The Playground

    Well that's not strictly true, each vaccine produces its own risk dependent on perhaps millions of independent factors. Personally I chose the mRNA vaccine (above all others) because I have no allergies to anything. And no co-morbidities and regularly take ant-viral therapies. So each case must be studied in detail (rather like homoeopathic or herbal medicine in which each treatment is tailored to the patient). Incidentally, our Head of State Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth 11 and the rest of the Royal Family always consult their homoeopathic doctor first if they develop any ailment, the treatment of which is backed up by conventional medicine on the NHS or indeed, privately. So what is good enough for the queen is good enough for the rest of us minions.

    Paywalled site if you wish to read the whole article send me a message and I'll paste you a copy of whole article.

    Per order of mods!


    On what basis are pregnant women being encouraged to take the Pfizer vaccine?


    On what basis are pregnant women being encouraged to take the Pfizer vaccine?
    Public furor has arisen over the FDA-release of Pfizer’s documents, not simply because the FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep them confidential until 2096 but…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    Public furor has arisen over the FDA-release of Pfizer’s documents, not simply because the FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep them confidential until 2096 but what the trove of data has exposed.


    My analysis on the first wave of released documents was published in Trial Site News at the end of last year, long before any other media outlet reported on it. Since then, I’ve written several reports for Trial Site on subsequent Pfizer data dumps, which have highlighted numerous anomalies and alarming revelations. In my December 2021 report, I made reference to the missing information associated with the ‘Use in pregnancy and lactation which was somehow excluded from Pfizer’s original Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, submitted to the FDA. In the Pfizer amended version and in the subsequent reissue, 413 adverse cases were reported with 84 classified as serious.


    Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.

    Quote from Mark U

    Well over one million adverse events have been reported to VAERS now for the Covid vaccine, more than all other vaccines combined over all other years, and you say there is "every indication" that it was a coincidence.

    Mark - you are an inveterate liar. I have given up thinking you are just misinformed given you ignore repeated rational replies.


    VAERS adverse events can be reported by anyone, and indicate coincidence, not causation. That is why (for all vaccines) that database is flagged as not quantitatively useful.


    So:

    • Millions of VAERS events from billions of injections - expected
    • More than other vaccines - also expected because this is a high-profile new vaccine, given to everyone, and we are all alert for possible problems so most Adverse events temporally related to a vaccination will be registered.
    • Many other studies (self-controlled case studies, all-cause mortality studies) all show there are not large problems from the vaccines.
    • It is known they are more reactogenic than (say) Flu vaccine. So you get more sore arms etc.
    • You need to read the fine print whenever adverse event figures are quoted. They can be anything between a sore arm for 48 hours and dropping dead. When comparing numbers you need to see what is counted


    Thus, for example, an 80 year old person gets a COVID vaccine and has a heart attack 1 week later. It will likely be in VAERS.

    The same thing for a Flu vaccine? No report


    And since large numbers of people have heart attacks we have a high background rate of adverse events.


    Now - it is fair to ask what are the risks of the COVID vaccines. All vaccines have risks, and the COVID ones have specific and well-publicised ones. Quantifying this, and stratifying that by age, is worthwhile. That is exactly the type of data all the regulators look at. I don't know Mark U's rationale for thinking that all regulators, throughout the world, are not doing their job properly and trying to kill people.

    It is not fair for you to use rubbish figures to claim the COVID vaccines are highly dangerous - when it is clear they are not.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Now - it is fair to ask what are the risks of the COVID vaccines. All vaccines have risks, and the COVID ones have specific and well-publicised ones. Quantifying this, and stratifying that by age, is worthwhile.

