On this blog, we have some people who continue to promote conspiracy theories about Covid and Covid vaccinations. It is, therefore, time, I feel, to present them with some solid evidence on the subject (even though it means departing from our usual focus on SCAM).
This Cochrane review assessed the efficacy and safety of COVID‐19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS‐CoV‐2. An impressive team of investigators searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). They also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. They included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID‐19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.
A total of 41 RCTs could be included and analyzed assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty‐two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty‐nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromised patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two‐month follow-ups or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. The overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available were identified.The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO‐approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all‐cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high‐certainty evidence).High‐certainty evidence was found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA‐1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP‐CorV (Sinopharm‐Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID‐19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA‐1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP‐CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants).Moderate‐certainty evidence was found that NVX‐CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID‐19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants).There is low‐certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants).High‐certainty evidence was found that BNT162b2, mRNA‐1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in the incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID‐19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA‐1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants).
Moderate‐certainty evidence was found that NVX‐CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID‐19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants).
Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled.
mRNA‐1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford‐AstraZeneca)/SII‐ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to placebo (RR: mRNA‐1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII‐ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants.
Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP‐CorV, and NVX‐CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP‐CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX‐CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants).
The authors’ conclusions were as follows: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19, and for some, there is high‐certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID‐NMA platform (covid-nma.com).
_____________________
As some conspiratorial loons will undoubtedly claim that this review is deeply biased; it might be relevant to add the conflicts of interest of its authors:
- Carolina Graña: none known.
- Lina Ghosn: none known.
- Theodoros Evrenoglou: none known.
- Alexander Jarde: none known.
- Silvia Minozzi: no relevant interests; Joint Co‐ordinating Editor and Method editor of the Drugs and Alcohol Group.
- Hanna Bergman: Cochrane Response – consultant; WHO – grant/contract (Cochrane Response was commissioned by the WHO to perform review tasks that contribute to this publication).
- Brian Buckley: none known.
- Katrin Probyn: Cochrane Response – consultant; WHO – consultant (Cochrane Response was commissioned to perform review tasks that contribute to this publication).
- Gemma Villanueva: Cochrane Response – employment (Cochrane Response has been commissioned by WHO to perform parts of this systematic review).
- Nicholas Henschke: Cochrane Response – consultant; WHO – consultant (Cochrane Response was commissioned by the WHO to perform review tasks that contributed to this publication).
- Hillary Bonnet: none known.
- Rouba Assi: none known.
- Sonia Menon: P95 – consultant.
- Melanie Marti: no relevant interests; Medical Officer at WHO.
- Declan Devane: Health Research Board (HRB) – grant/contract; registered nurse and registered midwife but no longer in clinical practice; Editor, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.
- Patrick Mallon: AstraZeneca – Advisory Board; spoken of vaccine effectiveness to media (print, online, and live); works as a consultant in a hospital that provides vaccinations; employed by St Vincent’s University Hospital.
- Jean‐Daniel Lelievre: no relevant interests; published numerous interviews in the national press on the subject of COVID vaccination; Head of the Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Immunology CHU Henri Mondor APHP, Créteil; WHO (IVRI‐AC): expert Vaccelarate (European project on COVID19 Vaccine): head of WP; involved with COVICOMPARE P et M Studies (APHP, INSERM) (public fundings).
- Lisa Askie: no relevant interests; Co‐convenor, Cochrane Prospective Meta‐analysis Methods Group.
- Tamara Kredo: no relevant interests; Medical Officer in an Infectious Diseases Clinic at Tygerberg Hospital, Stellenbosch University.
- Gabriel Ferrand: none known.
- Mauricia Davidson: none known.
- Carolina Riveros: no relevant interests; works as an epidemiologist.
- David Tovey: no relevant interests; Emeritus Editor in Chief, Feedback Editors for 2 Cochrane review groups.
- Joerg J Meerpohl: no relevant interests; member of the German Standing Vaccination Committee (STIKO).
- Giacomo Grasselli: Pfizer – speaking engagement.
- Gabriel Rada: none known.
- Asbjørn Hróbjartsson: no relevant interests; Cochrane Methodology Review Group Editor.
- Philippe Ravaud: no relevant interests; involved with Mariette CORIMUNO‐19 Collaborative 2021, the Ministry of Health, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Foundation for Medical Research, and AP‐HP Foundation.
- Anna Chaimani: none known.
- Isabelle Boutron: no relevant interests; member of Cochrane Editorial Board.
___________________________
And as some might say this analysis is not new, here are two further papers just out:
Objectives To determine the association between covid-19 vaccination types and doses with adverse outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the periods of delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variant predominance.
Design Retrospective cohort.
Setting US Veterans Affairs healthcare system.
Participants Adults (≥18 years) who are affiliated to Veterans Affairs with a first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection during the periods of delta (1 July-30 November 2021) or omicron (1 January-30 June 2022) variant predominance. The combined cohorts had a mean age of 59.4 (standard deviation 16.3) and 87% were male.
Interventions Covid-19 vaccination with mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna)) and adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson)).
Main outcome measures Stay in hospital, intensive care unit admission, use of ventilation, and mortality measured 30 days after a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2.
Results In the delta period, 95 336 patients had infections with 47.6% having at least one vaccine dose, compared with 184 653 patients in the omicron period, with 72.6% vaccinated. After adjustment for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, in the delta period, two doses of the mRNA vaccines were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.43)), intensive care unit admission (0.33 (0.31 to 0.36)), ventilation (0.27 (0.24 to 0.30)), and death (0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)), compared with no vaccination. In the omicron period, receipt of two mRNA doses were associated with lower odds of hospital admission (0.60 (0.57 to 0.63)), intensive care unit admission (0.57 (0.53 to 0.62)), ventilation (0.59 (0.51 to 0.67)), and death (0.43 (0.39 to 0.48)). Additionally, a third mRNA dose was associated with lower odds of all outcomes compared with two doses: hospital admission (0.65 (0.63 to 0.69)), intensive care unit admission (0.65 (0.59 to 0.70)), ventilation (0.70 (0.61 to 0.80)), and death (0.51 (0.46 to 0.57)). The Ad26.COV2.S vaccination was associated with better outcomes relative to no vaccination, but higher odds of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission than with two mRNA doses. BNT162b2 was generally associated with worse outcomes than mRNA-1273 (adjusted odds ratios between 0.97 and 1.42).
Conclusions In veterans with recent healthcare use and high occurrence of multimorbidity, vaccination was robustly associated with lower odds of 30 day morbidity and mortality compared with no vaccination among patients infected with covid-19. The vaccination type and number of doses had a significant association with outcomes.
SECOND EXAMPLE Long COVID, or complications arising from COVID-19 weeks after infection, has become a central concern for public health experts. The United States National Institutes of Health founded the RECOVER initiative to better understand long COVID. We used electronic health records available through the National COVID Cohort Collaborative to characterize the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and long COVID diagnosis. Among patients with a COVID-19 infection between August 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022, we defined two cohorts using distinct definitions of long COVID—a clinical diagnosis (n = 47,404) or a previously described computational phenotype (n = 198,514)—to compare unvaccinated individuals to those with a complete vaccine series prior to infection. Evidence of long COVID was monitored through June or July of 2022, depending on patients’ data availability. We found that vaccination was consistently associated with lower odds and rates of long COVID clinical diagnosis and high-confidence computationally derived diagnosis after adjusting for sex, demographics, and medical history.
_______________________________________
There are, of course, many more articles on the subject for anyone keen to see the evidence. Sadly, I have little hope that the COVID loons will be convinced by any of them. Yet, I thought I should give it nevertheless a try.
121 Responses to Are COVID vaccinations ineffective and dangerous?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I would argue that COVID misinformation and disinformation is very much a part of the SCAM universe. It’s just that COVID SCAM puts a stronger emphasis on painting a negative picture of regular healthcare as compared to the purported positive aspects of the rest of SCAM. But apart from that, there are rather more similarities than differences:
– Vaccines are demonized using all the usual, age-old SCAM propaganda tropes that they are ineffective, dangerous, untested, unnecessary, and only benefit Big Pharma’s deep pockets.
