Is the Cure worse than the Disease?

Are the vaccines killing people? Data from the UK says Yes, especially for 18-39 year olds. The data shows that a vaccinated person is twice as likely to die from things other than covid than an unvaccinated person. For some context this is eerily similar to the increased mortality rate from all causes for a smoker 55+ compared with a non smoker. If you are younger taking up smoking will increase your risk of dying less than the COVID vaccine. And we are mandating people take the vaccine. Let that sink in for a while.

The below links provide an overview of the data backing up this claim. It is provided month by month with unvaccinated mortality rates shaded blue and the vaccinated yellow for easy comparison.

Don’t believe me or want more info. You can look it all up for yourself. This is all taken from freely available public health data Here and Here. Why is this so obvious in the 18-39 age group and less so in others? My guess would be because the non vaccine related deaths are so low in this age group that the vaccine related ones are much easier to spot relatively. There is probably a similar absolute level of additional deaths in older groups but it is buried in the data as a much smaller percentage increase along with more from other causes.

One really interesting thing in that data is the very large increase in the greater than 21 days after either a single shot or the second shot. These deaths will never be attributed to the vaccine in a clinical setting as the vaccine event is so far removed and there are far more pressing things to worry about than looking for statistical anomalies. This sort of statistical analysis is what would normally be undertaken in a proper trial before widespread release of a drug as it requires much more effort and specialised knowledge that is not required by frontline medical staff. It also leads to the question if the rates are increased after 21 days, are they still increased 6 months, 2 years or longer after? This is again something that would be established by a proper trial.

Is it possible there is some underlying bias in the data causing this rather than the vaccine itself? Sure, and that’s an argument that the smoking lobby ran for many decades quite successfully. To confirm one way or the other you really need more detailed data where the 20x increase seen in lung cancer deaths amongst smokers will show up in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated datasets if they exist. Heart problems, blood clots and similar seem like a good first target to investigate given they are admitted side effects of the vaccination. It is impossible that vaccinated people dying at higher rates so consistently for such a long time is randomness or statistical noise, and some other cause that just happens to coincide with vaccination status seems unlikely with such a large sample size. The important question to ask though is why aren’t any studies being conducted into this to determine one way or the other?

And a little extra for the tin foil hat crowd, The seemingly illogical quest for 100% vaccination rates may stem from a desire to prevent comparisons like this from being made by removing all unvaccinated people from existence.

2.3 3 votes
Article Rating
96 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
plaguerat

And in more good news:

Israeli trial, world’s first, finds 4th dose ‘not good enough’ against Omicron

Nearly a month after Sheba Medical Center launched a landmark study to test the efficacy of a fourth COVID shot, the hospital said Monday that this fourth booster was only partially effective in protecting against the Omicron strain.

“The vaccine, which was very effective against the previous strains, is less effective against the Omicron strain,” Prof. Gili Regev-Yochay, a lead researcher in the experiment said.

“We see an increase in antibodies, higher than after the third dose,” Regev-Yochay said. “However, we see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose. Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections,” she added.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-trial-worlds-first-finds-4th-dose-not-good-enough-against-omicron/

Roll up, roll up….get ya boosters!

plaguerat

There is some debate about the origin of this quotation, but it holds true regardless:

“Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results”

Peachy

Some attribute it to Albert Einstein, who reportedly turned down the prime ministership of the state of Israel…

is that ironic? Or prophetic? Or poetic? …or simply inaccurate on both counts?

Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
plaguerat

Yes….Einstein was offered the Presidency of Israel in 1952 and turned it down.

No…..general consensus seems to definitely rule out Einstein as the origin of the “insanity” quote.

50/50….not bad, Peachy 🙂

Aussie Soy Boy

That just means you need a 5th dose of medicine with the 5th dose window brought forward to 30 days.

I suppose they can only bring forward these windows so many times, so maybe just make the vaccine a double shot.