    Stratifying by age is very important with the COVID vaccines, because they are often given to old people. Most vaccines are given to children under age 5. Children are the healthiest age group. They seldom die from any cause, whereas old people often die from a wide variety of causes. You seldom see coincidental deaths in children following vaccination, but you often see it in old people. Looking at the 65+ age group, it is best to compare the COVID vaccine to some other vaccine often given to old people, such as influenza or zoster vaccines. Here is what you find:


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2202/2202.04204.pdf


    QUOTE:


    To calculate reporting rate and incidence, we must specify a time interval. Consider first, the number of reported and actual deaths on the day immediately following vaccination. For the 2021 calendar year, among people at least 65 years of age, there are 409 reports of fatalities the day following COVID vaccination, 7 following influenza vaccination, and 1 following zoster vaccination. These numbers show reporting rates of 4/million/day, 0.2/million/day, and 0.12/million/day, respectively—all far lower than the incidence of 112 deaths/million/day in the general population. VAERS reports provide no evidence of “excess deaths,” either relative to incidence in the general population, or relative to other vaccines. Rather, they indicate that all-cause deaths are underreported by a larger factor for other vaccines than for COVID vaccines.

    END QUOTE


    That is the "general population" of the 65+ age group. 4 deaths out of 112 background deaths could easily be coincidental. Since the COVID vaccine deaths are investigated, we know they have other causes.

    Paywalled site if you wish to read the whole article send me a message and I'll paste you a copy of whole article.


    Australian government reporting at odds with real-time data, non-profit claims


    Australian government reporting at odds with real-time data, non-profit claims
    An Australian non-profit, People for Safe Vaccines, is highlighting discrepancies between government reporting and real-time data on the effectiveness of…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    An Australian non-profit, People for Safe Vaccines, is highlighting discrepancies between government reporting and real-time data on the effectiveness of current COVID-19 vaccination guidelines. The citizen-run body wants Australian vaccine programs halted, with no decrease in daily cases despite 95% of Australian adults receiving at least a second dose. TrialSite reported on how in the first 14 weeks (January-April) of 2022, Australian fatalities were double that of 2020 and 2021 combined, even with a heavily vaccinated population.


    People for Safe Vaccines evaluated real-time data in four states: Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, and New South Wales. The report used data from Covid Live, a live real-time report covering eight states, to test the validity of assertions by the Australian regulatory agency and medical officials on COVID-19. TrialSite verified that the Covid Live website real-time data matches the figures available from the government report.


    Analysis work by People for Safe Vaccines focused on the regulatory official’s claims on reduction of CHID’s – cases, hospitalizations, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths – as well as transmission rates following mass vaccination.

    A new COVID shot could make ‘normal’ safe again. So why am I one of the few to get it?


    A new COVID shot could make ‘normal’ safe again. So why am I one of the few to get it?


    Immune compromised patients should not have to ask for Evusheld. We should be actively pursued to receive treatment, as if our lives mattered to those who are supposed to look out for us. We should have a government that acts in our interests, one that orders enough doses so that the more than 7 million immunocompromised Americans can get this protection.


    Instead, our government ordered a paltry fraction of those doses; there is only enough for 425,000 vulnerable Americans to be effectively protected for one year. And even those doses are sitting on shelves while the most vulnerable among us continue to succumb to this virus.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Where did you get that information? How many of these people are there? Did they contact their doctors, and did the doctors contact the CDC?


    I ask because the doctors have a legal obligation to contact the CDC, and the CDC must -- by law -- investigate all serious or unexpected adverse effects from all vaccines. Not just COVID. That is clearly spelled out in the CDC website and in the Federal laws. I think it is extremely unlikely that large numbers of doctors are ignoring their professional obligations and risking the loss of their medical licenses. It is equally unlikely that the people at the CDC are ignoring or flouting the laws. They would be fired for doing that.

    With all the links given here to testimonies from people injured by Covid vaccines, Jed just doesn't care to look.

    I know, I know. These people are "non entities". At the very least maybe Jed could contact his friends or family at the CDC and let them know that these things are happening and that they are apparently breaking the law by not doing anything.