– Regular, effective medicine including vaccines and other forms of prevention and treatment is relentlessly attacked, while proven ineffective ‘alternative’ treatments (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin) are heavily promoted.
– The majority of vocal COVID SCAMmers are people without any credentials or competence in medicine or science. This includes many traditional SCAMmers such as naturopaths, homeopaths, chiropractors and heilpraktiker, who have joined the COVID SCAM bandwagon in order to attract more customers and promote their particular type of SCAM.
– The handful of COVID SCAMmers who do have legitimate medical/scientific credentials have shown to have gone into full SCAM crank mode, and/or have been caught falsifying research in order to keep defending their disinformation.
– And last but not least: like all SCAMmers and their proponents, a COVID SCAMmer will never ever admit to being wrong, even when confronted with extremely strong evidence to that extent.
As for this list of conflicts of interest: it would be interesting to draw up a list of the most prolific COVID SCAMmers and examine their conflicts of interest as well as their credentials. As David Gorski recently showed, many COVID SCAMmers have found a found a way to monetize their disinformation in no small way: a simple calculation shows that attracting a following of just a thousand subscribers at $5 per month brings in $60,000 annually – a sum that is not to be sneezed at, and certainly exceeds the dubious industry sponsoring in regular medicine, which is mostly limited to a couple of thousand here and a couple of thousand there.
The really nefarious thing here is that once someone has gathered a lucrative following by spreading COVID disinformation this way, they are highly incentivised to keep producing COVID disinformation in order to maintain this source of income. And this disinformation also tends to get more extreme over time – because just repeating the same old message will also cause subscribers to leave – for other channels that still produce their favoured content …
yes, I agree!
Then,
Why the immunity from prosecution?
Why the mandates and the bribes?
Why the censorship?
This is why folks are put off, especially by the back-peddling “Oh, we never tested them for transmission (laugh)…” as if that was self-evident and anyone who did not know that already was an idiot, despite the MSM saying the opposite, night after night, month after month “The vaccines stop transmission!” two years ago.
“This is why folks are put off”
No, this is the suff around which loons build conspiracy theories.
“Brussels: A senior executive of pharmaceutical major Pfizer has made a shocking admission that the company had no information whether its Covid-19 vaccine prevented transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when it started to release the jabs.”
“The Dutch MEP later referred to the Pfizer executive’s admission as “Scandalous”.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-21/fact-check-pfizer-admission-transmission-european-parliament/101556606
“A claim that a Pfizer spokeswoman “admitted” that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was “never tested on preventing transmission” is not quite right, CheckMate has found.
In a video viewed close to 13 million times on Twitter alone, Rob Roos, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, alleges that a Pfizer director “admitted” that “at the time of introduction, the vaccine had never been tested on stopping the transmission of the virus”.
And do you know why they didn’t know if the jab prevented transmission ? …. because they SAID that they never tested for it. However, they implied that they did.
https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/nutrition/pfizer-admits-it-did-not-know-its-covid-vaccine-prevented-transmission-of-virus-when-rollout-began/ar-AA12UVUp
Please don’t resort to the lies that defend Pfizer, and the world authorities DID insist that the covid-19 vaccines would prevent transmission. That is a straight-up lie. They are all back peddling on that now, we all know what we were told. We were told we would kill grandma if we did not take the jab.
Oh there is a conspiracy, yes.
I don’t want to discuss your conspiracies here; let’s discuss the evidence that I have posted.
RG: I thought my comment was clear.
I will not allow you to again unpack your fake news here.
RG, OB & other pro-disease flat-earther stooges,
I never thought I’d say this, but you guys were right all along. The mainstream media in cahoots with big pharma is brainwashing everyone into thinking that
vaccines are safethe earth is not flat. Only a few brave folks have the courage to expose the truth: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/kandiss-taylor-globes-anti-flat-earth-brainwashing-1234741082/They are right, if
vaccines are safeearth is not flat then why push hard that message? Why resort to brainwashing the masses into thinking that earth is a globe, not a pancake? Why deny folks their pancakes? Let them eat pancakes!!!@Old Bob
Thank you for once again regurgitating some of the many lies from the COVID SCAM world:
– No-one is immune from prosecution.
– Vaccine mandates can be necessary to protect people from getting seriously ill and dying – especially when pro-death people are spreading lies that those vaccines are dangerous, unnecessary etcetera.
– There are no bribes.
– There is no censorship. Correcting and debunking lies such as the ones you are routinely spreading is NOT censorship. And if private media channels such as YouTube choose not to help spread those lies from their users, then that is not censorship either.
– There was no back-pedalling. Testing of a new vaccine never includes transmission(*), just its efficacy in preventing (serious) disease and death, and of course its safety. Transmission prevention can only be assessed after an epidemic or pandemic has already infected a significant proportion of a large population, which necessarily must include large numbers of vaccinated people as well.
*: It is however a valid assumption that a vaccine that prevents people from getting seriously ill also prevents transmission, simply because those vaccinated people, even when they get infected, are far less prolific sources of the virus than unvaccinated people.
And yes, it later turned out that COVID vaccines indeed helped to prevent transmission. Many people in higher-risk groups who didn’t get vaccinated themselves are still alive today because people around them did get vaccinated.
The real idiots here are anti-vaccine propagandists and conspiracy believers such as you and RG who keep going on about this long-debunked piece of disinformation.
Anyway, this will be my only response to your lies here, as I know that any reply from you will consist of just repeating these lies while dragging in even more lies.
Ahhhh, “Covid Loons” another silly expression that has no legal, scientific, or medical definition Edzard! I’m surprised you continue to tout these meaningless slogans. As usual, the truth can be found somewhere between two sets of extreme opinions. Governments have insisted that anti-covid drugs (aka vaccines) are ‘SAFE’. However, the literal meaning of SAFE is being free and protected from the risk of harm …
But that is not the case Edzard. Just one example below (one of many I could list) shows that these so called vaccines are not safe for everyone. Even official Government reporting pages have published numerous serious side effects experienced immediately after subjects have been impregnated with a cocktail of synthetic chemicals (so called Covid ‘vaccines’).
For your perusal:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/19/doctor-died-from-rare-reaction-to-astrazeneca-covid-jab-uk-coroner-rules
“the truth can be found somewhere between two sets of extreme opinions”
between the evidence I have shown in my post and the conspiracy theories?
you really believe that?
btw, I am not aware of a government statement claiming vaccines are free of risk; the terms ‘safe’ is used to indicate that harm is minimal compared to the benefits.
““Covid Loons” another silly expression that has no legal, scientific, or medical definition”
correct
I did not say it had a definition.
However, I find it an apt description for someone who vis a vis overwhelming evidence continues to deny the truth.
“the truth can be found somewhere between two sets of extreme opinions”
Somewhere between two sets of extreme opinions is another silly expression that has no legal, scientific, or medical definition, ‘Mike Grant’! I’m surprised you continue to tout these meaningless slogans.
You’re right not to expect evidence to convince the doubters. Part of the problem I suspect is that the evidence requires some effort to understand – not least a degree of numeracy which many lack. Anecdotes such as “x had the vaccine and had bad flu symptoms for a week while y didn’t, had Covid and had only mild flu for 2 days”.
This may be true, x and y are people you know so you can vouch for them. It’s also irrelevant but for many anecdote trumps evidence every time even if they are not in other respects conspiracy theorists.
In my experience anti-vaxxer very often belong to a group – including some physicians- that viruses do not exist, if they exist they have no proven harm to humans.
Many of them have signed the virus-myth page, to declare that HIV does not exist. And some of them are homeopaths.
Confusion can be manyfold.
Here is the link, including a list of AIDS deniers. Dr. Christion Fiala an Austrian gynecologist is still a member of the board.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm
And of course, I forgot to mention, they assiduously avoided doing any autopsies on those dying shortly after being Covid vaxxed.
@stan
Well yes, of course. It turns out that autopsies are best performed slightly later, when people are dead, not when they’re dying.
Your post should be Example A of how to take out of context. Well played.
