They probably are gathering data to address the rise in claims. When they come out and say it's because of COVID in a few months/a year, will you listen?
It's astute of you to see this future possibility. I agree that this is a possible future scenario.
It's possible that the long game all along has to ignore vaccine damage as long as possible in hopes that it will go away. If so, then there is no need to address vaccine damage. There is some evidence (those surveys you discount) that the risk of vaccine damage goes down with each booster after the standard double dose. (There are several reasons why this might occur.)
If that happens, then vaccine damage could eventually become very rare (as you believe it already is). There would be no need to address vaccine damage.
OTOH, if vaccine damage gets much worse, eventually it could reach the point that it would be impossible to deny. At that point, the powers-that-be could realize that their reputations and careers might be on the line for harming so many people so they blame vaccine damage on long covid. Since they have published no real data on vaccine damage or long covid, they could probably get away with this.
So the short answer to your question is no. The CDC/Fauci/WHO/NIH have lost credibility with me on anything related to covid.
So what would convince you that this spike is cause by, for example, COVID and not secret covered-up vaccine injuries? It seems like you've already concocted a story to dismiss any conflicting data if/when it arises. I just don't think that's very scientific or rational -- is there anything that would convince you?
So what would convince you that this spike is cause by, for example, COVID and not secret covered-up vaccine injuries? It seems like you've already concocted a story to dismiss any conflicting data if/when it arises. I just don't think that's very scientific or rational -- is there anything that would convince you?
Good question. I'll think about it. Meanwhile, you seem to reject everything that doesn't come down from the NIH/CDC. Is there anything that would convince you that vaccine damage is much greater than what is officially being reported?
Only anecdotal, but a dozen or so of my friends that have been jabbed and boosted have gotten covid at least once during the past year-or at least had a positive test for covid. Of my friends that have decided not to get the jab (myself included) none of us have had covid in the past year. Pathogenic priming appears to be a real phenomenon!
Of course it’s only anecdotal, but my wife and I have had the same experience at work. Only the vaxxed and boosted getting sick, sometimes really sick. Something is amiss. But the *data* still say otherwise. So screw your anecdotal observation.
John Pricci has been in horse racing media in various capacities for nearly 50 years. He has received 4 doses of Covid vaccine. He traveled to Saratoga Springs for the Whitney Stakes and became ill with a symptomatic Covid infection. He describes some of the symptoms as the worst cough and sore throat he has ever had.
When it comes to stories like this about maximum vaccination and Covid illness, how many anecdotes are needed before something is not anecdotal anymore ?
I said "anecdotally" kind of tongue-in-cheek. I absolutely believe those that made the decision to get the jab and boosters are at a higher risk of getting not only covid, but a multitude of other health-related issues. We are seeing more and more in the literature about adverse events. The sad fact of the matter is that big pharma is completely shielded from any legal recourse, as the only available jabs in the US are still under EUA. There is a reason that Comirnaty is not commercially available in the US. That is because if it were, folks would have legal recourse if they experienced adverse events or death. The available jabs don't have full FDA licensure, only Comirnaty does. For those saying that this is untrue and conspiracy theory, show me evidence of a vaccine clinic in the US that has a Comirnaty vial. Very strange that none exists.
So what would convince you that this spike is cause by, for example, COVID and not secret covered-up vaccine injuries? It seems like you've already concocted a story to dismiss any conflicting data if/when it arises. I just don't think that's very scientific or rational -- is there anything that would convince you?
Good question. I'll think about it. Meanwhile, you seem to reject everything that doesn't come down from the NIH/CDC. Is there anything that would convince you that vaccine damage is much greater than what is officially being reported?
Probably not what you mean by other than the NIH/CDC, but if such a thing were to emerge, I'd expect it first to come out of data from one of the countries with more centralized medical record keeping like the UK. The sort of analysis you're hoping for is necessarily observational and U.S. national level data collection is more fragmented and noisy.
So what would convince you that this spike is cause by, for example, COVID and not secret covered-up vaccine injuries? It seems like you've already concocted a story to dismiss any conflicting data if/when it arises. I just don't think that's very scientific or rational -- is there anything that would convince you?
Good question. I'll think about it. Meanwhile, you seem to reject everything that doesn't come down from the NIH/CDC. Is there anything that would convince you that vaccine damage is much greater than what is officially being reported?
What would it take to convince me?
Since the CDC et al has completely lost my trust, they would need to regain that trust. Saying, "Well, we've looked at (...whatever...) and don't see a problem" is not going to hack it. I'd need to see overwhelming, compelling, and transparent data showing that the short term and long term risk from vaccination was vanishingly low. This would include...