    From https://www.realnotrare.com/post/julie-elizabeth


    11/01/21 ORIGINAL BIO:

    Julie is a previously healthy mother of two teenagers. After losing close friends to covid, she ran to get the covid vaccine as soon as it was available. She desired to do everything in her power to help stop the pandemic, and trusted the safety data. Over the next eight days she developed severe adverse reactions with over 20 debilitating symptoms. Prior to the vaccine she had a successful career in sales, and was able to actively care for her family. For the past seven months since taking the vaccine, she has been unable to work. Julie has had to rely on her husband and teenage children to help take care of the household.

    In her search for answers, she participated in research and treatment at the NIH where she was diagnosed with an immune mediate reaction, involving all domains of motor, sensory and autonomic. After review of her records and tests, her neurologist agreed that this was immune mediate autonomic neuropathy.

    Today she has seen some improvements, but still deals with muscle weakness, joint pain, tremors, fasciculations, paresthesias, heart and blood pressure spikes, muscle spasms, and more.

    Julie wanted to help spread awareness of these reactions and has worked to advocate for those in her support groups. She currently manages Real, Not Rare with a team of fellow vaccine injured. She has contacted the CDC, FDA, VAERS, Moderna, and her local health department, but her pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Thus, for example, an 80 year old person gets a COVID vaccine and has a heart attack 1 week later. It will likely be in VAERS.

    How can you say this, when actual studies - linked to on this very thread - show that there is a VAERS under reporting factor from 10 to 100. Amazing. Perhaps you even think that the great Hank Aaron, who died about two weeks after his publicized vaccination, made to VAERS. Almost certainly, he did not. Struck out by the vaccine in the ninth inning.

    Paxlovid and Rebound COVID-19 Symptoms: Mystery Solved?


    Paxlovid and Rebound COVID-19 Symptoms: Mystery Solved?
    It's a big mystery! Why are people having rebound symptoms of COVID-19 after taking a full 5-day prescription of Pfizer’s antiviral pill, Paxlovid? The…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    People are confused by the relative risk reduction of 88.8% because they expect that the risk reduction of their COVID-19 symptoms when taking Paxlovid will be 88.8%, when actually the relative risk reduction is the absolute risk reduction (5.73%) relative to (divided by) the baseline risk or placebo group risk in the clinical trials (6.45%). Not understanding the large difference between the relative and absolute risk reductions naturally creates great expectations for the drug by the public, and leaves the public wondering why there are so many rebound COVID-19 symptoms.


    Number Needed to Treat


    The number of patients who need to take Paxlovid to reduce one case of hospitalization or death is the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction (1 / 0.057, or 100% / 5.7%), which is approximately 18 patients. So approximately 17 patients out of every 18 patients who take Paxlovid are vulnerable to experience rebound COVID-19 symptoms. With such a low efficacy rate, the mystery of rebound symptoms in people taking Paxlovid is likely solved.

    The newest kick in the nuts from mRNA vaccines is people are developing a sensitivity to light at alarming rates.

    Sensitivity to light from vaccination is not unknown but the amount of people reporting this is increasing. It brings on migraines and waves of nausea . No known treatment as of now.

    I hope this little vignette will help people here to understand why I go on (when I have time) posting to contradict antivaxxer lies.


    They have taken lives. They continue to do so - although much less now in the UK because 95% of the population is either vaccinated or has had COVID - second time round risks are lower.


    Quote from Fm1

    My analysis on the first wave of released documents was published in Trial Site News at the end of last year, long before any other media outlet reported on it. Since then, I’ve written several reports for Trial Site on subsequent Pfizer data dumps, which have highlighted numerous anomalies and alarming revelations. In my December 2021 report, I made reference to the missing information associated with the ‘Use in pregnancy and lactation which was somehow excluded from Pfizer’s original Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports, submitted to the FDA. In the Pfizer amended version and in the subsequent reissue, 413 adverse cases were reported with 84 classified as serious.

    In the UK the regulators initially issued a warning about COVID vaccines in pregnancy. The data did not exist to say whether it was safe.


    Unfortunately that was interpreted by many as evidence of lack of safety.


