 250.5 Appendicitis 145.5 Tinnitus 97.3 Cardiac arrest 75 Death 58.1 Parkinson’s disease 55 Slow speech 54.3 Aphasia (inability to talk) 52.3 Fatigue 50.9 Headache 46.4 Chills 45.6 Pericarditis 44.9 Deafness 44.7 Myocarditis 43.2 Abortion Spontaneous 41.3 Cough 38.5 Bell’s Palsy 36.6 Paraesthesia 29.5 Blindness 29.1 Dyspnea (difficulty breathing) 28.4 Myalgia 28.4 Dysstasia (difficulty standing) 27.8 Seizure 27 Anaphylactic Reaction 21 Suicide 18.3 Speech disorder 17.2 Convulsion 16.3 Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TPP) 16.3 Paralysis 16 Swelling 14.3 Diarrhoea 11.9 Neuropathy 11.2 Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome 11.1 Depression 8.9 Anyone can replicate this chart using the VAERS database. We can prove causality on every single one of these using the Bradford-Hill criteria (including showing dose dependency). It’s important to note that the majority of entries are made by physicians and there is very little gaming going on because each report is reviewed before being published in the database. Duplicate reports are removed. A single individual can make only one report, regardless of the number of doses. Even though a given person has “two chances” to get an event, that’s the nature of the vaccine design and we should not be “correcting” for the number of doses. In other words, if a vaccine required 20 doses, it would still generate a single VAERS report; no correction for 20 doses should be made. So if the vaccine caused a heart attack on every dose, we’d count that as 20 heart attacks. We’d love to go over this with the CDC or FDA, but they’ve refused to talk to any of our team (see our panel of experts below). We keep trying. As noted below, when we looked at individual events like TPP, the event incidence we calculated above exactly matched what is measured in the research lab. So while we don’t claim we got the numbers exactly right, they are probably pretty accurate. Our position is (and always has been), if we’ve got it wrong, please meet with us and let’s chat about it, and if we are wrong, we’ll correct what we are saying. We really don’t want to spread misinformation. But the quid pro quo is if we’ve got it right, please tell the world. It is the latter that the CDC and the FDA are afraid of. To get a handle on how many people have actually died from the vaccines, on July 30, 2021, we did a very large survey in full public view (10,000 randomly selected people) which indicated to us that the vaccines may have killed almost as many people as the virus. Our statisticians don’t trust such surveys but agree this is hypothesis generating: we may have nearly doubled the COVID death count already and we’re only halfway done vaccinating people. By the time we reach 100% vaccination, our efforts to thwart the virus may kill twice as many people as the virus itself has in addition to crippling at least as many people as we’ve killed. We need to confirm that hypothesis with very rigorous statistical analysis, but our quick survey was certainly extremely troubling. It was done without notice, the results that came in within the first few minutes were not that much different from the final results. So we don’t think it was gamed. If there was gaming, we’d expect one side to dramatically “change” from the initial stats. That never happened. We also did live polling on July 22 at the Restoration Church in Milton, GA. There were 600 people in the audience. We got a similar result (in front of 600 live witnesses): an equal number of people raised their hands on whether they knew someone who had died from COVID vs. the vaccine. We don’t understand how, if nobody has been killed by the vaccine, we could get numbers that are so close to each other? That seems statistically unlikely. Did we make an error in our testing methodology? It was all in plain sight, in full public view. No indication of gaming. What’s tragic is that all of these deaths and disablement were completely preventable if the NIH had recognized the success of doctors using early treatments to combat the virus. Effective treatments (such as the Tyson-Fareed protocol) were being used as early as March 2020 and refined continuously over time. We could have avoided hundreds of thousands of deaths if everyone had just used that protocol. But any early treatment would complete with the false narrative that “the vaccines are the only solution” so the NIH ignored them completely. Note: We expect people will attempt to game the poll, so we kept the screenshots before gaming. Here they are for the two surveys, snapped at the same point in time: Other estimates such as How Underreported Are Post-Vaccination Serious Injuries and Deaths in VAERS? suggests that the number of deaths is 180,000 (the 30 factor is derived from SAE ratio of actual to VAERS reported and you multiply that times the 6,000 American deaths in VAERS) VAERS underreporting ratio is around 50 for these vaccines → over 250,000 vaccine deaths