Coronavirus 2020

coronavirus

#6641

So they’ve finally admitted that vaccinations do not work.


#6642

This may be true if you’re in one of the at-risk categories. Time will tell, but the latest figures are not very promising.

Recent HSE figures would suggest the following;

We are also told now that being vaccinated clearly has little impact on curtailing the spread of the disease.

Re this specific aspect, we are told the following -

  • 93 % of the adult population have been fully vaccinated. But we are told that cases are rising.
  • We are told that Ireland has the highest rate of vaccination uptake in Europe. Yet our Covid figures are higher than many other European countries that have a lower uptake.
  • We were also told in September that Waterford is the Irish county with the highest vaccination uptake, 99.97% of the adult population having been jabbed. We are now told (mid-October) that Waterford has the highest incidence rate of Covid of all Counties in Ireland.

All of which, I would suggest, is enough to raise doubts in the mind of anyone who deigns to apply a modicum of critical thought to the efficacy of the vaccine roll out.

Turning now to the more recent ramping up of messaging around the extension of the ‘temporary’ requirement for the production of Vaccination certificates in advance of any Irish citizen being afforded permission to access many public and private spaces….which also appears to have corresponded to your own appearance on this site in post-Pauline mode.

We will firstly assume that everyone engaging in debate around the issue is motivated by a common desire to stem the spread of the virus, as well as a corresponding desire to see a return to the type of societal norms, inclusive of the civil liberties we all took for granted pre-Covid.

As such, and with specific reference to the facts higher up the post, we now know that being vaccinated does not stem the spread of the virus. Therefore, affording entry passes to spaces based on the people in question having been vaccinated 3, 4 or 5 months ago will not assist in stemming the viral spread.

Certainly our Government have stated as much. The messaging around this issue has moved on to referencing the greater likelihood of the unvaxed to find themselves in ICU rather than vaccinations stemming the spread of Covid. You yourself have repeatedly focussed on this aspect so I’m assuming you are in agreement.

Therefore, if we are in agreement that vaccinations do not stem the spread, we must also agree that the employment of vaccination certificates as a tool to stem the spread of the virus, is quite simply pointless. Rapid antigen testing of all people, regardless of vaccination status, would be a much more efficient tool in stemming the spread of a virus than, say, production of a 4 month old vaccination certificate. Wouldn’t you agree?


#6645

If the vaccination worked as promised, I would take it, but it isn’t and having already had COVID, I have better protection from my own immune system than any that the vaccine can provide.

And I also would have taken it if I was in a high risk group, which I am not.

The game of Russian roulette starts with choosing the vax gun or the virus gun, in my case the virus gun was handed to me before the vax gun.
So having pulled that trigger and surviving, I have no ambition to pick up the second (vax) gun.


#6650

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sweden-suspends-moderna-shot-indefinitely-after-vaxxed-patients-develop-crippling-heart


#6651

I’m not here to argue in favour or against anyone deciding to vaccinate themselves. That’s a personal choice for each individual to make based on what they decide is best for themselves. As I said at the outset of my previous post, if I was a member of an at-risk category such as the elderly or clinically obese I would be a lot more likely to get vaccinated. As I’m not, and as the virus poses little or no serious risk to me as things stand currently, I have chosen not to whilst also respecting mask mandates and social distancing guidelines because I’m aware that others, especially members of such at-risk groups, are both at more risk and more worried than I am.

However, in terms of bouncing things back at people, what’s your take on the following quote from my previous post?

Surely that is worrying, even given the fact that a much smaller proportion of the population are unvaccinated?

What about the fact that Ireland now has much higher rates of Covid-19 than many of our less vaccinated neighbours?

Why does Waterford have the highest rates of Covid-19 in the country despite 99.97% of the population having been vaccinated ?

And finally, based on the content of my previous post, do you accept that vaccination certs are useless in terms of stemming the spread of the virus? Especially given that public policy is now being framed on the basis that vaccines themselves do not stop the spread of Covid-19?


#6653

Always worth remembering that Gript is funded by Declan Ganley who in turn is backed by Peter Thiel who is one of, if not the main mover behind everything that’s happening.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivada_Networks


#6654

Mr Reid went on to say that around 57% of the people in ICUs were not fully vaccinated, which was having “a strong impact.”

Your quote seems to inaccurate.

“ 57% of the people in ICU have not been vaccinated.”

*by “vaccinated”, they mean they have received 2 doses of the novel mRNA based therapies.


#6655

Fair enough.

As I’ve said above, likewise I’ve no issue with people making a decision to either vaccinate or not depending on their preference.

My main problem at this point in time (and the only reason I’ve involved myself here) is because I find the idea of vaccine passports/Covid certs/mandated vaccines abhorrent. We’re not there yet but the soundings of the past week have seen a lot of kite flying around these topics.

It’s clear that there is zero evidence to suggest that any of these mooted approaches will do anything to stem the spread of the virus.

Everyone who favours liberty, be they pro or anti vaccination or indeed anything else needs to repeat this ad nauseum to whoever is willing to listen. Otherwise we’ll find ourselves living in a state of permanent soft totalitarianism.