Reus's Large MEMBER

Like I said before, once this plays out it is going to make James Hardie – asbestos and tobacco companies look like girls guides selling cookies, there is a reason they wanted 75 years to release the data ….

Aussie Soy Boy

No-one will get a cracker out of a single government.

Reus's Large MEMBER

In light of people getting re-infected with Omicron as in this thread

https://twitter.com/RageSheen/status/1482459704857358336

Does anyone have a take on whether the unvaccinated are getting re-infected or is it only the vaccinated. As in does anyone know a pure blood that has had whuflu twice?

Peachy

Don’t know anyone who has had it twice.

moreover I am of the understanding that it is hard to actually establish that someone has it twice. Because people who had been infected and recovered continue to test PCR positive for many months after recovery.

(eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7417974/)

Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
Coming

im going to regret engaging with you again, but what on earth are you talking about?

The results show unvaccinated dying in huge numbers relative to vaxxed in january (winter), then slowly declining

which makes sense as winter fades and the vulnerable unvaxxed all get killed off

Then for the vaxxed, none were dying in winter because they were all vaxxed and also locked inside obeying restrictions.
As restrictions are lifted, they all come out, their vaccine efficacy wanes as we know it does, the vulnerable ones catch covid and die

The values of vaxxed and unvaxxed groups then converge to become about equal in September and October which makes sense as the virus has minimal effect on healthy young people, and the vulnerable have already died

have I missed something here?

Coming

So what were the unvaxxed dying of in huge numbers in January ?
while no vaxxed at all were dying at the same time ?

Peachy

Yes, I also noticed that about the confidence interval, as the sample size grew.

in the early months the interval was wide enough to even admit a situation where the jabbed were dying less than the unjabbed, but in the later months even the lower end of the jabbed interval was clearly above the unjabbed rate.

…cue someone to claim that in each age group the most vulnerable peeps were the ones to get jabbed; and also that the unjabbed are the predominant ones getting their sniffles tested… or not tested, as the narrative requires! 🤤

Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
Coming

The difference between the two groups is vaxxed vs unvaxxed, but we could very reasonable assume that the vaxxed group is MORE likely to have other risk factors for death eg chronic disease

And if vaxxed deaths are MUCH higher in January
then unvaxxed deaths go SLIGHTLY higher in May
before the two groups become equal in October

The conclusion that any reasonable person would reach is the ones I have suggested

Look at the data for all deaths (incl covid-19) Table 1 of the first link you provided

It clearly shows exactly the same trend

For fucks sake, 24,000 unvaxxed died in January alone, which is more than all the vaxxed deaths combined January – October

Then 7700 unvaxxed died in February, which is STILL more than all the vaxxed deaths combined January – October

These two months dominate so much, that all the other deaths in both groups are basically just noise

You are desperately clutching at straws to suit your pre-determined narrative

Peachy

For fucks sake, 24,000 unvaxxed died in January alone, which is more than all the vaxxed deaths combined January – October

Then 7700 unvaxxed died in February, which is STILL more than all the vaxxed deaths combined January – October

everyone was unvaxed in January. Almost everyone In February.

CAA4152C-9F5C-483B-9FED-9DB4C7AA875D.jpeg
Coming

No, everyone was FULLY unvaxxed in January

remember there was originally 8 weeks between the AZ doses

Second doses (to make them fully vaccinated) started in march

Peachy

The chart above is about first dose vaccinations. It’s clearly there at the top.

Peachy

Would you recommend taking up smoking as a weight loss measure to prevent health problems? There’s plenty of evidence it causes weight loss.

im thinking of taking up smoking at age 65 for the stroke-protection value!

ED060D36-C59C-41C5-A614-E518850AE37A.jpeg
Coming

May was supposedly the month that you believe all the vaxxed started dropping dead

All cause deaths Unvaccinated in May 44/100,000y

All cause deaths Vaccinated in May 6.1/100,000y

7-8x greater

There is no way any sane person could look at this data and make themselves believe that the vaccine is killing people at a greater rate than it is saving them

Coming

So you are imagining that the trend of a converging difference between the two groups will continue in a linear fashion until the unvaxxed group starts dying in higher numbers than the vax?