I am tired of comments quoting COVID conspiracies and thus stopped posting them. So, COVID loons: you might as well not bother.
Here is another Covid Conspiracy Loon, the WHO.
Covid-19 vaccination can induce multiple sclerosis via cross-reactive CD4+ T cells recognizing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and myelin peptides
Qiu, Y.; Batruch, M.; Naghavian, R.; Jelcic, I.; Vlad, B.; Hilty, M.; Ineichen, B.; Wang, J.; Sospedra, M.; Martin, R..
https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/pt/covidwho-2138820?lang=en
Is the dam begining to break revealing the harms caused?
@stan
[snip latest antivaxx crap]
Nope, wrong again: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-WHO-COVID-multiple-sclerosis-591321248797
“AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. A database on the WHO website includes an abstract for a conference presentation about research that examined two recent cases of MS. The research found there might be a potential link to COVID vaccines, but did not definitively conclude the shots triggered the neurological disease, according to the global health agency and multiple sclerosis experts. They stress the research, which is not a peer-reviewed study, is limited and more extensive studies would be needed to determine what role, if any, the inoculation plays in the onset of the disease.”
(emphasis added)
Let’s just say that your incessant stupidity makes it pretty hard to stay respectful to you.
Told you so (Jessica (loon) Rose):
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/igg4-antibodies-induced-by-repeated?utm_source=substack
And the stupidity continues apace …
@Old Bob
If we add up all the different claimed risks and dangers of COVID vaccines that you and your fellow antivaxx morons keep regurgitating here, COVID vaccines should by now be considered more dangerous than a cyanide-and-arsenic cocktail.
In reality, any documented deaths or permanent damage as a result of COVID vaccination are so rare as to be virtually non-existent – I believe there are less than a dozen confirmed cases, on literally billions of vaccine doses administered. There are not even vague but real clues that COVID vaccines cause actual problems – just endless amounts of lies.
So I’m asking you respectfully to please sod off with your brainless antivaxx misinformation. You are contributing not only to the death of people whose lives depend on vaccination, but also to hate campaigns against doctors, scientists and other professionals who do their best to save as many lives as possible – quite successfully, completely unlike all those spreaders of disinformation.
Richard Rasker on Tuesday 30 May 2023 at 18:31 said:
“In reality, any documented deaths or permanent damage as a result of COVID vaccination are so rare as to be virtually non-existent – I believe there are less than a dozen confirmed cases…”
Nullius in verba.
“In a series of scorching revelations …
I will start reading and then perhaps posting your comments, once you have apologized for you ‘fascist’ allegation.
Got it?
@Edzard
I suspect that RG and the other trolls here will never
1. admit that they’ve posted nonsense
2. stop posting nonsense
3. apologize for posting nonsense (and worse).
That latest snippet you let through just shows us that he simply won’t stop, as that points to an utterly clueless conspiracy crank by the name of ‘Dr’ David Martin, who is not a doctor or a scientist at all, but a simple bean counter with serious delusions of grandeur – yes, indeed, much like Steve Kirsch.
RG,
I am on the edge of my seat to read your post. Don’t keep me waiting…..
Has anyone here seen or heard of this;
“Scientists have uncovered startling evidence that a substantial portion of the batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine deployed in the European Union may in fact have consisted of placebos – and that the German regulator knew this and did not subject them to quality-control testing.”
https://yournews.com/2023/06/29/2595614/pfizer-vaccine-batches-in-the-eu-were-placebos-say-scientists/
@John
That is almost certainly clickbait garbage, and the source is known for spreading lies and heavily biased extreme right viewpoints:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/yournews-bias/
The journalist:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milena_Preradovic
“According to Correctiv, Stuttgarter Nachrichten, Cicero, SWR and Bayerischer Rundfunk, false information about the COVID-19 pandemic was frequently disseminated. … Tweets by Preradovic under the hashtag #vaccination … including her interview with Sucharit Bhakdi, who claimed that vaccination is pointless.”
Gerald Dyker:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Dyker
“[Dyker and other antivaxxers claim] that there is not enough data to show that the vaccination does more good than harm.”
Also keep in mind that the suspicion raised is solely based on the observation that different batches of vaccines were associated with varying amounts of adverse event reports, not on any study.
The most logical explanation is simply that during the use of certain batches, antivaccine misinformation caused spikes in AEs. Most likely, there were only few AEs reported at the beginning of vaccinations, with reported numbers rising as antivaccine lies became more widespread. As the pandemic subsided and new variants became less deadly, vaccination became less urgent, and AE reports dropped again.
This exact same phenomenon has been observed with HPV vaccination, also in Denmark: at first (until 2014), the number of reported adverse events was only slightly higher than normal — which is to be expected with a new vaccine that is discussed in the news. But then in 2015, after a scaremongering ‘documentary’ claimed that HPV vaccination caused all sorts of health problems, the number of reports shot up tenfold. This had nothing to do with the vaccine batches dispensed at that time, and everything with public attention drawn to antivaccine information. Reported AEs also returned to normal levels in the years following. And no, HPV vaccination was not associated with any of the reported health problems, as multiple studies in several countries showed.
Richard Rasker on Thursday 06 July 2023 at 10:10
“@John
That is almost certainly clickbait garbage, and the source is known for spreading lies and heavily biased extreme right viewpoints…”
No, it’s the State that is dissembling:
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-wsj-on-judge-doughtys-decision?utm_source=substack
@Old John
?? What does this nonsense from Meryl Nash have to do with anything? And are you aware that Mrs Nass has been an antivaxx and conspiracy loon for well over a decade already? And that her medical license has been suspended after numerous complaints from patients in connection with to Covid vaccination and other Covid measures? And that she was ordered to undergo psychological evaluation to assess if she poses a risk to her patients?
I’d say that this is not the most trustworthy source you refer to …
The source is the Wall Street Journal reporting US District Judge, Terry A. Doughty of Louisiana on the subject of the 1st Amendment.
“Terry A. Doughty
…
In 2021, Doughty issued a nationwide injunction against a federal mandate that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19. His opinion repeated claims of Dr. Peter McCollogh, including the claims that vaccines are not useful because booster shots are recommended after six months, that vaccines “do not prevent transmission of the disease”, and that “the virus has achieved an immune escape from COVID-19 vaccines”—all opinions at odds with the majority of the medical community. McCollogh, a cardiologist, was fired from his position as vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center for spreading what the hospital considered misinformation about Covid.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_A._Doughty
You and I are both enjoying free speech for the very principle that Doughty is protecting: the first amendment.
If you are allowed to destroy your enemies by force, the time will come when you become the victim of your own petard.
@Old Bob
OK, so people who abuse their (former) medical credentials to disseminate dangerous lies – lies that can AND ABSOLUTELY DO harm people by telling them not to get vaccinated etcetera – are in your opinion not dangerous, mass-murdering (see below) a**holes who should stop spreading those lies, but ‘valiant defenders of free speech’?
After a recent, relatively sensible exchange between us I had actually credited you with some common sense. Just too bad that you now spent it all in one go …
(The expression is ‘to be hoist by your own petard’.) And if you are allowed to spread nefarious lies while in a position of authority, you can do untold damage to lots of people. Furthermore, there are no absolute rights; all rights that we humans as a society grant to individuals have limits. Usually, one person’s right ends where another person’s harm begins. If one person’s ‘free speech’ is clearly harmful to lots of other people, then that particular instance of ‘free speech’ is (and should be) punished. If your free speech incites a mob of thousands of people to storm the Capitol building in order to seize power from a newly elected president, then that ‘free speech’ will be punished.
But once again, the whole ‘free speech’ argument is just stupid. At no point are antivaxxers and Covidiots silenced or otherwise banned from spreading their lies. Sure, when they are licensed medical professionals, they can lose their license. And sure, their lies and nonsense can be contradicted and debunked. But can you point at any instance where imbeciles such as Doughty and McCullough have actually been silenced in any way, even though their lies and nonsense have arguably cost hundreds or even thousands of lives?
