No reason to become inpolite!
I don't think it is impolite to point out when a poster repeatedly and without evidence or addressing corrections repeats the same false things? (for example, calling mRNA vaccines gene therapy).
When that happens, it does make the genuine differences of opinion and uncertainties more difficult to address, because you spend all your time on repetitively contradicting obviously false statements.
And you wonder why he doesn’t like posting links…
Our cheating kid again: I did link it - you got I from my link. So you are a plain liar and thus a source nobody will trust. Your comment is silly as we all know the mafia would like to see no link at all...
Oh dear… I’ll try to explain it slowly and simply.
Yes I did get that from your link. The problem was that your link said the opposite to what you claimed it said.
This is a similar situation to when you claimed Switzerland suffered no excess deaths in 2020, but provided a link that also showed the opposite to what you claimed.
Normally you don’t offer any links (or calculations) that provide evidence for your claims.
But on the two most recent occasions that you have provided these links, it proved that you were just making things up. (As I suspect you do most of the time).
Hence my statement “And you wonder why he doesn’t like posting links…”
…Which implies that every time you do manage to provide a link, someone will nearly always likely be able to find fault with your interpretation of it.
Clear now? Probably not. But hey ho.
ANTI-MASKER SENT TO MENTAL HOSPITAL
Thanks for this. It shows your deep relation to reality...How close are you?
Hard to understand what you mean by this. Do you think the linked article is a false story? Possibly inserted into the news by a mafia? Do you think no one would be this stupid, hence the story must be ‘unreal’?
You do realise this took place in Singapore, right?
Personally I think the judge made the right decision in sending him for a psychiatric evaluation, and if you disagree, you should probably avoid speaking to any judges, lest you almost certainly suffer a similar fate.
Another side effect linked to Pfizer!
Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine linked to rare cases of eye inflammation - study
Twenty-one people developed anterior uveitis and two developed Multiple Evanescent White Dot Syndrome (MEWDS)
The Pfizer coronavirus vaccine may be linked to a form of eye inflammation called uveitis, according to a multicenter Israeli study led by Prof. Zohar Habot-Wilner from Tel Aviv’s Sourasky Medical Center.
The research was conducted at Rambam Health Care Campus, Galilee Medical Center, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Kaplan Medical Center and Sourasky. It was accepted for publication by the peer-reviewed ophthalmology journal Retina.
Habot-Wilner, head of the Uveitis Service at the hospital, found that 21 people (23 eyes) who had received two shots of the Pfizer vaccine developed uveitis within one to 14 days after receiving their first shot or within one day to one month after the second.
Twenty-one people developed anterior uveitis, and two developed Multiple Evanescent White Dot Syndrome (MEWDS).
“All the patients in the study met the World Health Organization and Naranjo criteria linking the onset of uveitis to the vaccination,” Habot-Wilner said. “This time frame is consistent with other reports of uveitis following various vaccines.”
She said that any patients that had other systemic diseases that could have been related to uveitis were under control before vaccination. In addition, none of the patients had any changes in their systemic treatments for at least six months before getting the shots.
Eight of the patients had a prior history of uveitis, but no less than one to 15 years prior.
Specifically, most cases were mild – only three were severe – and all anterior uveitis cases were able to be treated by topical corticosteroids and eye drops for pupil dilation. MEWDS cases, as accepted, were not addressed.
“Only one case worsened after receiving the second dose,” according to Habot-Wilner, but she said that with appropriate treatment the disease also resolved for that individual.
“An examination at the end of the follow-up period found that in all eyes visual acuity improved and disease was completely resolved,” she said.
“The conclusion is that I do recommend getting vaccinated for people with or without a history of uveitis,” Habot-Wilner stressed. But she said that if people do experience a uveitis attack after taking the vaccine, they should get a good ocular examination and be treated appropriately. And, if the uveitis occurs after the first dose, they should still get the second one.
Habot-Wilner stressed that developing uveitis from vaccination in general is “quite rare,” but that the eye inflammation has been associated with other vaccines.
“It is very uncommon, but if you do feel something is wrong with your eyes, if you have pain, redness or vision deterioration,” she said, “please go and visit your eye doctor.”
Display MoreI agree that live is a risk. But for healthy people age < 65 CoV-19 does add nothing of significance.
Study the links I gave. Below age 50 the mortality here is far lower that for e.g. soap slipping... or car accidents or classic heart/brain strokes...And this link shows all deaths with no comorbidity.
