This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
You won't see that on the lamestream media because they have an agenda to protect. Big pharma sponsors these mainstream media entities too, so they obviously plug the big fraudma agenda like clockwork. Anything contrary to the agenda is ignored, censored or smeared. If there was nothing to hide, then why would they take such extensive actions? Again, there's an agenda to be protected.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has tested positive for COVID-19. The 75-year-old Republican said in an announcement Friday that he was diagnosed by his personal physician after experiencing mild symptoms, such as...
Ever vaccinated are the people 21 days after booster, so really that means the vaccines last a couple of months at best? Sounds great.
The people who only had 2 doses have a greater age standardized mortality rate than the unvaccinated. Why are double vaxxed more likely to die from covid than the unvaxxed?
Did you read like 1 percent of his post only? Table 5 shows that regardless of 1, 2, 3 doses or after 21 days or within 21 days of whatever dose, the unvaccinated are dying at a significantly higher rate than the vaccinated are. This is the table for monthly age-standardized mortality rates by age group and vaccination status. Not sure where you are getting the claim that those with 2 doses have a greater mortality rate than the unvaxxed.
Yup, vaccines work and are very safe. Everyone smart agrees with this.
A few grifters are desperate to con a few more morons out of newletter subs, so they're still lying about data. That's all that's left on the antivaxx side.
There has not been a single piece of credible evidence posted in the last 88 pages to suggests vaccines are not safe and effective.
The antivaxxers lost. Antivaxx propaganda is gone from major networks. Popular contrarian grifters have moved onto other forms of pearl clutching. It's over.
Vaccine Mandate Prompts Officials to Eye Nursing Home Sale
Local officials are citing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers among reasons for selling a county-owned nursing home in southwestern Virginia.
Local officials are citing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers among reasons for selling a county-owned nursing home in southwestern Virginia.
There has not been a single piece of credible evidence posted in the last 88 pages to suggests vaccines are not safe and effective.
The antivaxxers lost. Antivaxx propaganda is gone from major networks. Popular contrarian grifters have moved onto other forms of pearl clutching. It's over.
Wrong. Why are so many young athletes dying after taking the jab?
1. COVID deaths are ‘presumed,’ but vaccine deaths must be ‘proven’ As of April 8, VAERS included 26,699 reports of deaths following COVID vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially acknowledges only nine of these. In order to establish causality, the CDC requires autopsies to rule out any possible etiology of death before the agency will place culpability on the vaccine. But the CDC uses a very different standard when it comes to identifying people who died from COVID. The 986,000 COVID deaths reported by the CDC here are, as footnote [1] indicates, “Deaths with confirmed or presumed [emphasis added] COVID-19.” If a person dies with a positive PCR test or is presumed to have COVID, the CDC will count that as COVID-19 death. Note that in the CDC’s definition, a COVID fatality does not mean the person died from the disease, only with the disease. Why is an autopsy required to establish a COVID vaccine death but not to establish a COVID death?
CDC pushes ‘relative risk’ for determining vaccine efficacy, but uses ‘absolute risk’ to downplay risk of adverse events In Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial, nine times more placebo recipients developed severe COVID than those vaccinated during the short period of observation. This constitutes a relative risk reduction of 90%. This seemed an encouraging finding and was used as a major talking point to compel the public to accept this experimental therapy despite the absence of any long-term data. However, the risk of a trial participant contracting severe COVID (Table S5) was 1 in 21,314 (0.0047%) if they were vaccinated. If they received the placebo, the risk was still only 9 in 21,259 (0.0423%). The vaccine reduced the absolute risk of contracting severe disease by 0.038%. Mainstream media and the CDC never mentioned the minuscule reduction in absolute risk of contracting severe COVID by getting inoculated. Moreover, with 0.6% of vaccine recipients in the trial suffering a serious vaccine injury (one that results in death, medical or surgical intervention, hospitalization or an impending threat to life), approximately 16 serious adverse events will result for every serious case of COVID prevented by vaccination. However, when it comes to risk of myo/pericarditis, the CDC states, “Myocarditis and pericarditis have rarely been reported, especially in adolescents and young adult males within several days after COVID-19 vaccination.” The CDC further states, “While absolute risk remains small, the risk for myocarditis is higher for males ages 12 to 39 years…” In other words, the risk of adverse events is being considered in absolute terms, not relative. The CDC presentation slide above (Table 1) indicates the relative risk of contracting myo/pericarditis in males 18 to 24 is 27 to more than 200 times higher than expected in (unvaccinated) young men that age. When assuaging the public’s fear around vaccine-induced myocarditis, the CDC finds it useful to cite absolute risk — yet when promoting the efficacy of the vaccine, the CDC emphasizes relative risks. This double standard has been quietly and masterfully employed to reduce vaccine hesitancy and encourage compliance.