“…But can you point at any instance where imbeciles such as Doughty and McCullough have actually been silenced in any way…”
Yes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXB3jb5cJY
@OB
McCullough is by far the most censored person on this planet. I bet he is gagged, straight-jacketed and locked away in the basement of some asylum on a remote island. However, he managed to put his name on over 200 publications since the pandemic started: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LzqEaOkAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
How do you think he did that? Is there a McCullough doppelganger running around publishing all these articles?
“The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.”
― Saint Augustine
Let it be known that as of today Old Bob commented twelve times on this post, defending “The Truth”. 🤣
Let’s make it 13.
Breaking: UK babies with unusual surge in myocarditis:
https://vigilantfox.substack.com/p/unusual-surge-in-severe-myocarditis
@OB
The “truth” refer to is not a lion but a lying, scheming, rabid fox and you cannot tell the difference between the two, just like you cant tell the difference between causation vs correlation. And thank you for proving my point by posting yet another link you dredged out of the sewers of the internet. I know this wont be the last.
Maybe you will believe The Times?
https://archive.is/BoPrc
OB,
You can keep posting links and gish gallop around all you want. I will believe when your “Lion” starts defending itself without your help.
You are confusing the messenger for the message: the lion is defending itself, those links (that I report) are also reports.
You are hilarious, OB. Why would a lion need a messenger? Can it not roar? Is it mute? Or is it just a little kitty cat that needs a messenger to amplify its meows.
@Old Bob
“A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on” (falsely attributed to, among others, Mark Twain).
Anyway, it is an interesting phenomenon: every time someone like you uses the word ‘truth’, I get this really bad smell in my nose.
“No jabby-jabby for me! Praise GOD!” But now this antivaxer has died of COVID-related pneumonia
Published Wednesday 15 March 2023
https://edzardernst.com/2023/03/no-jabby-jabby-for-me-praise-god-but-now-this-antivaxer-has-died-of-covid-related-pneumonia/
Old Bob on Thursday 23 March 2023 at 13:31
@DavidB
@JMK
Feynman (who else) does a pretty good job of why E=MC^2 in Chapter 13 of Vol1 of his Physics Lectures with very little math – in six, engaging pages.
❌ why E=MC^2
❌ in Chapter 13
✔ of Vol1 of his Physics Lectures
❌ with very little math
❌ in six, engaging pages
The reporter’s errors don’t are his; not errors of his subject (Feynman).
Feynman is a good example of a Lion – he needs no defence.
OB, I am pretty sure Pete Attkins is not talking about Feynman.
Just an FYI, McCullough, Vigilant Fox and other anti-vaxxers are NOT in the same league as Feynman. Your false equivalency is probably making Feynman spin in his grave faster than an electron can spin.
Then you don’t know Feynman – see his chapter Uncle Sam Doesn’t Need You – his spirit stands with McCullough, RFK Jr, Marik, Yeadon etc against the howling mob.
OB,
The howling you hear is the howling laughter of so-called “vaxx-lovers” i.e., those who did not fall for conspiracy theories, got vaccinated and survived and continue to survive the pandemic. They are all laughing at clownish antics of you and your fellow anti-vaxxers. Why do you think EE keeps you around? You and your antivaxx cohort are nothing but monkeys in a cage, dancing and entertaining the zoo patrons for bananas.
You seem to be describing the Great Reset?
(I have not read it myself).
@Old Bob
I don’t know about “The Great Reset” but I think pandemic triggered the making of The Stupid Antivaxxer. Probably a side-effect of consuming too much right-wing news media. If only there is a vaccine to prevent one from becoming a stupid antivaxxer. I think you should watch this movie called “Virulent: The Vaccine War” https://virulentmovie.com
I’m seeing that the term “antivax” can have many different meanings. I find it amusing (but sad) that such a newfound term to the masses is not clear to many. So many sheep flinging around a label about people that carries ambiguous meanings. Even dictionaries are not precise enough. five years ago most people never heard of the term.
Merriam-Webster;
“a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination.”
Cambridge Dictionary;
“used to describe a person or group that does not agree with vaccinating people (= giving them injections to prevent disease) and spreads and encourages opinions against vaccines”
BBC;
“The anti-vaccination movement is when people don’t believe that some or all vaccines are a good thing, and do not want themselves, family members or other people to be vaccinated.”
Collins;
“a person who is opposed to vaccination”
Medical News Today
“Anti-vaxxer” refers to people who disagree with the use of vaccines for a variety of reasons. For example, some view vaccines as an infringement on their human rights.”
Each definition has a slightly different meaning, there is no consensus. I am confident there are even more variations to define antivaxxers.
I will say this, many many people now cast into the antivaxxers group are actually vaccine hesitant folks, mostly opposed to mRNA vaccines ONLY, or ineffective covid virus vaccines. Most of these folks labeled as antivax have taken all their childhood vaccines, and likely other vaccines…. including covid vaccines. If you oppose mandates, you can be labeled antivax. That is simply not right.
The covid vaccines have never met the previous standards of vaccine testing, and they have led to more injuries than other vaccines have caused. The Phamaceutical companies hold no liability to patients. For these reason patients are more skeptical than ever… and rightly so.
@John
This is a lie.
This is a lie
This is a lie
This is a lie.
It is because of the persistent lies from you and other antivaxxers who don’t know what they’re talking about that many people were persuaded to shun vaccines and effectively play Russian Roulette with their health and their life.
Yes, we know. You wish people to get sick and die. Well, you got your wish. It is because of the persistent lies from you and other antivaxxers who don’t know what they’re talking about that tens or even hundreds of thousands of people have died needlessly from Covid-19.
‘John’ wrote:
Merriam-Webster;
“a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination.”
QUOTE from Merriam-Webster
anti-vaxxer noun
variants or less commonly antivaxxer or anti-vaxer or antivaxer
: a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, regulations mandating vaccination, or usually both
As a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the use of the term anti-vaxxer has both increased and broadened. Anti-vaxxer came to the fore most prominently in the context of childhood immunization, where it is used to refer to someone who opposes the use of vaccines and who is also against policies, laws, etc. requiring vaccination for inclusion in a certain activity (such as attending school).
[examples]
With the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic and new regulations concerning vaccination against the disease, anti-vaxxer also began to be used to refer to a person who is specifically against COVID-19 vaccines and regulations requiring vaccination against COVID-19.
[example]
The term anti-vaxxer is sometimes applied to people who are not against the use of vaccines but who do oppose policies, laws, etc. that require vaccination. People with such views often object to being characterized as anti-vaxxers.
[examples]
First Known Use
2001, in the meaning defined above
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
Richard Rasker on Friday 14 July 2023 at 18:44, said:
“@John… This is a lie… this is a lie… this is a lie… this is a lie…
It is because of the persistent lies from you and other antivaxxers who don’t know what they’re talking about that many people were persuaded to shun vaccines and effectively play Russian Roulette with their health and their life.”
Do you really believe that? That folks accidentally stumbled on some social media posts and switched from vaxxers to anti-vaxxers and started playing “…russian roulette with their health and their life…”?
Richard Rasker on Friday 14 July 2023 at 18:44, said:
“@John…
It is because of the persistent lies from you and other antivaxxers who don’t know what they’re talking about that many people were persuaded to shun vaccines and effectively play Russian Roulette with their health and their life.”
Do you really believe that? That folks accidentally stumbled on some social media posts and switched from vaxxers to anti-vaxxers and started playing “…Russian Roulette with their health and their life…”?
@Old Bob
No, I don’t believe that. I KNOW it – I have seen it happen all around me. Right from the first moment that vaccines became available, people’s social media accounts were bombarded with the exact same antivaccine lies that antivaxxer John is regurgitating here. I don’t use any social media myself, but even I got e-mails from friends and family on this subject. The smarter ones asked me if it was true that the vaccines hadn’t been tested, and that it could damage our DNA, or that the first people had already died from them. Others had already swallowed the lies and tried to warn me for the things mentioned, referring to those lies. I’d say about 5% of the people I know decided not to get vaccinated because of this, taking the risk of severe illness (which indeed happened to a few of them) or even death.