The avg. age of hospitalization here is just 5 years lower now. Most among people with 2 risks at least, that so far had no RNA therapy, albeit they should have had one if they don't know the early treatment.
So please stop your (pseudo vaccine) gen therapy commercials...
Healthy people age < 65 don't need it. You still can say that in some rare cases some people do not know that they are sick and thus do have a high CoV-19 risk. But that's live... Overall - group wide - risks from the therapy are much higher.
Unfortunately you have given no links, so I cannot comment. If you do, I will do so. You need:
age 60-65 COVID risk. I can give you this. Some way to bound the healthy subset of this (and a definition of what you mean by healthy)
It would be good also to have a link for car accidents and soap slipping in this age group: also you need to indicate time frame. Obviously the overall risk of death scales with the length of time you consider, whereas getting COVID is a one-off event.
I notice that you are changing the age range here. You have repeatedly said < 65 so let us please stick with 60-65. After we have checked that we could do the same thing for other age ranges.
BTW - are you sure you know the death rate for healthy (no pre-existing cardio-vascular disease) having heart/brain strokes?
but given the population of Israel, and 3,800 people infected per day, it is likely that most of the dead were very old,
Yes.. maybe the last 10 Methuselahs saw the great IAM..
the 10 blip is going down
Hosanna..
Maybe Pfizer is becoming PHizer
as when Abram became AbraHam and Sarai SaraH
Twenty-one people developed anterior uveitis and two developed Multiple Evanescent White Dot Syndrome (MEWDS)
Its good they are monitoring...
they need to keep monitoring for at least 5 years..
RNA can corrupt DNA...and the Pfizer RNA is already corrupt ..
if and how it corrupts... no human knows 100%
No reason to become inpolite!
I don't see any reason why this cannot be true.
I can provide the official statistics from Austria which is of similar population size like Switzerland. We had unfortunatley so far (27.12.20 - 28.7.21) 151 death "...in close temporal vicinty of vaccination..."
Report of BASG (Federal office for safety in healthcare) only issued in German! Refer to page 6!
Good one Gerold! We all know that if being impolite was an olympic sport, Switzerland would be top of the table...
Interesting link though, thanks. I'm not sure it really helps the argument that covid vaccines are dangerous though. No one is doubting that >100 Swiss people died after being vaccinated. Its just unlikely it was that vaccine that killed them.
Translated:
The [Austrian] Federal Office for Health Safety (BASG) reported 151 deaths close to a vaccination against COVID-19 (116 BioNTech / Pfizer, 13 Moderna, 21 AstraZeneca and 1 Janssen). In 4 patients, a connection with the vaccination could be ruled out on the basis of the autopsy report. In 20 people, the vaccination fell during the incubation period of a COVID-19 disease during which the patients died. A further 34 had serious previous illnesses that were presumably the cause of death. In 1 case, a connection with the vaccination is seen (death of the 49-year-old patient who died as a result of severe coagulation disorders), in 16 other people the protective effect was missing (15 BioNTech / Pfizer and 1 Moderna). 76 other cases (47 BioNTech / Pfizer, 11 Moderna, 17 AstraZeneca and 1 Janssen) are still being clarified or no further information could be obtained. Investigations into whether there is a connection with the vaccination are ongoing. Since, especially at the beginning of the vaccination campaign, mainly very old people were vaccinated, it was to be expected that naturally-related, i.e. non-vaccination-related health events would also occur as expected in a temporal connection with the vaccination. The expected number of deaths one week after vaccination for at-risk persons aged 80 years and older is 3.5 per 1000. Based on this so-called background incidence, there is one death per 290 people in this age group within one week, regardless of vaccination calculate.
It says that only 1 Austrian was definitely killed by a vaccine, and 74 others very probably died of other causes.
It also suggests that the remaining 76 people who died within a week of being vaccinated is not suspicious, given a population of 9 million, and that a number of people will randomly die on any given day.
Do you interpret the document differently to this Gerold?
So we here discuss about healthy people age <65 in general that need no vaccine at all.
I wonder what this obsession with 65 being the limit for needing a vaccine is?
It seems to me like an oddly specific number...
If I was a cynic, I would guess that you Wyttenbach are 65 years old, and this a rather obvious way of you rationalising your own anti-vaxxer viewpoint.
What was the final score? Who won?
The Taliban won in the end..they will behead Covid as well.
Inshallah
The problem was that your link said the opposite to what you claimed it said.
Your FUD is obvious. I linked the page as a data source only. The master of the Siwss page is Rotary Bern a hard core big pharma support group. Only a naive child would take their FUD for anything of value...