Chart showing newly diagnosed cases of the following diseases by week by vaccination status going back five years: myocarditis, heart disease, clot diseases (thrombosis?), cancer, miscarriages, and other diseases that have been linked to the vaccines. (I would consider anything higher than 1 in 1,000 new cases being linked to the vaccine as sufficient justification to reject the vaccine regardless of the outcome of any other data in the following list.
Chart showing flareups of pre-existing diseases in the above categories by week by vaxx status going back five years, etc.
Data from the whatever organization that manages disability claim processing showing the reason for disability by the above categories showing vaccination status, time from vaccination to onset of disability, and whether the applicant believed the cause to be covid, vaccine, or none of these. (I would consider 1 in 10,000 to be vanishingly small and not a concern. I would consider 1 in 1,000 to be high enough to reject the vaccine on this one criteria alone.)
A valid explanation as to why this spike in disability claims occurred that ALSO explains why the trend line is 1 million higher than the previous trend would have projected.
A massive fast tracked study using FLCCC protocols for clinical trials on ivermectin, HCQ (both plus zinc).
A similar study on high levels (>40 of vitamin D) maintained for at least three months before starting the trial and maintained >40 throughout the trial. The IVM, HCQ, and VitD trials would test for both prevention and early treatment. (5 and 6 would be "good faith" actions to help prove that the other actions on this list weren't just for show.)
A chart showing excess deaths by week by vaccination status.
A chart showing deaths by week, by vaccination status by cause with a control line showing deaths by week historically for about 4 years pre-covid. (I'm not sure what my cut-off would be for 6 and 7. Since death is the extreme of "severe events" it would need to be vanishingly low... probably less than 10 vaccine deaths/week.
If all the above showed vaccine damage to be "vanishing small," I would reconsider my decision to not get vaccinated. There are a couple more things I'd like to see. One would be a study of cadavers for anomalous fibrous clots that have been reported. I'd have to think how that could be structured.
The data already exists for almost everything on this list, with the exception of the clinical trials. With the exception of the clinical trials and the survey of disability claims, everything could be done by tasking a few hundred personnel to mine the data and put together the charts. The NIH is spending a lot more money than that by running those "safe and effective" ads I see on TV.
Okay. Your turn. What would it take to convince you "Vaccine damage is much greater than being officially reported?"
Data from the whatever organization that manages disability claim processing showing the reason for disability by the above categories showing vaccination status, time from vaccination to onset of disability, and whether the applicant believed the cause to be covid, vaccine, or none of these. (I would consider 1 in 10,000 to be vanishingly small and not a concern. I would consider 1 in 1,000 to be high enough to reject the vaccine on this one criteria alone.)
Oops. I did the math wrong on this one. It should be anything higher than 1 in 100 would be high enough to reject the vaccine on this criteria alone. That would be more than 30,000 disability claims attributed to the vaccine by claimants.
Okay. Your turn. What would it take to convince you "Vaccine damage is much greater than being officially reported?"
A scientific study from a reputable university or public health organization using quality observational data from hospitals and/or clinical trial data.
I do not pretend the vaccine is totally harmless -- I'm sure people have been hurt by rare side effects. I have seen zero evidence that they are anything more than very, very rare.
There are too many confounders to trust any other sources of data. This is the central problem with medical science.
So far, all attempts to increase awareness of vaccine damage have been ignored. Maybe the media would listen if minorities protested publicly and presented the following information.
Childrens Health Defense commissioned two surveys to be done by Zogby, a well known polling company. Question #5 asked if respondents had experienced a new medical condition after the vaccination. The percentage responding yes was 7.4% and 16.0% for whites, 20.6% and 20.9% for Blacks, and 31.6% and 35.5% for Hispanics. Blacks were roughly twice as likely to report new conditions that they believed were related to the vaccination. Hispanics were 2 1/2 times more likely to report an adverse event.
Question #7 asked if any pre-existing condition flared up or got much worse after vaccination. Again, Blacks and Hispanics reported higher levels of vaccine adverse events.
The article is below. The links to the two surveys with detailed breakout for each question are the two links in the first paragraph of this article. I urge you to spread this link as widely as possible.
More than two years after Operation Warp Speed began, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) commissioned John Zogby Strategies to conduct two surveys about attitudes and the overall health of American adults.
Steve Kirsch has commissioned yet another poll (seven in total). I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but respondents report very high (unrealistically high) adverse events. It's the YELP effect I've mentioned in the past, but it still provides some interesting data. Blacks and Hispanic report more adverse effects than whites. Interestingly, some adverse events are reported as the same rate as whites, but a few are reported at higher rates and the age groups of adverse events are different. The 7th poll is interactive so you can sort results by a myriad of demographic data.
