Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?
- Thread starter wanderingthomas
- Start date
Attached is a 'Covid Christmas' themed stamp on a card I received from Ireland.
In France, they issued a whole serie about the sanitary crisis too
Un carnet de timbres pour raconter la crise sanitaire
La Poste a demandé à l’illustrateur américain Miles Hyman de mettre à l’honneur douze professions situées en première ligne du Covid-19 à travers une émission de timbres.
www.lemonde.fr
First case of severe reaction in Mexico
001. The Ministry of Health studies the case of the doctor who presented a clinical reaction after the vaccination against COVID-19
Also for Pfizer it seems
001. The Ministry of Health studies the case of the doctor who presented a clinical reaction after the vaccination against COVID-19
Also for Pfizer it seems
COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Volunteer in India Develops Encephalopathy
First transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord), now this. AstraZeneca/Oxford claim no correlations with the vaccine trials in both cases. In the case above, the person is being sued for claiming vaccine injury.
If there are correlations between things like encephalopathy, transverse myelitis, and the vaccine, they should become apparent as Covishield is rolled out. At the same time, it appears that the vaccine does little to nothing as far as protecting one from covid.
COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Volunteer in India Develops Encephalopathy..
(Note: According to Phizer.. interaction studies with other drugs & vaccines have not been performed.) A 40-year old business consultant in India, who volunteered to be a participant in clinica…healthandmoneynews.wordpress.com
mbww
Jedi
"Here's looking at you, Covid!"Attached is a 'Covid Christmas' themed stamp on a card I received from Ireland.
Ocean
The Living Force
West Virginia health officials mistakenly gave 42 people Regeneron IV Covid treatment instead of vaccine shot
West Virginia health officials mistakenly gave 42 people Regeneron IV Covid treatment instead of vaccine shot
"It has been determined that this was an isolated incident," Julie Miller, an administrator for the Boone County Health Department, told CNBC by email.
Dozens of people in West Virginia were mistakenly given Regeneron’s Covid-19 antibody treatment instead of the Moderna vaccine, the West Virginia National Guard announced Thursday.
The state’s National Guard said 42 people received the treatment, which is given intravenously, at a vaccination clinic staffed by the Boone County Health Department. The National Guard said it learned of the error on Wednesday.
Everyone who received the antibody treatment instead of the vaccine, which is given via a shot in the arm, have been contacted, Julie Miller, an administrator for the Boone County Health Department, told CNBC by email. She added that “we do not believe there is any risk of harm.”
mbww
Jedi
95% efficacy
Hundreds of Israelis get infected with Covid-19 after receiving Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine – reports
With the vaccine not providing immediate immunity to the coronavirus, over two hundred Israeli citizens have been diagnosed with the disease days after getting the Pfizer/BioNTech jabs, local media reported.www.rt.com
This 95% efficacy claimed by Pfizer has to be taken with a grain salt.
First, this a figure stated by Pfizer only, although the results of the clinical trial have been finally published in a peer-reviewed journal, the clinical trials have not been replicated yet.
Second, even if this 95% efficacy figure is true (which I doubt) the protocol of the Pfizer clinical trials had one primary objective: evaluate the frequency of mild to severe forms of covid 28 days after the administration of the vaccine. Casualty rate, transmissibility rate or even occurrence of mild to severe forms in the short term (less than 28 days) or in the long term (more than 28 days) were not primarily investigated.
Third, testing a vaccine against a placebo makes sense when the targeted disease has no known cure. But in the case of covid-19, there is known cures including hydroxychloroquine which results have been tested in 179 published papers out of which 166 confirmed the real efficacy (not the Pfizer pseudo efficacy) against covid-19. Interestingly, 11 of the 13 papers that denied the efficacy of HCQ have investigators funded by Gilead. So, the vaccines should be tested against HCQ not placebo.
Fourth, Pfizer tested its vaccine months without mentioning any specific variant. Meanwhile Raoult and others identified at least half a dozen variants of SARS-CoV-2. It begs the question: "what variant the Pfizer vaccine protects from, if any?"
Fifth, the limited cohort (about 40,000 participants) selected by Pfizer does not exhibit all the age/race/sex/disease/treatment /genetic profile combinations that the general population does. In addition there's no focus on the most affected subpopulation: elderly with pre-existing conditions. It adds one more bias to the "efficacy" claims (and to the side effects claims).
For the reasons exposed above, the 95% efficacy rate claimed by Pfizer is pure marketing baloney.