The thing with social media is that you don’t just ‘stumble on’ things – you get them force-fed to you. And especially conspiracy loons and antivaxxers are highly prolific spreaders of the nonsense they believe in. I know of several people who had to block former friends because those former friends kept sending them rubbish about the purported evils of vaccines – very much like you do here.
Richard Rasker on Saturday 15 July 2023 at 10:00 said:
“…I KNOW it.”
“…I know of several people who had to block former friends because those former friends kept sending them rubbish about the purported evils of vaccines – very much like you do here.”
That is very interesting and I believe you, being a bombarder myself of friends and family and I got the same absolute-rejection from a (former?) acquaintance for posting him the latest WAVSS data from Western Australia, he actually cussed in his email reply (and I am just the messenger), his argument is with the WAVSS, not with me, shout at them.
I don’t know why you are so certain, so I examine myself, and that goes way back to childhood, in being disillusioned with Authority (you are supposed to fight the bullies in the playground yourself. The teachers expect it). So that is how I have become “self sufficient” in that respect and it applies to all Authority from then on. I only trust what I see with my own eyes and only depend on myself as much as possible, not on other people, especially “experts” where I fall back on Churchill’s wonderful quote on that subject of expert-knowledge-is-limited-knowledge:
Quote Churchill:
“Nothing would be more fatal than for the Government of States to get in the hands of experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows where it hurts, is a safer guide than any rigorous direction of a specialized character”
End-of-quote
Of course, that relates to the “..I KNOW…” part of your post, that exposes its fatal flaw: We are expected to take the “I KNOW” part without question, and that is not how it is done.
@Old Bob
No, his argument is absolutely with you. Because WAVSS is simply the Western Australian version of the American VAERS database. No doubt, you made the same stupid mistake that all antivaxxers make, i.e. shoving reported adverse events in his face as if they were all caused by vaccination.
If he called you a dumb f*ck for doing so, he was absolutely right. From the Web site (emphasis added):
“What is an Adverse Event Following Immunisation?
An adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) is an unwanted or unexpected event occurring after the administration of a vaccine. (NOT: ’caused by’)
Such an event may be caused by the vaccine or occur by chance after vaccination (that is, it would have occurred regardless of vaccination).
Most vaccines cause minor adverse events such as low-grade fever, pain or redness at the injection site.”
I am certain that those antivaxx imbeciles started pushing their lies right from the first vaccine administered because I SAW THOSE LIES WITH MY OWN EYES. In fact, you’d have to have been bloody blind and deaf NOT to be confronted with the clamouring of those dimwits.
Nope, you don’t. Because you haven’t seen any ‘vaccine damage’ with your own eyes, nor have you seen with your own eyes how vaccines have been tested, how they have been developed etcetera. All you have seen is what experts and authorities showed you – simply because there is nothing else to be seen. Even that WAVSS database was created by experts and health authorities, and they of course also see the same data that you see with your own eyes. The only difference is that you choose to misinterpret that data, and that misinterpreted data is what you base your opinion and beliefs on – together of course with the things that other antivaxx imbeciles claim – things that you haven’t seen with your own eyes (and neither have they).
Quote Churchill:
“Nothing would be more fatal than for the Government of States to get in the hands of experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows where it hurts, is a safer guide than any rigorous direction of a specialized character”
End-of-quote
So when a deadly pandemic is raging around the world you’d rather rely on the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who is dying from the virus in droves – and thus knows where it hurts – than on what experts have come up with to prevent all that suffering and death (i.e. very effective vaccines)? I knew you were not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is championship-class stupidity.
You appear to have the reading abilities of the common whelk. This ‘I KNOW’ part referred to knowing that many people all over the Internet were confronted with the lies and nonsense from antivaxxers almost before the first vaccine was administered, something that you said was unlikely. Also see above.
Anyway, I get this talking-to-dummies(*) headache again, so I’ll just let you stew here and go have a nice cool beer myself.
*: Akin to running into a brick wall.
So you don’t have any evidence, just more of the “I KNOW” + personal insults.
These folks disagree:
https://elylazar.substack.com/p/shocking-but-not-surprising-vaccine
Old Bob:
Well, I think a Substack writing travelling chiropractor and a thoroughly debunked antivax Youtube nurse are not the type of people I would go to for healthcare information 😀
Björn Geir on Sunday 16 July 2023 at 12:47 said:
“Well, I think a Substack writing travelling chiropractor and a thoroughly debunked antivax Youtube nurse are not the type of people I would go to for healthcare information 😀”
That is your choice (and characterisation) for you to believe accordingly.
Meanwhile UK doctors are suffering from “long covid” at the rate of 1 in 5:
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/your-health/covid-19-long-covid-support-for-doctors
So the question is: Why is the most vaccinated group suffering the most?
During 2020, I was out buying organic veg every three days for juicing. I never caught anything.
Also a relative working in a local supermarket was likewise OK the whole year, and that store employs 300 employees and she did not know anyone who caught covid-19 either, despite the daily horror stories coming out of the MSM.
Likewise here in my village, walking the dog every day, I only heard of two people who tested positive (from third parties) for covid and both were unremarkable.
When the vaccine came out the next year in 2021, I refused to take it and have never suffered anything apart from two colds in spring of 2022 that lasted less than a week with mild symptoms, maybe that was covid-19? – I do not know.
According to certain replies above, I am not to trust my own observations because I am no expert, I have been blinded by my own ignorance it seems, well let it be so: “…the unlimited ignorance of a plain man…” works OK for me, whereas the “…rigorous direction of a specialised character.” has not worked out for the medical experts according to the BMJ who blame “long covid” because they were always in contact with suspected covid patients – so how did the covid-jabs work for them? By their own admission, not well, which was the whole point of taking them in the first place.
@Old Bob
So far, I have been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines 5 times. Apart from a sore arm and mild fever I never had myocarditis or any other major side-effect that antivaxxers scream about. I stopped wearing a mask and I never tested positive for COVID so far. All the folks I know in my village got vaccinate and never tested positive. Therefore, mRNA vaccines work great. I have no idea why you think mRNA vaccines are dangerous and why the right-wing news media reporting is reporting it that way. If you don’t believe me, come to my village and see for yourself.
I’m bumping the post from Old Bob to attempt to get a serious reply.
I made the same point here in another thread that MD’s are claiming the effects of long covid in spite of being a highly vaccinated subgroup of the overall population.
Why is it that MD’s (a highly vaccinated group) are experiencing such high rates of covid related disease ?
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/covid-19/your-health/covid-19-long-covid-support-for-doctors
Bump
how many months into the pandemic did vaccines become available?
who treated patients during this period?
@John a.k.a RG
First, you can stop pretending like you are someone else.
Second, you can apologize for calling folks fascist and regain your old moniker.
But you most likely are not going to do either of those.
Third, you can bump OBs question all you want. That does nothing but highlight your (and OB’s) ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills, something that is inherent to antivax stooges like yourself.
Talker on Monday 17 July 2023 at 18:44 said:
“So far, I have been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines 5 times. Apart from a sore arm and mild fever I never had myocarditis or any other major side-effect that antivaxxers scream about. I stopped wearing a mask and I never tested positive for COVID so far. All the folks I know in my village got vaccinate and never tested positive.”
That is also true for everyone in my village that I asked, at least 20 of them.
“Therefore, mRNA vaccines work great.”
Phase III is still in progress. Wait till end of phase IV for final verdict.
“I have no idea why you think mRNA vaccines are dangerous and why the right-wing news media reporting is reporting it that way. If you don’t believe me, come to my village and see for yourself.”
I believe you, and the others here, Raskin etc are in ernest and that quite a large chunk of the world’s population too, simply because “only” about 1 in 800 suffer a life-altering AE such as Maddie de Garay, so it is entirely possible that the entire 650 MPs of House of Commons of the UK could have been vaccinated without any of them suffering such a serious AE as Maddie de Garay did.
But we are told, without any evidence, by Faucci and the MSM that this type of AE is only 1 in 1,000,000 and yet the CDC fought to keep this data secret for 75 years, but were defeated in court and ordered to produce it during the course of a year by ICAN.