Rather than this just being a function of waning vax effect, reduced pathogenicity of the virus, and death of the vulnerable

Of course its possible, but it hasn’t happened and it seems far, far, far less likely

You are basing your decision on imaginary data that doesn’t exist, by extrapolating a linear trend that is almost undoubtedly not going to continue

Coming

what are you having difficulty understanding?

The unvaxxed were dying at 8x the rate of the vaxxed in May
The unvaxxed were dying at 4x the rate of the vaxxed in October

The rates of death are converging, but unvaxxed remain far, far higher

The only thing I could potentially imagine you believe is that this convergence will continue until the rates flip, and the vaxxed start dying at a greater rate than the unvaxxed

Which I think is not going to happen for the reasons I have explained

Coming

obviously the vax causes death

literally every medication known to man causes death

Its a cost benefit analysis

All cause deaths Unvaccinated in October 285/100,000y

All cause deaths Vaccinated in October 64/1000,000y

Greater than 4x more

I mean come on guys

Coming

why are you imagining a lifetime of elevated risk of death?

What is the evidential basis for this imaginary belief

Coming

what

plaguerat

I have been following the weekly Vaccine Surveillance Report issued by the UK Health Security Agency for some time now.

The report for Week 1, 2022 had a strange (to me) note towards the end:

Summary of impact on hospitalisations, infections and mortality

UKHSA previously reported on the number of hospitalisations directly averted by vaccination. In total, around 261,500 hospitalisations have been prevented in those aged 45 years and over up to 19 September 2021.

UKHSA and University of Cambridge MRC Biostatistics Unit previously reported on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality. Estimates suggest that 127,500 deaths and 24,144,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme, up to 24 September.

Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of vaccination. Consequently, over time the state of the actual pandemic and the no-vaccination pandemic scenario have become increasingly less comparable. For further context surrounding this figure and for previous estimates, please see previous vaccine surveillance reports.

Now, I’m no mathematician, so maybe there are good statistical reasons for this move.

But to my untrained (and cynical) eye, it looked a bit like a white-flag-waving exercise to me.

Would be happy to be educated otherwise.

Here’s the link to the report……the tables comparing cases, emergency admissions, and deaths for the vaxxed/unvaxxed make for interesting reading…but of course you must read the explanatory notes accompanying them which are designed to convince you that your are not seeing what you think you are seeing 🙂

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045329/Vaccine_surveillance_report_week_1_2022.pdf

Peachy

But to my untrained (and cynical) eye, it looked a bit like a white-flag-waving exercise to me.

either white flag waving (because untenable to maintain claims of efficacy) or preparing for a situation that bjw is alluding to – where hospitalisations and death might more and more convincingly begin to rise due to the shots.

either way, clearly the decision was made that there was more to be lost – than to be gained- by continuing to publish. In any case, the persuaded/pressured >80% Britons into the experiment, so the job is done anyway. The <20% who have not taken the bait are clearly not going to be persuaded by some obscure and clearly dubious modelling of wha would have been

Winning@Failing

Fuck cunt, what do you do for work? Must be a complete fuckin doddle if you have this much time to convince yourself to be this fuckin retarded and post about it endlessly day after day lol. You’re even getting destroyed by Coming and that cunt is full blown nuffy.

Funniest shit I’ve read on here though was you the other day “fuck off and leave us alone” lol fuck you’re a sad cunt.

Winning@Failing

To laugh at you spastics. The insane shit that gets posted here is some of the most fringe tard shit I’ve ever seen on the internet.

And seriously, how do you have time to post here so much?

I was hard posting in here when I was off work but geez, my post count has sure dropped off since I’ve gone back to work, meanwhile, you’re still here day in day out saying the same shit over and over and over and over. Don’t you have anything better to do? It’s sad man, nearly as sad as that geriatric fuck that responded below.