#6660

Its seems you have neither the background, knowledge or it seem intellectual abilities to understand even basic arguments on the subject.

Although for those without a deep familiarity with the way academic science works, the maths involved, or long experience with medical doctors, this is hardly surprisings. Just think of the business you’re in. Thing of all the bullshit , incompetence, backstabbers and outright fraud there is. Why do you think academic science or medical science is not exactly the same. Full of bullshit, incompetent and way too many two faced backstabbing BS artists in senior positions.

There is a very good mathematical reason why every single vaccine you and I have received in the past have gone through at least a 4 to 6 year testing process. Because it takes several years to start to build up an initial reliable data set to establish with any degree of accuracy enough data to calculate clinical efficacy. We are talking two to three years minimum. And this is for vaccines of the traditional type that have been used for almost 14o years by this stage. Longer with a vaccine type that has never gained approval in the past.

So four to six years to establish that a vaccines is safe and effective. There is no magical short cut. Because of the nature of the maths involved. Those Pfizer “clinical trials” were a joke. They weer not legitimate. They were fraudulent.

Do you know what a genuine clinical trial for a vaccine candidate looks like? First they do the basic toxicological test and early effectiveness trials. They take a year or two with complete new vaccines types. They establish base status for the test and control group using serological tests and then an infection event is established using symptomatic infection plus a seroloigical test. And that is usually done at 30 day intervals during the trial period and usually at 90 day intervals in the follow up period of 24 to 36 months.

If the candidate passes the toxicological tests and show strong evidence of an immune-response in the test group and the adverse response rate is neither too high not too severe then the large test group Phase II/III trials start. Usually in year 2 to 3.

Not one single vaccine candidate of the the type made by Pfizer has ever progressed to Phase III trials due to very serious adverse response rates and very uneven immune-response in the test group. Not one. And there have been quite a few candidates over the years.

The result published by the Pfizer in their press conference (and by the vetted paper writers) were for a partial Phase I trial of compressed duration where most of the control group had been abandoned progressively through the trial. Which makes ever single number they published clinically and mathematically invalid. They did not use sereoligical tests to establish infection events. Which makes ever single number the published clinically and mathematically invalid. And so on and so on. But you should be getting the picture by now.

So by the regulatory standards used for every other vaccine used prior to December 2020 the Pfizer trials are fraudulent. To use your term faked. Because they sure as hell were not like any legitimate vaccine clinical trails in the last five plus decades. All the FDA 505(b)1 trials.

I can post a reading list of the standard texts on the vaccine regulatory process, clinical trials, the mathematics of clinical trial data analysis etc if it helps. Even better I can walk you through the FDA documentation on the last attempt to get a mRNA influenza vaccine approval. It was abandoned at Phase I trials. The paper published says one thing, not so bad, but a quick dig through the data shows a complete train wreck when it came to side effects. Just like the side effects we are now seeing in VAERS for the SARs CoV 2 vaccines in fact.

So yeah, the are “faked”. Because none of the numbers published are clinically legitimate results.


#6661

Watched much CBC over the years? I have. Most of their news output like The National is somewhere to the left of the Guardian. And Ontario has almost reached the same levels of Public Health Fascism as the state of Victoria.

Get back to us when CBC runs a story on the fact that for some miraculous reason CAEFISS the Canadian vaccine adverse response reporting system is showing less than 20% of the vaccine adverse responses recording rate of pretty much the same system south of the border. Or the UK Yellow Card or EU EUDRAVigilance for that matter. All three have broadly similar numbers.


#6664

Here is the FDA clinical trial entry for the Pfizer vaccine…

You know, the one that was used to issue the FDA EUA. The main vaccine used in Ireland.

Now lets go have a look at the results of the clinical trials. Oops. There are none. Because it still in Phase I trials and will only be complete in the standard 505(b)1 regulatory timeline timeframe. On May 2, 2023…

So far the only numbers we have were those presented in Pfizer press-releases (this is called Science By Press Conference in the business) and the data that is published in papers vetted per-publiscation by Pfizer. You want to look at their data you gotta sign a NDA.

Dont know about you but that does not exactly fill me with confidence as to the veracity of their claims


#6666

AZ, J&J, and Moderna have all been withdrawn fully or partially in many countries due to the adverse reactions. :thinking:


#6667

I can go through the publicly available data for those as well if you want. Its the same story. All have emergency use approval. None has the full regulatory approval (or a full clinical trial dataset ) of every other general use vaccine.

What is it about the fact that you cannot collect and verify data that takes 4 to 6 years to collect in an incomplete study 6 months that you dont understand?

Why do you think the vaccine regulators came up with the 4 to 6 year timeline? Just number they pulled out of thin air?

I notice you have not asked me about VLA2001. The only traditional accentuated virus vaccine currently in trials in some western countries. The trials data so far shows that it has the same kind of clinical profile as the annual flu shot. So perfectly safe. And from a public health point of view, just as ineffective as all the current SARs CoV 2 vaccines.