One of our experts recently published an analysis that shows that less than 3% of the serious adverse events (SAE) are reported in VAERS. This leads to a death rate of over 150,000 people once unrelated deaths are removed (which are conservatively estimated at 15% of reported deaths). This analysis used the SAE rate determined in the clinical trials and compared that to the rates reported in VAERS. Another way to estimate US deaths is to estimate the overall death rate using data from other countries. By mid-January, Norway had vaccinated around 40,000 people. They had 23 reported deaths, so 1 in 1700 (maybe more because it’s hard to know when such statements are formulated relative to a program that was vaccinating several thousand per day). That scales to 575/M, and assuming a 2:1 ratio for 1st:2nd dose puts the U.S. in the ballpark of 150k deaths. However, a more convincing analysis can be done using a specific serious adverse event that should always be reported, data from the CDC, and a study published in JAMA. Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and occurs in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States based on events reported to VAERS” according to the CDC report on Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. Anaphylaxis is a well known side effect and doctors are required to report it. It occurs right after the shot. You can’t miss it. It should always be reported. A study at Mass General Brigham that assessed anaphylaxis in a clinical setting after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines found “severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 2.47 per 10,000 vaccinations.” We will be conservative and accept the CDC’s higher number of 5 which is most favorable to the government’s case because it will mean the lowest underreporting rate (of 50X rather than 125X). This translates to a 50X under reporting rate, i.e., only 2% of severe adverse reactions that are required to be reported are actually reported. This means that the 6,000 domestic deaths reported in VAERS are more likely around 300,000 American deaths. Around 10% to 15% of these deaths are possibly unrelated per the Mclachlan paper (which showed that the vaccines could be causal in 86% of cases), so over 250,000 vaccine caused deaths is a reasonable estimate. We will use the 50X rate elsewhere in this document because it leads us to approving the vaccine only if it is very safe, i.e., we are biased on the “do no harm” principle. Others in our group have used an estimate of 30X in their papers. When asked about this, both the CDC and FDA sidestepped answering the question. Here’s the proof at the CDC (see page 1 which incorporates the CDC response to the original letter on pages 2 and 3). We are already impressed with your dancing ability. If you want us to get vaccinated, you must stop avoiding answering questions like this. How do you explain this? And why is nobody in the press asking about this? Vaccines should always provide a stronger absolute benefit than the risk being mitigated A key point to keep in mind is that the safety criteria for a vaccine is that the absolute risk of taking the vaccine should be small relative to the risk being mitigated. Our issue is that the CDC never points that out to people. Say the absolute risk of the vaccine is 1% that it kills you in 2 weeks. The benefit is that there is a 1% absolute risk reduction in dying from COVID. You would never ever opt for this because it’s a lousy tradeoff: nobody would take a 1% risk of dying today as preferred to a 1% risk of dying tomorrow. You’d always choose the opposite. But if I gave you a 1% risk of dying today to prevent a 5% risk of dying in a year, you will probably take the vaccine. Below that it is a judgement call. This is why the risk / reward benefit is something that is an individual choice, and must be done by individuals based on their personal situations. In general though, we feel that vaccines, because they are optional to prevent something we may never get or may go away soon, should be at least 5 times less risky than the risk they are trying to mitigate. This means that if a kid has a 1 in 1M chance of dying from COVID, we would want a vaccine that has less than a 0.2 chance in 1M of killing him for us to even consider giving our kid the vaccine. As we will see below, we are nowhere close to this. If you are over 50, the vaccine could be justified if you believed early treatments don’t work Risk of COVID death is 35x the base rate of 18-29 year olds which we’ll conservatively set at 1 per 100,000 (to give the government the benefit of the doubt) = 35 per 100,000. The base rate of 18-29 year olds is on slide 14 for the period April 1 to Jun 11, 2021 which is 72 days. This rate can go up or down over time. We can argue both ways so we’ll just assume that that’s going to be the average rate In VAERS for domestic death reports: vaxx deaths 50-64.99 =838+7uncounted (age was in the