Please look up the same data for the flue 2020 vaccine... Then discussion will end as you will see just a tiny fraction of the RNA gen therapy deaths.
fortunately you have given no links, so I cannot comment.
I know about your RNA therapy induced early dementia. So here I link it the third time for you. See explanations some pages ago...
obsession with 65 being
I am 65
got both AstraZenecas in the prime of my mortal span
.. the word obsession is rhetoric...which is a double edged sword
perhaps Zeus is not a heavenly being but a mere campfollower of the Swiss oneman army,,
If I was a cynic, I would guess that you Wyttenbach are 65 years old, and this a rather obvious way of you rationalising your own anti-vaxxer viewpoint.
Children are farting all day. I'm used to it. Tell your master that you waste your time here or start to read all old post, then may be you understand why age 65 is the barrier for vaccination.
Just one hint: How many healthy Swiss people age < 65 did so far die from CoV-19 ? And how many did die from other reasons?
So it looks like you are a vaccine Taliban ?!
In short, they are in a Dance with Death, like gay people in the 1980s having unrestricted sex with strangers in bathhouses as AIDS swept through their community.
A minority engaged in reckless hyperpromiscuity
Of course Fauci was the hero of the AIDs war..
inventing all the antiretrovirals ...AZT etc.
What about Bactrim and other cheap sulpha drugs??
No evidence..
according to the Fauci-washed version of history.
Fauci"“But I didn’t blow him off and say I don’t want to issue guidelines.
The fact is that’s neither within my purview nor within the responsibility or authority I have to issue guidelines.”
"Fauci refused to acknowledge the evidence and, according to one account, even encouraged people with AIDS to stop taking treatments, like Bactrim, that weren’t specifically approved for use in people with AIDS.
"Fauci fails to mention how skeptical he was of Bactrim as a preventive treatment, that he questioned the existing science, was unswayed by how frontline clinicians were treating people with AIDS and had suggested stopping a treatment that was already saving lives."
Mafioso stories don't end well.
Setting the stage for molnupiravir
Fauci-desivir or Fauci-mectin ?
rather than molnupiravir
External Content
youtu.be
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.
Display MoreSetting the stage for molnupiravir
Fauci-desivir or Fauci-mectin ?
rather than molnupiravir
External Content youtu.beContent 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.
This is someone who loves to lie and deceive. He relishes in it.
100%. They are trying to carry us into totalitarianism. The blinding of all spiritual light. The individual is crushed. Everyone must "sacrifice" their arm for the other. Isn't that the plan?
The state where the rules change all the time. Apparently everyone now can put out cookies for Santa Fauci to serve us an expensive drug that will do less than the almost free one. The search engines will open up and allow discussion on the M but not the I.
And the deceiver gets credibility through his position.
Display MoreYour FUD is obvious. I linked the page as a data source only. The master of the Siwss page is Rotary Bern a hard core big pharma support group. Only a naive child would take their FUD for anything of value...
Please look up the same data for the flue 2020 vaccine... Then discussion will end as you will see just a tiny fraction of the RNA gen therapy deaths.
I know about your RNA therapy induced early dementia. So here I link it the third time for you. See explanations some pages ago...
So I looked at this link - it is the Switzerland CV dashboard.
Please note - i need to refer back to previous psots for some of this data. in all cases i will give links - it is really difficult finding this otherwise. W please note this - no-one should be expected to find something you posted 5 or 10 pages ago on this thread.
The question was to determine COVID risk (and compare it with vaccine risk) for 60-65 age cohort. The Swiss data is binned by decade, so we cannot do that. I will be generous to W, and allow him to make a more modest claim, which is that vaccination is not important for anyone younger than 60.
The proviso that such people be healthy is not addressed at all in his link (and is actually difficult to find) so I will ignore this. We would need figures for how healthy that cohort is in Switzerland, etc.
The age change reduces the risk over what it really is - but I'd be very happy for W to find better links to prove what he claims. For example, if he claims healthy risk is zero he will need to post exact links for this, and indicate (in the same post0 his calculations. I am doing a lot of his work for him, including finding data he has not posted, in this post. If he wants to quarrel with reasonable assumptions he can do that work properly himself.
Based on this, the 50-59 cohort death rate over the pandemic is as below:
We need to work out the deaths per infection. I do not have infection data from Ch - it is not as good as the UK in that respect. So (unless W provides definite data to contrary) given that Ch has good testing, I will suppose that the ratio between infections and cases is the same as what it is in the UK after we got out testing sorted out. From the ONS infection survey (random sample) infection incidence data for England which I posted previously.