LSWCHP

Thought I’d give you a little dopamine hit. Here boy…good boy…well done…

Winning@Failing

How’s the whinging pom missus of yours? I’m guessing she’ll probably go back to pommie land (good riddance) and leave you here sad and alone and then you’ll hang shit on her on here and MB like you do with your 5 other ex wives (noticing a trend yet? Or is it always them and not you lol).

Fuck you’re a wanker. Don’t believe in vaccines so throw your hat in the ring with these cunts here, who the majority of don’t even believe the virus exists and yet you’re off posting on MB about how you’ve radically modified your lifestyle and became a shut in to avoid the virus.

You’re a fuckin hypocrite poseur shit cunt.

Freddy

Come on LSWCHP. Admit that is funny shit.

pnut5678

Create the environment for a reduced crowd then use the reduced crowd as an excuse to eliminate the event.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/local-news/2022-skyworks-will-decide-if-fireworks-show-will-continue-c-5339220

Peachy

environmental concerns about fireworks mean next week’s Australia Day Skyworks are a “referendum” on the future of the event.

….

Research led by New York University in 2020 found some fireworks emit toxins, as well as lead and copper.

ahahhahahah! how much shit is blasted into the air by the thousands and thousands of tonnes of explosives used by miners every year in WA?

They don’t even try for anything believable anymore.
they realised they don’t have to bother.

Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
pnut5678

He has his disclaimer that he is supportive of the continuation of the event and if the referendum does support the winding up if the Skyworks I suppose he can always blame the unvaccinated for it.

Peachy

Exactly right. Walking both sides of the street.

Shae The Burmese

I live near the CBD with views of Casino / Gloucester park / Ascot etc. I have lived here just shy of one year and I reckon I’ve seen about 14 lots of fireworks, including midweek.

Peachy

That is a great oppprtunitu – if ever you fall ill in the future, you can sue the council for causing your illness with constant toxic fireworks!

Peachy

“Anything that increases the number of vaccinations is good and anything that undermines that is bad,” Barry Healy said.

heya Timbo or Minister Sinister, can you do an article about your recent interview Barry Healy?

Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
pnut5678

Dark horse described this kind of thing on a recent podcast. They called it infantilising society.

RogerDodger

FWIW…

Lots of potentially interesting data to mine in COVID-related UK FOI’s:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/publishedrequests

Also, I find the following Substack commentator to be nicely inquisitive with the data:

https://eugyppius.substack.com

Peachy

Thanks RogerDodger, that sons tack is an interesting read.

I need to be in a more courageous state to tackle the FOI data….

Hoody

https://fb.watch/aD8f3TBkhh/

After 2yrs of practice, you would think they would be getting better.

Freddy

If you add the total deaths (covid + non-covid) figures for double-vax (<21days + >=21days) and divide by total deaths (double-vax + unvax) you end up with the percentage below by age group.

Note that percentages are lower than the vaccination rates in every age group. This means for every age group the vaccinated people end up with a lower mortality rate (covid + non-covid deaths) than unvaccinated.

Age Vax/Total
10-14 1.33
15-19 20.79
20-24 26.91
25-29 26.58
30-34 28.47
35-39 30.38
40-44 37.70
45-49 39.06
50-54 43.59
55-59 48.46
60-64 51.30
65-69 55.56
70-74 62.06
75-79 66.71
80-84 71.24
85-89 71.38
90+ 72.01

If you want a rough idea of how much better off vaccinated. Using recently published vaccination rates below. I will use 50-59yo age group as example. Vaccination rate around 74%. From table above vaxxed make up roughly 46% of all total deaths in that age range.

Vaxxed = 46%/74% = 0.62
Unvaxxed = 54%/26% = 2.07

Unvaxxed:Vaxxed = 2.07:0.62 = 3.34 times more likely to die if unvaxxed

comment image

Freddy

I didn’t know what to do with the single dose stats, but for the sake of argument (some people die from 1st dose before getting a chance to receive 2nd dose) if I include them in the vaxxed category it bumps up percentage from 46% to 57%.