description field of the report)=845 deaths in VAERS (see below) 45M people vaccinated in that age range (see below) VAERS adjustment factor=50x from the section above. This is justifiable because the precautionary principle says it is a reasonable assumption that cannot be disputed (indeed the FDA didn’t dispute it when a letter was sent to them showing this). Vax death rate (unadjusted): 845*50/45000000= 93 deaths per 100,000 Vax death rate (adjusted for possibly unrelated deaths per Mclachlan paper): .86*93 = 80 deaths per 100,000 could likely have been caused by the vaccines (there is no other explanation). So the vax generates 80 deaths per 100,000 people, but there are 35 people saved over the next 72 days if the vaccine is 100% effective. Our breakeven point is 80*72/35 days = 164 days for a perfect vaccine and 6 months if the vaccines are 90% effective. But this is only justifiable if we get a clear ROI on our “investment” because there are lots of downsides (chance of disability, unknown long term effects) associated with the vaccines so we want a 5X death benefit as described early. This means we need to wait 2.5 years to have a clear ROI on our investment if the vaccine is 90% effective. If the vaccine effectiveness goes down in time which it appears to do or requires boosters every 6 months for new variants then this is clearly a very poor choice. I would expect they’ll find out that interferon lambda is an effective treatment within 6 months eroding the benefit. Or they will do an EUA on the Merck drug by the end of year (but this drug may have equal safety issues). The bottom line is that for most people, it would not be a good bet based upon the information we know today. For a 1 year period and 100,000 people, we’d get 80 deaths from the vax vs. 35/72*365=177 deaths. So if you are 50-65 and are looking at a 1 year timeframe and you don’t think early treatment works at all, then we would not blame you at all for getting vaccinated. That could make sense. But of course early treatments do work, so we’d still strongly discourage you from getting the jab, but it does make some sense. If you are under 50, vaccination is hard to justify We barely justified it for the over 50 group assuming no early treatment. The math works out so that the younger you are, the harder it is to justify vaccination, even if early treatments don’t work. So age 50 is about the point where it is a “close call” and will need to be calculated at the time. But the safer plan is not to vaccinate. As you will see in the next sections, with a one year benefit window, the vaccines are harder and harder to justify. See also a completely independent analysis by Dr. Rollergator that didn’t take death into account, but simply looked at efficacy and determined that those under 44 wouldn’t benefit from the vaccine. If you are under 30, the vaccine is 4X more likely to kill you than save you over the next 12 months By the CDC’s own numbers (on slide 14), if you are under 30, your rate of dying from COVID are .001%, i.e., 1 in 100,000 within the 72 day period in the slide. There are 127 death reports in those under 30 in VAERS. VAERS is 2% reported (as we show in the section below), so the true death rate is 6,350. Virtually all these are real deaths since people between 16 and 30 rarely die right after a safe vaccine (it would be 10 VAERS reports per year to be safe). So 5850 killed by the vax between 16 and 30 There are around 60M people between 16 and 30 and say half of those got vaccinated. So that is 30M people. 5,850 in 30M is only 19.5 deaths per 100,000 vaccinated people caused by the vaccine. This means the breakeven point is 72 days * (19.5/1) = 1404 days for a 100% effective vaccine and 1560 days for a 90% effective vaccine that lasts 4.2 years. But using our 5X criteria we’d only want to take the risk if we got 90% coverage for the next 21 years. If we look at a 1 year period, we get 19.5 deaths from 100,000 people compared with 1*(365/72) = 5 deaths from COVID. This means the vaccine is 4 times more likely to kill us than save us over the next 12 months. So if you are under 30, it is nonsensical to take the vaccine no matter how “effective” it is. The CDC never lays this out to anyone. There is no informed consent. This is why the CDC, NIH, and FDA will not debate us. It is simply too embarrassing. We are using their own numbers and their own database to prove our point. This is why they are rushing this through to get it FDA approved and getting schools to mandate vaccination immediately. They are hoping to get you to take the jab before you learn the truth. If you are under 17, the vaccine is 10X more likely to kill you than save you over the next 12 months Parents need to be at least warned that it is completely nonsensical to vaccinate their kids. The CDC VAERS review of the 12-17 year old data released on July 30, 2021 showed there were 345 cases of myocarditis and 14 deaths. Unlike old people, kids don’t