FDA requires randomized control studies for early treatment medications — but not for boosters The CDC reports that as of April 8, 98.3 million Americans had received a COVID booster. On March 29, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized a second booster for the immunocompromised and adults over age 50. These authorizations were made not because of solid evidence the boosters are effective but rather to remedy the fact that the primary vaccine series has been widely shown to have waning efficacy within a few months. As reported by The Defender, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s vaccine division, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, admitted the fourth booster dose approved last week was a “stopgap measure” — in other words, a temporary measure to be implemented until a proper solution may be found in the future. Despite the lack of solid evidence, the FDA continues to recommend and authorize boosters. Yet when it comes to early treatment options, the agency holds medicines — including those the agency has already licensed and approved for other uses — to a different standard. In this CNN interview from August 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, warns people not to take ivermectin for COVID because “there is no clinical evidence that this works.” With regard to hydroxychloroquine, Fauci said, “We know that every single good study — and by good study, I mean randomized control study in which the data are firm and believable — has s shown that hydroxychloroquine is not effective in the treatment of Covid-19”, as reported by the BBC on July 29, 2020. Where, then, are the randomized control studies in which the data are firm and believable that show boosters are effective at preventing COVID? There aren’t any. None have been done. As of today, the FDA still refuses to authorize the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID despite hundreds of studies that demonstrate significant benefits (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine) in prevention as well as early and late treatment. The double standard here is blatant. There are no randomized control studies that show boosters are effective in preventing COVID.
FDA uses immunobridging to justify Pfizer shots for young kids, but rejects antibodies as indicative of immune protection from COVID Immunobridging is a method of inferring a vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing disease by assessing its ability to elicit an immune response through the measurement of biochemical markers, typically antibody levels. The FDA asserts the presence of SARS-COV-2 antibodies is not necessarily indicative of immune protection from COVID. Moreover, the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biologics Product Advisory Committee reached a consensus last week that antibody levels cannot be used as a correlate for vaccine effectiveness. Their decision is consistent with the CDC’s executive summary of a science brief released on October 29, 2021: “Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection.” Nevertheless, the FDA used immunobridging as a means to justify authorization of the Pfizer vaccine to children ages 5 to 11, as explained in The Defender here and here. Because there were no deaths or serious cases of COVID in the pediatric trial, the FDA chose to reject its own position (and that of its advisory committee) regarding antibody titers as a correlate for vaccine efficacy.
Causation must be proven for vaccine injuries, but correlation suffices for proving vaccine efficacy When it comes to vaccine injuries the public is often reminded that correlation does not equal causation. In other words, just because an injury was preceded by inoculation doesn’t mean the vaccine caused the injury. But what constitutes causation in medicine? A mechanism of action needs to be identified and pathological studies must confirm this mechanism while eliminating other potential causative factors. Causation can be proven only on a case-by-case basis. Proving causation requires an enormous burden of proof in medicine. For example, does smoking cause lung cancer? The answer is yes, it can. That doesn’t mean that it will. However, when it comes to the benefit of medical intervention, such as a vaccine, causation does not have to be established. Correlation suffices. In the COVID vaccine trials, fewer vaccinated people contracted COVID than unvaccinated ones. Yet there were those who received the vaccine who contracted the disease anyway. To be fair, this is how all new medical interventions are evaluated. The benefit doesn’t have to be caused by the vaccine in the strictest sense, there just has to be a correlation between vaccination and a relative protective effect. The more often this happens, the more confident we can be that the outcome wasn’t simply a coincidence. Likewise, when it comes to assessing the harm of medical intervention, the most sensible outcome to consider is mortality. After all, what would be the point of introducing a vaccine that prevented some deaths while causing more? Nevertheless, this is, in fact, what we have done with the Pfizer product. The interim results from the Phase 3 trial demonstrated that all-cause mortality in the vaccinated cohort was higher than in the placebo. This glaring problem gets brushed aside because there were two deaths from COVID in the placebo arm versus just one in the vaccinated cohort, allowing the vaccine manufacturer to claim a 50% efficacy in preventing this outcome. However, if we attribute a protective benefit to the vaccine in preventing this one fatality, we must also conclude that the vaccine was responsible for the extra death when considering mortality from all causes. Doing otherwise would be applying yet another double standard.
Every couple weeks I provide data from one of the largest hospital systems in MI. Data from last week-
Hospitalized: 34 Unvax / 40 Vax (19 Boosted)
ICU: 4 Unvax / 5 Vax (4 Boosted)
Ventilator: 2 Unvax / 2 Vax (1 Boosted)
The data has looked roughly the same for at least 4 months now. The vaccine is simply becoming less and less effective over time (w/ variants). To the normal person, this is a good thing, as natural immunity from infection is - and has always been, and always will be - the best vaccine there is. So a more mild virus is great news…
Kim Iversen details Bill Gates' latest comments on the COVID-19 pandemic.About Rising: Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the...
How many of the hospitalized are in there due to Covid, as opposed to being in the hospital for some other reason and testing positive for Covid.
For a while the Boston Herald began making the distinction and typically @ 70% of the "Covid hospitalizations" were hospitalized for some reason other than Covid.
For the past two weeks we are being told of rising cases, positivity rates, and hospitalizations, and the distinction noted above has been dropped.