Also this latest legal victory today (17th July 2023 – years late) by ICAN…:
https://icandecide.org/press-release/exclusive-ican-obtains-critical-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-lot-information/
…to get previously released data from Moderna unredacted (one year and four months later!)
@OB You will believe what random folks on the internet say. But you won’t believe the experts who have been working in their respective fields for decades. That is quite an evidentiary standard you got there.
‘John’ wrote “Why is it that MD’s (a highly vaccinated group) are experiencing such high rates of covid related disease ?”
Quantify (approximately) “high rates”, because it seems that you still haven’t bothered to complete Step 1 and Step 2 “in another thread”:
https://edzardernst.com/2023/07/long-covid-is-having-a-devastating-effect-on-healthcare-professionals/#comment-146853
@Old Bob
There is no evidence that Maddie de Garay’s condition was caused by vaccination, nor have there been any other, similar cases that can be linked to vaccination. Doctors simply don’t know what caused her condition – even though it is quite understandable that their parents attributed it to vaccination given that it happened shortly after her second Covid shot.
And it is an utter lie that ‘1 in 800’ suffer similar adverse events from vaccines.
Richard Rasker on Tuesday 18 July 2023 at 08:44n said:
“There is no evidence that Maddie de Garay’s condition was caused by vaccination…”
This is the nature of the industry from the 1980 to 2022:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Pharma-Democracy/dp/B09LVY1WHB/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+real+anthony+fauci+by+robert+f.+kennedy+jr&qid=1689602421&sprefix=the+real%2Caps%2C489&sr=8-1
(NB I make no opinion, just see the 3 number 2 positions in Amazon’s best sellers and the 20K reviews etc – and it has been out for more than one year – why is there no lawsuit against RFK for slander? Because RFK is a long-time litigator who generally wins because nothing he says is “I think”, it is all referenced (over 1,000 references here), that’s how lawyers prove cases.
See the temporal association (third graphic down) for yourself:
https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data
“…nor have there been any other, similar cases that can be linked to vaccination.”
Yes there are:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cause-Epidemic-Sudden-Childrens-Defense/dp/1510776397/ref=sr_1_1?crid=30LODMXNSK0IY&keywords=edward+doud&qid=1689669129&s=audible&sprefix=edward+doud%2Caudible%2C209&sr=1-1-catcorr
“…Doctors simply don’t know what caused her condition”
Not all doctors e.g.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/about-the-flccc/our-physicians/
“…And it is an utter lie that ‘1 in 800’ suffer similar adverse events from vaccines.”
Not according to this:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/04/covid-vaccines-are-killing-one-in-every-800-over-60s-and-should-be-withdrawn-immediately-says-leading-vaccine-scientist/
Talker on Tuesday 18 July 2023 at 15:27 said:
“…You will believe what random folks on the internet say. But you won’t believe the experts who have been working in their respective fields for decades. That is quite an evidentiary standard you got there.”
It’s the message that matters, not the messenger. A reputation can be a handicap: Why risk losing it for some hare-brained idea? Better to play it safe and say nothing for fear of ridicule and losing that reputation.
Alternatively, go for it e.g.
Richard Feynman
James Lovelock
Jocelyn Bell
Henrietta Leavitt
…
@OB
Early on during the pandemic, my barber told me that I should believe what Dr. Fauci and other experts in the field say about COVID and mRNA vaccines and that I should get vaccinated. Therefore, I did. Ignoring who the messenger is, that is the best advice I ever received, and I don’t regret following through with it. Too bad the messages I received are better than the ones you received. But I think I agree with your in that the messenger doesn’t matter. Therefore, next time I need medical advice I will reach out to my car mechanic.
@Old Bob
With all due respect, but you are a pathetic antivaxx troll who keeps spreading the lies from other imbeciles without thinking for even one second. Every single one of those people and sources you come up with is either no scientist at all to begin with or has been completely discredited by his or her peers.
And do you really believe that Covid vaccines kill one in every 800 people over 60 – without anyone noticing except one lone antivaxx crank? Let’s just say that I had no respect for your mental capabilities as it was, and that this doesn’t exactly make things better …
FYI: those excess deaths on which Schetters based his correlation=causation idiocy were not only explained the moment they happened, they were even predicted: those deaths closely followed Covid infections – and those rising infections numbers also caused a surge in especially elderly people getting their booster shots. So yeah, excess deaths coincide with more vaccinations – and both have the same cause: increasing numbers of Covid infections.
But trust antivaxxers to get things completely backwards, as usual.
Anyway, I’ll leave it at this, as every debunk from me is a reason for you to dredge up ever more crap from the endless supply in the sewers of the internet.
Richard Rasker on Tuesday 18 July 2023 at 17:06 said:
“…With all due respect, but you are a pathetic antivaxx troll who keeps spreading the lies from other imbeciles without thinking for even one second. Every single one of those people and sources you come up with is either no scientist at all to begin with or has been completely discredited by his or her peers.”
You have no evidence, only insults – what does that tell you?
“And do you really believe that Covid vaccines kill one in every 800 people over 60…”
Maybe, maybe not, it depends on the evidence. What is your counter-evidence?
Demands the guy who has nothing to show for but Mr. Hanky that he dredged out of Internet Sewer Media
Talker on Tuesday 18 July 2023 at 23:09 said:
“…Demands the guy who has nothing to show for but Mr. Hanky that he dredged out of Internet Sewer Media”
Such as this? :
https://rumble.com/v30si92-vsrf-is-making-an-impact.html?blm_aid=12045471
Exactly, OB. Once in a while you may want to get your head out of the gutter and listen to someone other than Mr. Hanky.
Someone with real credentials, like Dr. Gorski: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/07/12/a-mouse-died-suddenly-of-turbo-cancer-after-covid-19-vaccination/
This guy disagrees:
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/gorskis-latest-hit-piece-about-me
OB,
Perhaps you are too busy looking for Mr. Hankey in the sewer. But you should take some time and read Dr. Gorski’s response to Kirsch’s post: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2023/06/16/steve-kirsch-denies-being-a-doxxing-bully-hilarity-ensues/
@Old Bob
This guy, Steve Kirsch, an electrical engineer and computer scientist, has no idea about medicine, corona or vaccinations, as has been explained to you at least a dozen times. But instead of acknowledging this fact, you’d rather stick your fingers in your ears and sing “lalalala”. Because otherwise your world view would collapse like a house of cards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kirsch
If you delegate all knowledge to something else, you become its slave without eyes and ears (and eventually thoughts) of your own, and in this eutopia, where are the new ideas to spring from? Not from the dumb-deaf-and-blind slaves, only from the masters-of-wisdom such as Wikipedia… or Anthony Faucci… or the WHO or the CDC or the FDA or the master of all things medical, Matt Hancock.
Thanks for confirming that you are a believer in conspiracy theories. Here you have a tin foil hat. 😀
Here are the latest conspiracy theories, brought to you by Pfizer:
https://icandecide.org/press-release/latest-pfizer-documents-reveal-highly-suspicious-deaths-and-hospitalizations-in-the-clinical-trial-data/
Truly extraordinary barrel-scraping, even by your own hapless standards, OB.
A man’s wife suffering a miscarriage after he received his second dose is probably the pick of the bunch.
43,000 people is a lot of people. People suffer medical problems. The loons try to insist that everything is caused by Teh Vaxcings. Their hapless and ignorant flailing is why they are laughed at by scientists. The likes of Kirsch, Bigtree, RFK and Wakefield are grifters, Bob. They’re cashing in on you and your ignorant mates. You’re being played like a fiddle by a bunch of con-men.
Lenny on Thursday 20 July 2023 at 17:04 said:
“…43,000 people is a lot of people…”
Quote
“Pfizer’s trial included over 43,000 people but, to date, FDA has produced only 785 case report forms for less than 2% of the trial participants. If and when more are produced, ICAN will continue to update our supporters.”
End-of-quote
“A man’s wife suffering a miscarriage after he received his second dose is probably the pick of the bunch.”
It’s infectious: e.g. from husband to wife.