spontaneously die every day at anywhere near the same rate. All of these deaths appear to be caused by the vaccine and are consistent with the mechanism of action for how these vaccines kill people. Here is one of the death reports that was submitted by his mom because the doctor didn’t report it (as required by law). We can use this information to make a reasonable estimate of the absolute death rate for kids. The Israeli Ministry of Health has estimated the rate of myocarditis in men aged 16 to 24 who received the vaccine is 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000. So using the ratios of 14/345 * 1 in 3000 we get a vaccine death rate that could be as high as 1.35 deaths per 100,000 kids aged 12-17. But the CDC says (on slide 14) that the death rate from COVID averages around 0.15 deaths per 100,000 kids. So let’s be clear: the CDC is urging parents to quickly inject a vaccine into their kids which is up to 9 times more likely to kill them than to save them in the short term (72 day period) even if the vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID. How do they justify that? That is never explained. The breakeven here is 72*( 1.35 /.1) = 972 days for a 100% effective vaccine and 1080 days for a 90% effective. For our 5X benefit, we’re looking at almost 15 years that the vaccines should last and be 90% effective. Not a good bet at all. It’s one thing when your kid dies from COVID. But how do parents feel when they were misled by our government into thinking they were helping save their child but in reality they were helping to kill their child? Note: in this analysis we assumed the propensity to report serious adverse events is the same (it is required by law to report all SAEs), and consistent with the precautionary principle of medicine, we calculated using the 1 in 3,000 rate. Unless it can be shown that the intervention (vaccination in this case) is substantially safer than doing nothing, the intervention is not justifiable. At least that’s the way it used to work before they changed all the rules to test on the public before testing in the lab. Also, we looked at all the death reports. Kids don’t normally die, especially right after a vaccine. In every single case, the cause of death was a known risk factor for the vaccine. There were two suicides for example, but depression is a known side-effect of the vaccine (it’s 9 times more likely to happen than baseline). Why would someone who is going to kill themselves in a few days get vaccinated? Sure, they can be completely crazy, but most people wouldn’t do that. So it’s far more likely that the depression was enhanced by the vaccine. There is another way to make this analysis using the 50X correction factor. The 14 deaths become 700 actual deaths. There were 8.9M adolescents vaccinated during the period. That is a death rate of 7.86 deaths per 100,000 kids. So using this alternate method, our 15 year benefit now requires 86 years of protection (14.8*7.86/1.35). This is a very very bad tradeoff. The vaccine has a 7.86 kill rate in 100,000 kill rate and with a .15 deaths per 100,000 per 72 days, we get .76 deaths. Bottom line is that the vax is more than 10 times more likely to kill our kids rather than save them in the next 12 months. We refuse to vaccinate our kids until you show us that the vaccines are always at least twice as likely to save them than to kill them in the next 12 months. You are nowhere close to meeting that burden. The vaccines are also effective for another reason few people appreciate: natural selection If the vaccine didn’t kill you, it is because you are very resistant to COVID-19 spike protein before you got the jab. Hence, anyone who gets the vaccine and survives is going to be more likely to be resistant to COVID. The vaccine basically culled out those people who were susceptible to COVID and killed them. We aren’t saying this is the only effect that is operating, but in looking at the effectiveness of the vaccine, nobody considered this because they all thought the vaccines didn’t kill anyone. We cover the clinical trial gaming techniques in a separate section. The vaccines have been shown to deposit a toxin in our bodies that we haven’t figured out how to eliminate Read this tweet. It has over 1M views (which is impressive since we only have 20K followers). Six people who got the jab 5 months ago were tested for spike protein by a top researcher. All 6 were presumed to be healthy controls since they had no reaction to the vax. All the healthy controls had the spike protein present 5 months after vaccination. The researchers were horrified at this result. They have no idea how long the spike protein will stay around. It was also supposed to disappear within 2 weeks after the jab. So thanks, but no thanks, for your vaccines. We are very upset about this. Why didn’t you warn us of this ahead of time? When will the spike protein ever leave our systems? Never? We’ll take our chance with the virus. If we