Whoa! The 7th poll reported 9 cases of prion diseases out of 500 responses! To put that in perspective, there are only 350 reported cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease annually in the entire 330 million USA population! The YELP effect is definitely present here, but 9 out of 500 is WAY too high for a disease that affects 1 in 1,000,000 people annually. I need to look at the other surveys for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease to see if there is a trend. Anyway, here is the link.
Another one. 4 doses of "vaccine". The true believers won't stop singing the praises of mRNA goop because there is no possibility of taking an empty syringe and sucking the concoction out of you.
At least people seem to be taking a sensible approach when it comes to their kids.
Aug 8 (Reuters) - Novavax Inc on Monday halved its full-year revenue forecast as it does not expect further sales of its COVID-19 shot this year in the United States in the face of a global supply glut and soft demand, sending its shares down 33%.
Novavax Inc on Monday halved its full-year revenue forecast as it does not expect further sales of its COVID-19 shot this year in the United States in the face of a global supply glut and soft demand, sending its shares down...
Harambe, I'm getting concerned that your purpose is more to provoke (crying?) and obfuscate than actually have a discussion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your start date, whether arbitrary or curve-fitting was indeed something that was something that made your argument look a lot better. If you had begun at 2008 or 2012, it would have been more along the line of best fit for the data set. Going a couple years here and there to make a more compelling case can't really be equated to wondering, "Hmm, if the vaccine causes some injury in a minority of cases (and that is in fact an "if"), then we should probably see a spike in the months where the vaccine was widely distributed.
We do see that! So while that is not proof, it's pretty good evidence. You can keep repeating your assumed hypothesis, but without updating yours with the evidence, it just looks like your shutting down discussion. Hopefully that's not the case.
The unresolved issue with attributing the "vaccine trend" to the vaccine is that it isn't any different than the "covid trend".
What's missing is a quantifiable attribution of the discontinuity at the beginning of Covid and without having model for recovery from that effect, one can't really say we were back to the pre-Covid baseline near the start of the vaccine era.
In this article, I am not complaining about cruelty to animals. I am complaining about cruelty to humans, shown in these animal trials. All test animals were killed shortly after vaccination. Nobody was allowed to follow them up and see if they seem happy, if they reproduce, live out their lifespans healthily, etc.
The lab animals were promptly destroyed instead — perhaps to ensure that NO SAFETY SIGNAL EMERGED and so that fact-checkers can tell us that “there is nothing to see here”. I am not even touching the tiny sample sizes and the audacity of giving a novel treatment to thousands of people after testing it on a few hamsters or a dozen macaques.
That’s kind of cruel — and it is cruel to us, the target market for COVID vaccines.
Do you think that they could have followed up their test animals’s health at least until the end of human Covid vaccine trials? Is destroying all test animals trialled with a radically novel vaccine technology, a bit suspicious?
I said "anecdotally" kind of tongue-in-cheek. I absolutely believe those that made the decision to get the jab and boosters are at a higher risk of getting not only covid, but a multitude of other health-related issues. We are seeing more and more in the literature about adverse events. The sad fact of the matter is that big pharma is completely shielded from any legal recourse, as the only available jabs in the US are still under EUA. There is a reason that Comirnaty is not commercially available in the US. That is because if it were, folks would have legal recourse if they experienced adverse events or death. The available jabs don't have full FDA licensure, only Comirnaty does. For those saying that this is untrue and conspiracy theory, show me evidence of a vaccine clinic in the US that has a Comirnaty vial. Very strange that none exists.
"Safe and effective."
Safe, for the companies, governments, and wealthy/powerful people pushing the "vaccines," who've granted themselves legal immunity to prevent anyone suing them.
Effective, at what they were designed for, which isn't helping the injected but rather harming them.
The unresolved issue with attributing the "vaccine trend" to the vaccine is that it isn't any different than the "covid trend".
What's missing is a quantifiable attribution of the discontinuity at the beginning of Covid and without having model for recovery from that effect, one can't really say we were back to the pre-Covid baseline near the start of the vaccine era.
Thanks for adding the trendlines. My question would be why April 2021 would be the cut-off point. I was one of the last people I know to get vaccinated, and had completed both doses in April 2021. Mass vaccination began in December 2020, with many people being eligible for a variety of normal conditions (working in-person, allergies/asthma) in Feb. According to this chart, I'd estimate that 40% of all pre-booster doses were already administered by your start point.
The U.S. is striving to vaccinate as many people as possible against COVID-19 — and keep them up-to-date with boosters. But some states are lagging behind. See how yours is faring.
I'd be interested how the trendline would change if you began with January 2021 and ended when the majority of boosters had been given (since the number of doses administered have been quite low since March of this year). From what I can tell, many of the vaccine injured acquire disability shortly after their doses (I could be wrong, so let me know if there is evidence against that).
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/43U53FUHZBNYLG65E3DSSIHOAM.jpg)