    Within 6 months there was enough data from people unknowingly pregnant who got vaccinated both of an increased risk from COVID caught during pregancy, and of lack of adverse events, that they reversed that, and recommended the vaccine.


    Alas people are easily frightened and (no doubt boosted by antivaxxer-inspired social media) because of the initial warning, uptake was low in this group.


    As a result many mothers and babies needlessly died. The regulators could not have recommended uptake before they did - it would have been risky - and they did not know. Still they think now they should have worded the initial warning more clearly. With sites like TSN pumping out disinformation maybe whatever they said it would make no difference. It is easier to plant a seed of doubt than to reassure: and whole groups of people juts do not believe doctors or scientists.


    That of course is why dealing with AGW will cost us 10X - as a planet - more than it should.


    Pregnant women now a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination | NPEU


    The announcement is based on new evidence that outcomes from COVID-19 infection for pregnant women and babies have worsened since the Delta variant became dominant. This is based on data from three studies coordinated by NPEU: The UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS), the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (BPSU) study of neonatal complications of COVID-19, and the MBRRACE-UK collaboration's maternal, newborn and infant clinical outcome reviews.

    Nice job of twisting what the article says Boris. It points out that Pfizer was hiding data from the FDA

    Quote from Mark U

    With all the links given here to testimonies from people injured by Covid vaccines, Jed just doesn't care to look.

    That is incorrect. I have looked. "Testimonies" mean nothing. People get sick every day without knowing the cause. Doctors are often unable to diagnose the reasons. People who have been vaccinated are not dying, or getting conventionally ill (for known reasons), or mysteriously ill any more than a control population of people who were not vaccinated prior to the pandemic. There is no evidence that the vaccines cause the problems these people testify to. The problems are real but the vaccines did not cause them.

    Quote from Fm1

    The newest kick in the nuts from mRNA vaccines is people are developing a sensitivity to light at alarming rates.

    No doubt the rates are exactly the same as a control group that did not get mRNA vaccines. If that were not so, the CDC and other public health agencies would have taken note of this effect, and reported it. They keep no secrets.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    That of course is why dealing with AGW will cost us 10X - as a planet - more than it should.

    Probably. What is worse, from an economic point of view, is that dealing with AGW (Anthropogenic global warming) properly would not cost anything. On the contrary, done right it would be profitable. It resembles the energy crisis. That is, the lack of cheap, abundant energy that began in the 1970s. In recent decades that was dealt with properly, meaning we invented non-polluting, renewable sources of energy that cost much less than the ones we had in the 1970s, especially wind and solar. All of the sources of global warming CO2 could be fixed without costing anyone any money. It would save people money instead. People would want to do what is needed. They would be happy to pay what it costs, because it would save them money and improve their lives.


    The most widespread example is illumination. In the first world, we can greatly reduce CO2 and save everyone lots of money by using LED lights instead of incandescent ones. These last 30 times longer, so the cost per bulb is much lower. They consume about 5 times less energy. As one expert put it, they are not a free lunch; they are a lunch you are paid to eat. In the third world many people have no effective lighting. They use kerosene, which is bad for your health and costs far more per lumen. When they get solar panels and LED lights, they are thrilled. It is a tremendous benefit to them, and to the rest of us.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Fm1

    Nice job of twisting what the article says Boris. It points out that Pfizer was hiding data from the FDA

    Right - and what happened?


    Pfizer is a (not very nice) commercial company. It has extracted the maximum amount of cash that it can from the vaccine. And it will not necessarily be transparent in every respect.


    That does not mean it was trying to kill people. Though it might. Cigarette companies tried for a long time to kill people. Big oil sort of the same thing now. Governments throughout the world are happy to kill a lot of people by allowing poor air quality in cities (the EU is doing rather better at pushing down on this than most - but individual nations juts avoid the EU limits, or leave the EU to make it easier to ignore them!)


    My point was that the spin put on that by TSN and the antivaxxers, which is "you should not trust the COVID vaccines" is incorrect.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.