Vaxxed = 57%/74% = 0.77
Unvaxxed = 43%/26% = 1.65

Unvaxxed:Vaxxed = 1.65:0.77 = 2.15 times more likely to die if unvaxxed

There are other statistical quirks such as different vaccines, everyone vaccinated has encountered the immediate risks of vaccination whereas not everyone has come in contact with the virus, etc.

Freddy

You are becoming more unhinged by the minute and too dumb to even know how to properly use Google.

The figures are derived from the link you provided above. Table 9.
Deaths by vaccination status, England – Office for National Statistics

Freddy

Kudos to you for finding that data which implies the death rates for vaccines are perhaps higher than advertised. You still haven’t answered the question on whether the vaccine is worth taking.

WIthout any indication of the numbers of people in each group it definitely isn’t a rate.

Semantics. It is a proportion of deaths between vaxxed and unvaxxed. A “to date” calculation which is essentially what your post is about.

It is clear that older people are much more likely to die if they are unvaxxed. But I admit that after including 1st dose deaths in one of the younger group calculations that younger unvaxxed people are less likely to die so far.

Last edited 5 months ago by Freddy
Peachy

until the last month it would be INSANE to take the vax under 40

as usual – 80%-90% of the population is insane or are happy enough to go along with the insanity, with some mild incevisation. Go along to get along, and all that.

housing, migration, share market, etc. this is very profitable

Freddy

I don’t understand statistics hey. I know enough to know a vaccinated person is at much higher risk of dying within a few weeks of the vaccine, and that using a time-based rate would grossly exaggerate the death rate. I get vaccinated and two months later when all the risks have subsided I am only counted as being vaccinated for two months, and get counted as ten months towards the unvaccinated.

Also go and take a look at Table 4 in the July dataset. Explain to me why the non-covid were high in January and dropped to zero in July. Could this be another mysterious case of non-covid deaths perfectly aligning with Covid deaths?

I do agree about young people not taking the vaccine. I just don’t agree with your attempted exaggeration of it. The numbers are a lot closer than you make it out to be and that is without everybody having caught the virus.

Peachy

 I get vaccinated and two months later when all the risks have subsided I am only counted as being vaccinated for two months, and get counted as ten months towards the unvaccinated.

freddy, there are two issues in the above that I’m trying to think through:

  1. this two-months/ten-months matter I understand as referring to people who are unvaccinated for the first 10 months of the year and get jabbed in month 11. Right? If so, the counting doesn’t seem inappropriate. Or are you saying that this also happens when someone gets vaccinated in month 1- they get counted as vaccinated in month 1 and 2 but as unvaccinated in later months???
  2. unless I’m completely misunderstanding item 1, above, then this jsut seems a transitional issue, at worst (ie funny in the first year as people move from “unvaccinated” to “vaccinated” group, where they stay forever thereafter). At best, it’s not an issue at all & is actually the pointy end of the explanative power of this measurement.
  3. (bonus) you talk about “two months alter when all the risks have subsided” – isn’t this assuming away much of the issues, being that (a) some people don’t make it past 2 months and (b) some die after 2 months… meaning the all risks haven’t subsided
Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
Freddy

I think it is more like two/eight as data is Jan-Oct.

  1. The first bit. I get jabbed in Oct and only get counted for that month, and Jan-Sep gets added to the unvaxxed stats. If I was jabbed in Jan I get counted for all 10 months.
  2. The issue is the death rate will fall over time.
  3. Most people die within the first few weeks. Chances of blood clot much lower for 2nd jab. Those who had blood clot, anaphylaxis, myocarditis, other major inflammatory issues, will not take the jab again. The risks don’t go completely to zero but do go much lower.
Peachy

The first bit. I get jabbed in Oct and only get counted for that month, and Jan-Sep gets added to the unvaxxed stats. If I was jabbed in Jan I get counted for all 10 months.

seems entirely appropriate. Before you were jabbed you had unjabbed risk of dying. After you were jabbed on Oct, you begin to have jabbed risk of dying.