NB - the peak I consider is the 20 october one in the UK which was original COVID variant (not yet alpha) and is less deadlly than alpha which itself is less deadly that delta. So I am gifting W another factor of 2! All this will mean the final result is a significant underestimate of current delta death rate in this cohort - so please don't blame me if you rely on these numbers and then die!
20 October peak (weekly averages at peak):
cases per day: 20,000
deaths per day 400
=> CFR (this peak in UK) 2%
(from previous post linked above using infection survey incidence figures) IFR = 0.75%
So we have an infection / case ratio of 2.7 (this is higher than typical for countries like Ch with good testing, so we will be underestimating the true IFR from it).
Using this we can convert the Ch dashboard case numbers into infection numbers. then we can compare infection numbers with death numbers in the 50-59 cohort to get the real risk of dying if you are this age and catch COVID, which W says is less than the risk of dying if you slip on a banana peel. (he may want to retract that - I think banana peels are a low cause of death in western countries). Anyway W thinks this risk is so small that vaccination is irrelevant.
Ch case figures (same dashboard settings as for death figures)
Eyeball-integrating (sorry - not my fault) these two graphs over the more stable end of the Swiss winter 2020 peak, we have 350 cases and 0.6 deaths. These figures are both per 100,000 inhabitants and a weekly time interval.
=> 1 death per 500 cases or 1 death per 1500 infections. (0.06%)
To put that in more familiar risk terms, mortality: 600 per 1,000,000
The risk of serious long COVID (including noticeable long-term cognitive deficits) is much higher than this of course. say at least 10X higher (2% of infections or 6% of cases).
So - W's contention is that these risks are so small that no-one should worry about them, whereas the vaccine, with risks of death < 1:1,000,000, is too risky to take.
To remind you, these are the overall risks for person in 50-59 cohort (in Switzerland that is also - average - healthy). Male is + 50%. 60 is + 50% (because 50-59 has exponential age/death relationship with 60 3X higher than 50)
Going from original COVID to delta is another +100%. So this (higher) guestimate for age 60 healthy male delta is 0.25%. Finally to go up to age 65 we would have a bit less than X2 or 0.4%
All these figures the rough probability of significantly nasty long COVID is X10.
To remind you again these mortality figures are underestimates of the risk, because whenever something was uncertain I was conservative.
Risk of slipping on banana peel is a lot less.
100%. They are trying to carry us into totalitarianism. The blinding of all spiritual light. The individual is crushed. Everyone must "sacrifice" their arm for the other. Isn't that the plan?
The state where the rules change all the time. Apparently everyone now can put out cookies for Santa Fauci to serve us an expensive drug that will do less than the almost free one. The search engines will open up and allow discussion on the M but not the I.
And the deceiver gets credibility through his position.
Thanks to Navid for stating so clearly the political position of those who believe vaccination against COVID is a bad idea.
Just a reminder:
No evidence for good reason - there is none
I hesitate to be political here but I will say I have no idea what the carry us into totalitarianism remark is about? Nor blinding of spiritual light. Perhaps somone else can explain this.
Display MoreSetting the stage for molnupiravir
Fauci-desivir or Fauci-mectin ?
rather than molnupiravir
External Content youtu.beContent 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.
Fauci Out Selling Early Oral Treatments Now—Seeking to Monetize the Majority of COVID-19 Cases
Dr. Anthony Fauci is back in sales mode, now representing his pharmaceutical patrons. After spending many billions already on what in many cases have become throw-away monoclonal antibodies and several questionable therapies in the pipeline, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to POTUS spent lots of time minimizing the mounting evidence associated with many generic early COVID-19 treatment options, from fluvoxamine and ivermectin to even hydroxychloroquine used in select scenarios. Now Fauci will deliver to the market the perfect pill and help the industry monetize the massive market for early-onset COVID-19 mild-to-moderate cases—the 90%+ of total cases that fit in that category.
Reuters recently showcased some of Fauci’s latest pitches, including the ability to care for individuals early, stopping the virus from progressing to an upper airway infection, thus turning the virus into what is more like a common cold.
Fauci suggests his perfect pill—one that blocks a specific viral function, is taken once a day and is low in toxicity with minimal drug-drug interactions. It is orally administered and given for seven to ten days. Do you think he would be open to generic options such as ivermectin? With the Fauci pivot, he begins now moving away from vaccines and early treatments, something that’s about 1.5 years late.