have to get spike, we’ll take the relatively small chance of that happening with natural infection compared to the 100% chance of it happening if we opt for the vaccine. The D-dimer studies are an objective smoking gun that these vaccines are super dangerous Here’s a snapshot from Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines: It says a “harmless” piece of spike protein. This is not what the scientific literature says. There is a test for clotting known as D-dimer. D-dimer is positive 4 to 7 days after an event that causes blood clotting. This is extremely serious since clots can cause heart attacks, stroke, pulmonary embolism, death, brain damage, blindness, inability to speak, paralysis, convulsions, depression, etc. In short, a whole host of very serious neurological and cardiovascular symptoms. Dr. Charles Hoffe looked and found that 62% of his patients had elevated D-dimer after getting the vaccine (watch at starting at 4:00). Measured between 4 and 7 days after the vaccine. That isn’t normal. It’s not even close to normal. One of our doctors in Canada did a test on five of his patients who were symptomatic after the vaccine. 100% of them had elevated D-dimers and they were measured 1 to 2 months after vaccination. This is very very troubling. We don’t know how long these patients will be at risk. We were never told of this. The question for the FDA and CDC is you’ve said the spike protein is harmless. Please tell us why the D-dimers are elevated in the first place, why they remain elevated, how long they will be elevated for, and what doctors should do to remove the spike protein from our bodies. If you can’t do that, we aren’t signing up. We are instead going to be running as fast as we can in the other direction. You have not ruled out the risk of ADE You never tested the vaccines forantibody dependent enhancement (ADE)before you granted the EUA. What this means is that there’s a decent chance that you’ve just given half of us a vaccine that will make it easier for us to get COVID once the initial antibody response wears off. You knew the entire time that ADE was a risk and you went ahead anyway. If ADE is confirmed, this will be the biggest medical fuck up in human history. And it was all completely preventable had you tested it before you distributed the vaccine like you should have done. We chose not to be vaccinated so we aren’t affected. But the rest of America drank the Kool-Aid and trusted you on this. And you are now compounding the problem with employer and university mandates before you know the answer to the ADE question. You have avoided mandating autopsies on vaccinated people who die from COVID. This suggests to us that you are deliberately making sure everyone is vaccinated before anyone finds out that they have been screwed for life. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine, warned people that ADE could be a possibility on June 10, 2021, but YouTube censored the video. Was it at your request? The “honeymoon period” should be wearing off for Pfizer right about now since it had the lowest dose. We just got an email from a researcher who wrote: “I think that the data from Israel, which is ahead of us on the vaccination scale, and the data from Britain are very worrisome in terms of ADE. More severe cases in the vaccinated.” That last sentence is very alarming. Why didn’t you warn us about this in the informed consent, and why aren’t you asking for the requisite autopsies so we can resolve this ASAP? You did an analysis of viral titers recently, but you didn’t separate them out by subgroups of vaccine manufacturer, date of administration, sex, and age. Why not get the data and make it public? If you had done that, we’d know whether we have an ADE problem or not. So our question is simple: When are you going to collect the data and publish it?
If you are interested in the rest of this research paper it would take about 4 more posts to get it all in. Let me know.
This article is from Trial Site New -- a well known purveyor of Covid misinformation. https://trialsitenews.com/why-so-many-americans-are-refusing-to-get-vaccinated/ This particular article is posted from a group called VaccineTruth which is a also a group continually sending out fake information about VAERS and other items relative to Covid vaccines.
Wow, what flavor is the koolaid that you have been drinking? It amazes me that people can just dismiss research they do not want to evaluate as "misinformation"
Everything in this article has previously been fact checked and dismissed as absurd misinformation. You can go read the many fact-checks posted in the Politics forum showing everything in this article is complete nonsense -- not supported by facts or science.
Brain washed masses via FEAR, fear is the mind killer, no fear here, when I'm dead i won't know about it, so I'll never be dead, so rock on. Blood clott could stop me mountainbiking/climbing/operating ( not medical ) ever again, no thanks!