(we’ll ignore the fact that, being a few months older you have a slightly higher risk of dying anyway)

what is wrong with this?

The issue is the death rate will fall over time. 

maybe it will fall over time. We don’t know this, do we? In fact, this is what we’re trying to find out from inspecting the data.

also, to the extent that if falls over time because those who have previously died are no longer at risk of death … that’s not really a good thing, is it?

Most people die within the first few weeks. Chances of blood clot much lower for 2nd jab. Those who had blood clot, anaphylaxis, myocarditis, other major inflammatory issues, will not take the jab again. The risks don’t go completely to zero but do go much lower.

As per my comment above – Even if you are right about the 2 week thing, that doesn’t seem to be a good thing. It might be comforting to each individual, in retrospect, when they have made it past 2 weeks. But for those looking to decide whether to take the jab, this doesn’t seem to be a benefit.

also, there isn’t really any long term data, so we don’t know if the 2-week mortality spike doesn’t also have analogues 18mo or 30mo down the track (say 18mo is how long it takes to get to [acute liver failure]; 30mo to [insert some other type of hypothetical delayed-action disaster])

Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
Freddy

If there were any significant ongoing risks of vaccines we would already know about it. Waiting for BJW to jump in and pretend this article proves it does exist but re-read my comment about July data set. The number of non-covid deaths were high in January and close to zero in July for both vaxxed and non-vaxxed. I could not see that same data in the latest dataset.

 Even if you are right about the 2 week thing, that doesn’t seem to be a good thing

No death is a good thing but that emotion has no bearing on the death rate discussion 🙂

there isn’t really any long term data, so we don’t know if the 2-week mortality spike doesn’t also have analogues 18mo or 30mo

What the odds on death rate being close to zero after a few months and rising again after 18months?

We also don’t fully know the long term effects after contracting the virus. There are some recent stats that show an elevated risk of type-1 diabetes 12 months after contracting the virus. Time will tell whether those stats are dominated by unvaxxed who are more likely to end up with the severe Covid illness.

Peachy

No death is a good thing but that emotion has no bearing on the death rate discussion 🙂

thats not my point. My point is that if the vax takes out some large number of users (say 2%) over the first 1, 2 or 3 years, with the remaining 98% experiencing normal/baseline mortality rate, that is a bad result for vax safety.

What the odds on death rate being close to zero after a few months and rising again after 18months?

seems like quite a plausible possible outcome to me.

Depends on the mechanism of action, but if it’s something like underminig of immune system, then it could be like aids. Could be like asbestos exposure, etc. could take years.

LSWCHP

One thought. Despite all the soothing propaganda, heart inflammation is not a good thing. Suppose all the current young victims of that expire prematurely over the next 30 years due to excessive early strain on their hearts. People currently in their teens and 20s dying in their 50s.

Seems plausible to me. Not a good Vax outcome.

Peachy

Waiting for BJW to jump in and pretend this article proves it does exist but re-read my comment about July data set. 

could you really dumb this down for me? I’m trying but not following.

Freddy

The non-Covid death “rates” were 10+ higher in January and drop off over time. This coincided with the Covid wave in UK.

May be a good time to talk about South Africa. Click on link below and scroll halfway down and look at the graphs on Excess Deaths. Note that the Excess Deaths (non-covid deaths) perfectly line up with the covid waves. The last wave possible confirmation of the Peachy hypothesis that Omicron maybe not as mild as what it is being made out to be.

Report on Weekly Deaths in South Africa | South African Medical Research Council (samrc.ac.za)

The point being are these non-covid deaths really non-Covid deaths? I know a forum comprising of people who believe the (of-)Covid deaths are being overstated and don’t want to know about the possibility of the covid numbers being understated.