@antediluvian Robert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_Consent_Action_Network
Does the tin foil hat sit firmly on your head? Or did you have to staple it? 😉
Talker on Thursday 20 July 2023 at 19:38 quoted Gorski:
Quote: Gorski:
“…Steve Kirsch… Worse, he is rich, has a large social media presence, and, like many cranks whom I’ve encountered in the past, a penchant for using legal thuggery to bully and intimidate his critics into silence.”
End-of-Gorski-quote
This is Confession-Through-Projection.
Look at that last sentence:
“…Worse, he is rich,” – (to looters, money is evil)
“…has a large social media presence,” – (to haters, being popular is evil)
“…[he uses]… thuggery to bully…” – (to thugs, everyone else is a thug)
(all the other sentiments are variations of the same type)
I bet you didn’t read Dr. Gorski’s article. He wrote about how Kirsch uses his fame and fortune to dox someone who said something he didn’t like. You are free to ignore the message and punch the messenger, even though you like to say “It’s the message that matters, not the messenger“
@RPGNo1
Have you ever tried stapling something to a balloon?
Talker on Friday 21 July 2023 at 16:37 said:
“….It’s the message that matters, not the messenger“…”
Of course, and the mistake that Gorski makes is in the message above: invective.
He needs to change his message by replacing the personal insults with data to prove his case, allowing anyone to check it, and if it is true, he wins, simple.
Likewise Kirsh.
It should all be about the message, not the messengers.
Richard Rasker
You claim that the link I posted is “clickbait garbage”.
Well, I won’t attempt to vouch for the publisher of the article. However, I can provide another source of the same subject, in fact the very same article from perhaps a publisher that you might be more willing to accept. I don’t know if you want to media bias check wiley.com. It doesn’t appear to be clickbait.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998
I think this link will validate the source of the report, the conclusion to the evidence may vary by reader. Certainly, the scientist that evaluated the data came to their own conclusions. The fact that you don’t agree is another matter.
In another post I saw that you had this to say about free speech;
“there are no absolute rights; all rights that we humans as a society grant to individuals have limits. Usually, one person’s right ends where another person’s harm begins. If one person’s ‘free speech’ is clearly harmful to lots of other people, then that particular instance of ‘free speech’ is (and should be) punished.”
This can become a slippery slope. Who becomes the judge of when a person is harmed ? There are many that might claim that my ideology is offensive to another person. I might claim that your expressed ideology is offensive to me. Where is the line drawn ?
@John
Yes, the first link you provided was dumb clickbait. Only conspiracy loons believe that some vaccine batches were placebos.
And no, I do not contest that there are differences in numbers of reported adverse events between batches, and I am also not surprised by this at all. History has shown that spontaneously reported AEs can vary enormously due to public (mis/dis)information. Just one TV show or (nowadays) internet video or social post about presumed side effects can cause thousands of reports all of a sudden where there were previously just a few. And oh, now that you brought up placebo vaccines: it turns out that the majority of reported AEs were in fact placebo (or nocebo, if you will) effects.
The gist of it is pretty simple: PASSIVE REPORTING SYSTEMS CANNOT ESTABLISH CAUSALITY when it comes to side effects, adverse events or quality problems. Anyone searching for causal links between reported AEs and vaccines administered using only these systems(*) is on a fool’s errand . If they are people with scientific credentials, all the worse for them, because they really should know better.
*: There is of course nothing wrong with using these reported AEs in follow-up research, to see if there is any actual causality. This is in fact the sole legitimate function of those reporting systems: providing a signal, a starting point for further investigation. But drawing conclusions based on just those reported AEs is Very Wrong.
About the right to free speech: it is of course up to a judge to establish if any harm as a result of someone’s utterances outweighs their right to free speech. This is also why we have libel laws, which can force people to shut up for a variety of reasons. There is nothing ‘slippery slope’ about this. And oh, in medicine, it is medical boards who judge if doctors are causing harm by what they advise to their patients.
But as said already, this free speech argument is completely moot in this context, if only because antivaxxers are not silenced in any way. They don’t seem to know the difference between criticism and censorship – just like they don’t seem to know a lot of other things they talk about.
Richard Rasker on Friday 07 July 2023 at 14:13 said
“…antivaxxers are not silenced in any way…”
https://nypost.com/2023/07/06/new-york-times-shows-democrats-lie-about-federal-censorship/
The assumption above is that one is right – hence the use of force is OK.
But when the opposing view is the same, we get war, both sides being equally convinced of their righteousness.
The Constitution is a solution to this problem, but, as was said at the time, it depends on the morality of the People: when their morality decays, so does their society despite their paper-rules and we are back to war.
OB: Always punching the straw man to pieces and celebrating victory, no matter how inconsequential.
Thanks for the laughs, buddy!
Richard Rasker
It appears that you are one of the forum resident spokespersons, ready and willing to push-back at alternative views.
You said;
“And no, I do not contest that there are differences in numbers of reported adverse events between batches, and I am also not surprised by this at all. History has shown that spontaneously reported AEs can vary enormously due to public (mis/dis)information. Just one TV show or (nowadays) internet video or social post about presumed side effects can cause thousands of reports all of a sudden where there were previously just a few.”
History ? history as a fact ? you are referring to the same thing as what you label correlations. That is not scientific proof either. So, you have nothing.
No more than the similar type of history (correlations) of many a pharma a medication that negatively affected enough patients to pull a drug off the market.
The greater majority of the batches from this report that were extremely high in SAEs were early on in the vaccine administering program, before most patients had any knowledge of publicized adverse effects. So, it’s highly unlikely that patients go the idea to claim damage from social media.
If by some chance patients made SAEs as a result of word of mouth, it’s likely that somebody they knew actually was damaged. There is no reward to go through the reporting process and gain nothing from Pfizer/Moderna.
On the subject of free speech. Who said anything about MD’s not being responsible for what they advise their patients to do. That is another subject… jeesh. That said, it need be in writing or with a witness, or it will be heresy.
@John
It’s even far more unlikely that there were major differences between vaccine batches. It’s very simple: every time a new vaccine is widely introduced, the number of reported AEs will be significantly higher than later on. This is not just because antivaxxers begin to spread their lies from the moment that the new vaccine is introduced, but also because people and healthcare workers are in fact explicitly asked to report suspected AEs. IIRC, US doctors are even required by law to submit a report every time a patient dies or suffers serious health problems within a couple of months of being vaccinated – even if it is quite certain that the vaccine had nothing to do with it. But I’d have to look this up, as I’m not certain about the details of this obligation to report serious AEs.
The resulting spikes in reporting are of course investigated, but so far, they have never been linked to any actual quality problem with vaccines. No doubt, the same will happen with these Danish figures.
Also note that some of these vaccine batches contained only a couple of thousand vaccines. This means that only a handful of AE reports can already make a difference there. The researchers also noted that smaller batches were associated with more reports.
Anyway, we can speculate all we want about those reports, but only proper investigation can provide answers. People really should not start making up nonsense about vaccine batches being placebos etcetera based on this – but alas, that’s what people do.
Richard Rasker on Monday 10 July 2023 at 08:26 said:
“It’s very simple: every time a new vaccine is widely introduced, the number of reported AEs will be significantly higher than later on.”
From here:
https://openvaers.com/covid-data
Reports of 80 deaths from a few vaccines in 1990 when there were fewer shots
Today we have far more shots from far more vaccines e.g. according to the CDC here:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html
And during 1990 to 2020, the highest report of death was 602 in 2019 despite the increases.
But in 2021, the reported deaths rose to 22,278.
I don’t recall any anti-vaxxer activity at the start of 2021 at all. My wife got her shot (I declined because of my cancer-home-research (don’t go the genetic route), but I still had my flu shot, like everybody else who are being labeled “anti-vaxxers” by people who don’t anything about you).
My wife lost 50% of her hearing in her left ear. She thought it was just blocked and went to have it cleared out. Then she got a tremendous “banging sound” (her heartbeat) in both ears, finally resolved two years later, quite suddenly, overnight (literally).