Here is something to think about. Almost all non-western countries are using traditional attenuated virus vaccines. The very safe type of vaccine. With the exception of the AZ adenovirus vaccine (which had a single type approval) the SARs CoV2 vaccine in use in western countries are of a type that never got approval in the past. Because they have dangerous side effect, short term efficacy, and most importantly THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT LONG TERM EFFECTS.

None.

Thats the problem.

As for vaccines. You are probably overdue for a Tdap booster. Every ten years. And if you are older the new shingles vaccine looks like it might be worth getting. I’ve seen too may friends suffer horrible from singles. So on my list to get.

See, some of us really do know what we are talking about. We have to. Because our health has depended for decades on knowing this shit. Inside out. Like when I got a very nasty case of Swine Flu in 2009. Spotted early symptoms immediately so avoided probable hospitalization. Much worse that SARs Cov 2. At least for me. Took months to fully recover from H1N1-09. Although the very intense localized rhino-sinusitis pain for SARS 2 is rather weird and disconcerting. And sore as hell. First week in March, 2020. No big deal. But there again I am not over 70 with a high PSI/PORT score. Or at high risk from a Hospital Acquired infection. Which is most of the genuine SARs 2 pneumonia / ARDS cases in Ireland.

So all that stuff you seem to believe. All lies. Almost all self serving lies in one reason or another.


#6668

Yes interesting bio. Early angel investor in Lifelog, I mean Facebook, I think?


#6669

We are about to stumble into a pandemic of the unvaccinated

they would only be allowed to leave their homes for specific reasons.


#6670

The original Nazi’s.


#6671

Or some guy who seems to has no background in science, especially academic science , no real grasp of the relevant mathematics, no obvious knowledge of medical science and absolutely no idea of how papers like the ones posted are written.

But he does believe what his betters tell him. Like a good little boy.

So lets go through them

Paper 1:

You must have missed the problems with the Brazil and SA part of that particular “study”. Not usual. Ad hoc studies at short notice are always difficult. But embarrassing all the same.

plus

Funding

UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland’s NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Follow the money and it will lead you into some interesting byroads.

Paper 2

Corresponding Author:
Judith Absalon, M.D., M.P.H., F.I.D.S.A.
Pfizer Inc
401 North Middletown Road
Pearl River, NY 10965
Judith.Absalon@pfizer.com

Enough said.

Paper 3

Do you know anything about statistics and sample sizes? Look at Table 1. Two groups of 400? Really? With conclusions in some categories and cohorts based on single digit samples.

Thats a F grade in any Stats 101 class I’ve ever heard of.

Paper 4

Well…

Dr. Baden reports being funded by the NIH to conduct clinical trials in collaboration with Crucell/Janssen and Moderna; Dr. Rouphael, receiving grant support from Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi–Pasteur, Eli Lilly, and Quidel; Dr. Creech, receiving grant support from Merck, consulting fees from Horizon Pharma and GSK, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Astellas; Dr. Neuzil, receiving grant support from Pfizer; Dr. Graham, holding pending patent WO/2018/081318 on prefusion coronavirus spike proteins and their use and pending patent 62/972,886 on 2019-nCoV vaccine; Dr. Bennett, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna; Dr. Pajon, being employed by and owning stock in Moderna; Dr. Knightly, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna; Drs. Leav, Deng, and Zhou being employees of Moderna; Dr. Han, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna; Dr. Ivarsson, being employed by and owning share options in Moderna; Dr. Miller, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna; and Dr. Zaks, being employed by and owning stock options in Moderna. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

But apart from all that the purported efficacy was based on the difference between 185 and 11 in a sample of 15k in a < 6 month period. Not a F grade but definitely an Incomplete. Resubmit your work when you have a much more robust data set. By the look of it 24 to 36 months of data with those kind of event frequencies would be needed to establish actual efficacy.

In case you are wondering all areas of science are like this. Published papers full of very basic errors, untenable assumptions, or fallacious conclusions. Most of them in fact. A lesson I learned back in the late 1970’s when I first did a deep dive in the published literature of a very mathematical hard science discipline. Now that was an education.

So yeah, all those guys in white coats are just on the career hamster wheel trying to get the next grant. Or tenure. Or getting their name on enough papers to get them a better position. Or better job. If you read the published literature with this basic fact of life in mind there is some real useful science to be found. But not very often. And its only found by being able to quickly filter out the bullshit papers. Which most are.


#6674

Yeah this is why endless discussions around the efficacy or otherwise of the vaccinations themselves are pointless.

People will make their own mind up and good luck to them.

The real issue here, lest people forget, is the locking out of society of anyone who dares not to adhere to the mainstream narrative or later, the potential imposition of mandatory vaccinations for all.

The focus should be on the inability of vaccines to stem the spread of the virus and the utter pointlessness of Covid certs as a means to address any of this.

I think antigen testing provides a way out for all well intentioned people regardless of their view of vaccine-efficacy.

Anything else is a waste of time at this point.


#6675

No test = no covid.

Of any kind.

Otherwise this charade will never end.


#6676

Show me your peer reviewed research that shows the vaccines are harmful or whatever you’re arguing.

How long did it take for the peer reviewed papers to appear that showed the dangers associated with the use of thalidomide? (10 years?)

Perhaps we could ‘operation warp speed’ the peer review process.