Peachy

The non-Covid death “rates” were 10+ higher in January and drop off over time. This coincided with the Covid wave in UK

The point being are these non-covid deaths really non-Covid deaths?

oh, ok! Now I see what you’re gunning for!

the SAf article is good in this regard because it shows excess deaths rather than all deaths (as the uk data)

obviously SAf is not UK & their quality of reporting may be different, so it’s possible that south African Covid deaths are understated. I’d personally be very very surprised if UK or US or EZFKA “covid deaths” are understated.

Also it would be good to see the UK death data longer term. The January spike could perhaps be seasonal and observable in years prior to covid.

Last edited 5 months ago by Peachy
Freddy

 I’d personally be very very surprised if UK or US or EZFKA “covid deaths” are understated.

Some US states did. I recall NY was estimated to have understated by around 60% in first wave based on excess deaths.

The Excess Death discussion gets very muddied because flu deaths were near zero for last two years, then other factors come into it like people not receiving adequate health care for other issues, suicides etc.

Freddy

It appears that Google is not the only thing you are incapable of using correctly. Table 4 column E and Column S. Are they rates? Do they drop significantly between January and July?

Freddy

Ok. I realise I am the muppet his time and Table 4 is the covid death rates.

The are still questions to be answered on correct table 5. Why are unvaxx death rates high and falling? whereas vaxx rates are low and rising?

Freddy

I am talking about the July dataset. It says “Rate per 100,000 population”. Are you saying it is not a rate?

They have unvaxxed death rate dropping from 66.1 in Feb down to 23.7 in July. And two-dose vaxxed death rate rising from 4.8 to 14.6 over the same period.

LSWCHP

Nah. You should read about the bovine drug Pfizer produced. It caused the calves of the parents to haemmorhage to death. The long term effects of these drugs won’t be truly know for another 30 years or more.

Peachy

The long term effects of these drugs won’t be truly know for another 30 years or more.

i think that is definitely right. Moreover, I think that it would take an extraordinary amount of luck for there not to be significant long term side effects on a very large scale.

I mean, while “Pfizer” is nice shorthand, remember that we are dealing not just with Pfizer. Globally there are 6 or 8 different concoctions that have been squirted into billions of bodies.

if the makers of each of those 8 different hastily-developed chemical cocktails weren’t even able to make them work particularly well at the one thing they were aiming for …it would be absolutely remarkable if, in designing the cocktails, they were able to consider and avoid all possible serious side-effects over the next 30+ years of the users’ lives.

in other words – there is one way to get it right and millions of ways to fuck up. Each of them didn’t even manage to get the one thing right. The probability is just vanishingly small that each of them managed to avoid all the ways to fuck up.

Shae The Burmese

There is zero long-term data at this point, that is an undisputable fact. Regardless of whether you are pro or anti.

LSWCHP

Exactly right. People who say there have been no long term Vax side effects are talking about the short term. We need to consider elevated mortality over decades. Children with pericarditis now all dying in 30 years time.

The obfuscation by big pharma and governmentabout this stuff is disgusting and infuriating.

Winning@Failing

So then, the vaccine and the disease both cause heart problems that could kill younguns in 30 years, what are we supposed to do?

Riddle me that cunt.

xxxxxxxxxxx

Er….No. Healthy young people DO NOT get severe covid and hospitalised. Heart problems from viruses are very very rare in young healty people because the virus almost never gets to the bloodstream due to young healthy immune systems (immunoglobin A and lymphocytes prouced by the thymus) stopping the virus in its tracks in the upper respiratory system.
The shots are delivering the code for spike protein directly into the bloodstream where it can travel to every organ in the body. The mRNA is maniputated in the lab to make the resulting spike protein look like a human protein (methyl pseudouridine) so the spike protein stays in the body longer and in bigger quantities, more than enough to cause a lot of damage.

Reus's Large MEMBER

Might be quicker than that, the reason why mRNA vaccines had not been approved in the past was because the test subjects had all died within 5 years of receiving it …..

Gouda

Interested in the source on that, as haven’t heard that one before.