None of this has been reported on any government database because we already reported the giant hives that happened immediately (10 days after) and I can’t be asked to find all the original details and mess about all over again (just entering “giant hives” is quite hard work – try it for yourself! – you have to do “research” to find out what the name of those symptoms are, that match the options that are offered up by the website, – so no wonder folks don’t do it).
We have both had all the jabs going since the 1950s and this is the first time either of us reported anything, not because we are antivaxxers (how can we be antivaxxers when we had all the jabs?) but because this is the first time something happened. (she also started to lose her balance, and had to spend a week in bed and has permanent tingling in her hands and feet).
This is the first time I have reported these symptoms publicly because otherwise, you just get a load of personal abuse.
So you can abuse me all you like and all that will do is make me more determined to speak out, as in this.
It would appear that the covid pandemic and the mRNA vaccines (among other failed covid vaccines) … along with gov mandates have led to a very high level of vaccine hesitancy. Perhaps as high as ever.
Keep pushing, till something breaks.
It would appear that during the covid pandemic irrational thinking and conspiracy theories have led to a very high level of vaccine hesitancy. Perhaps as high as ever.
Just looked it up:
https://www.nihb.org/covid-19/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/10-Things-Healthcare-Providers-Need-to-Know-About-VAERS.pdf
And here’s some more background on the whole ‘placebo vaccine’ hoax:
https://news.italy24.press/covid-19/664235.html
I know someone who won the lottery shortly after getting vaccinated-do you think there is a causal lik too?
There’s more chance of me winning the lottery than getting killed by a vaccination — even though I get my vaccinations and never play the lottery 😃
‘John’ wrote:
The greater majority of the batches from this report that were extremely high in SAEs were early on in the vaccine administering program, before most patients had any knowledge of publicized adverse effects. So, it’s highly unlikely that patients go the idea to claim damage from social media.
If by some chance patients made SAEs as a result of word of mouth, it’s likely that somebody they knew actually was damaged. There is no reward to go through the reporting process and gain nothing from Pfizer/Moderna.”
See also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Society_and_culture
I would argue that being published in medical publications and censorship on social media are not the same. Nobody is claiming he can’t get his work published. If Peter McCullough was not censored, why were videos and his advice removed from FB Twitter and YouTube ?
I’d say that is some large-scale censorship that has/had the potential to reach far more readers than medical publications. If you can’t tell the difference, you’re out of touch with modern media.
@John
Because McCullough is spreading harmful lies and misinformation, and YouTube and Twitter do not want to contribute to spreading those lies – just like e.g. the New York Times or the Washington Post or most other private news channels would refuse to publish his lies. And if for instance McCullough were to show up on this blog in order to push his lies, then Edzard would also block him – eventually, after first correcting/debunking those lies, and giving due warning in advance.
But McCullough is not censored in any way, and is free to keep spreading his lies via any
internet sewermedia channel that allows him to do so. He could even set up his own Web site if no-one else wants to help him spread his lies.@Richard Rasker
McCullough has a substack page where he blogs and he has an active Twitter account. I will not post links to either of those pages. BTW..I love the term Internet Sewer Media (ISM).
@John
According to Musk, Twitter is considered “de facto public town square” https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507777261654605828?lang=en
McCullough is very active on Twitter.
The logic goes, since McCullough is active on public town square, he is not considered censored.
Therefore, you can now stop crying about how antivaxxers are being censored on the internet.
McCullough WAS previously restricted from posting on twitter, now has been reinstated.
@John
McCullough’s shoddy published research is far worse than his posts on social media. His published “research” gets routinely picked up and amplified by right-wing news media and antivax folks like yourself. Here is an example: https://wsau.com/2023/07/11/study-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-culprit-in-majority-found-dead-after-injection/. Getting censored on a handful of social media sites is not a big deal for McCullough and doesn’t stop him from pumping out massive amounts of misinformation.
Legacy media and big tech media are in bed together, birds of a feather fly together.
Richard, please don’t try to argue that ideology or opinion … or TRUTH are good excuses for censorship. The Christian Bible is banned (censored) in 52 countries of the world today. So which countries are right or wrong ? Do you argue that the Bible is not censored because they have digital media to use… to create their own website ?
It’s simply not true that censorship is not censorship if there is an alternative. You remind me of the vaccine mandates, people that claim it was not “forced” on everybody…. yeah, get real.
While it’s true that McCullough could create his own website, that is not the definition of censorship that he has an alternative path. YOU may attempt to justify it, but that does not mean it’s not censorship.
cen·sorship
[ˈsensərˌSHip]
NOUN
the suppression or removal of writing, artistic work, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”
For example, sex, foul language, violence is many times censored for good reasons. But according to the definition it is censorship. the reason doesn’t preclude it from being censorship.
So was McCullough censored… of course he was. If you choose to excuse the censorship so be it, but don’t call it something different than what it is.
On the idea of one creating their own website, yes you have brought up an interesting point. Many former news and talk show personalities are doing just that. Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Glen Beck, Glen Greenwald, Bill O’Rielly, RFK Jr., DJT, and other high-profile spokespersons have left legacy media to promote their own sites and podcasts. Some were censored, others let go because of their views.
The new digital media is here to stay, censorship drove them to find other means of sharing their ideology. I fear the day when and if all media is controlled completely by the world elites…. I don’t at all doubt it could happen.
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/04/16/censored-how-facebook-twitter-google-and-youtube-are-suppressing-conservative-speech/
https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2020/10/12/big-tech-censorship-is-finally-now-coming-after-the-rest-of-us-conservatives-n2577864
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/shocking-new-study-finds-twitter-censors-conservatives-over-liberals-at-a-211-ratio/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/conservative-pufascism-in-action-here-is-the-tech-giant-purge-list-of-prominent-conservative-websitesrge-list/
@John a.k.a RG
Were you ever censored on this blog?
Talker
Are you indicating to me that this blog censors’ participants ?
Is that some form of threat ?
Are you the moderator ?
I am just asking a question, ‘John’
Are you always this paranoid? Are chemtrails appearing in Bolivian skies?
@John
Ah, stupid word play about the definition of censorship …
Just 52? Sheesh, I was hoping it would be many more, given the many highly immoral and reprehensible things propagated in this book …
No, just kidding of course (well, not about the bible featuring lots of immoral things). Yes, this is indeed censorship: in those countries, anyone in possession of the bible can be prosecuted, or at the very least is forced to destroy the book.
But no, when a media company chooses not to propagate someone else’s message, then I do not consider that censorship; it is simply the freedom of that media company to do as they seem fit. And just think about it (yes, this might hurt a bit in your case): if a media company cannot freely choose what to publish and what not, then they would in fact be forced by law to publish just anything that isn’t explicitly forbidden. I’d say that such an infringement of a company’s or person’s liberty is just as bad as state-sanctioned censorship.
And oh, I myself chose not to propagate the lies of people like McCullough in my recent book (although I do mention a few others). Does this mean I’m censoring McCullough? Even though the broad definition you seem to prefer says yes, I don’t think that anyone of a sane mind would call this censorship.
Sure, this is all how it should be. It’s the right of the owners what is allowed on their site (their property) and what is not allowed.
But on a tangent, the McCollough remark in the last paragraph: it would have been a stronger case to choose him and propose counter-arguments to him, allow him to respond, and then print the exchange i.e. old-style journalism, to prove your case.
For example, RFK, Del Bigtree and Aaron Siri met with Anthony Faucci, Francis Collins etc to ask for their proof of vaccine safety, and then broadcast their response (crickets) “…[the longest pause of silence in journalistic history]…” and then “…[we will get back to you on that]…”, “…[they never did]…”
As Del tells the story, when they arrived at the CDC (or was it the FDA?), they got the full security treatment: bomb-check on their vehicle, full body screening etc and when Del gave his name, the security guy shouted,
“Here’s Del Bigtree!” (to the other guards, who look up).
Now Del is starting to worry, has he been targeted as in a Hollywood movie? His every move? Is he Number One Enemy of the State! But Aaron Siri, who is following, then asks the guard,
“Why did you say that?”
“Oh, we never heard of Bigtree before, wanted to know who had a name like that.”
Including…
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363