Last edited:
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
Absolute attempted murder.
Humanity is being used as guinea pigs and these companies and politicians have zero liability. Criminal behaviour of the highest order.
Debra
Dagobah Resident
I am Posting the Full article, as the link may insist a subscription to read article.
Alarming number of US health care workers are refusing COVID-19 vaccine
U.S. health care workers are first in line to receive the COVID-19 vaccine — but an alarming number across the country are refusing to do so. Earlier this week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine di…
nypost.com
Alarming number of US health care workers are refusing COVID-19 vaccine
U.S. health care workers are first in line to receive the COVID-19 vaccine — but an alarming number across the country are refusing to do so. Earlier this week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine di…
nypost.com
Alarming number of US health care workers are refusing COVID-19 vaccine
By Kenneth GargerJanuary 1, 2021
U.S. health care workers are first in line to receive the COVID-19 vaccine — but an alarming number across the country are refusing to do so.
Earlier this week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine disclosed that about 60 percent of the nursing home workers in his state have so far chosen not to get vaccinated.
More than half of New York City’s EMS workers have shown skepticism, The Post reported last month.
And now California and Texas are experiencing a high rate of health care worker refusals, according to reports.
An estimated 50 percent of frontline workers in Riverside County in the Golden State opted against the drug, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing public health officials.
More than half of the hospital workers at California’s St. Elizabeth Community Hospital that were eligible to receive the vaccine did not, the newspaper.
And in the Lone Star State, a doctor at Houston Memorial Medical Center told NPR earlier this month that half the nurses in the facility would not get the vaccine, citing political reasons.
The excuse shared by the Texas nurses was echoed in a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey that found 29 percent of health workers were “vaccine hesitant,” the Times reported.
Survey respondents leaning against taking the vaccine said, among other reasons, that they were concerned how politics influenced the development of the vaccine, the newspaper reported.
A nurse at a California hospital who chose not take the vaccine because she is pregnant, said her coworkers who chose the same path as her believe they don’t need the vaccine to make it through the pandemic.
“I feel people think, ‘I can still make it until this ends without getting the vaccine,’” April Lu, a 31-year-old nurse at Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, told the Times.
A high percentage of vaccine refusal among not just health care workers, but the general population, could be problematic, Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch told the newspaper.
“Our ability as a society to get back to a higher level of functioning depends on having as many people protected as possible,” said Marc Lipsitch.
Attachments
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
Indeed.
In one of the episodes of the Highwire, Del Big tree dived into this and like you, blew the claims out the water.
Another thing he mentioned was the notion of "risk reduction". Th efficacy rate is a bit of a red herring, what's really interesting is risk reduction in those who were vaccinated against those in the placebo arm. As you can imagine, the risk reduction was less than 1%!!!!!!!! No wonder they are keeping this quiet!!!
Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data - The BMJ
Only full transparency and rigorous scrutiny of the data will allow for informed decision making, argues Peter Doshi In the United States, all eyes are on Pfizer and Moderna. The [...]More...
blogs.bmj.com
Scandalous stuff, absolutely scandalous. People need to go to jail for this level of criminality!
XPan
The Living Force
Gilead
The Israeli-American pharmceutical company Gilead is the equivalent to what Monsanto-Bayer does for agriculture.
Damages, death and deep corruption in the wake of their actions
XPan
The Living Force
German Dr Wodarg
said it already several weeks ago: that the amount of risk reduction of the Pfizer/BioNTech “vaccine” is equivalent to 0.35% according to their “trial” claiming 95%. But one you dig into the numbers.
if you have 300 people getting vaccinated it may benefit one with “covid-19” - but the remaining 299 will not benefit at all BUT have to carry all the risks that the vaccine poses. Which are considerable as we now slowly start to witness.
So. Equivalent to a futile 0.35% risk reduction.
Such a number is at all levels unacceptable to be touted as a vaccine (from official medical and practical perspective from the past)
Because those need to be at least 15% or more to begin with (which it is the case for annual flu vaccines)
In my personal opinion even that is close to bs.
And such are the games of numbers.
* rolling my eyes*
said it already several weeks ago: that the amount of risk reduction of the Pfizer/BioNTech “vaccine” is equivalent to 0.35% according to their “trial” claiming 95%. But one you dig into the numbers.
if you have 300 people getting vaccinated it may benefit one with “covid-19” - but the remaining 299 will not benefit at all BUT have to carry all the risks that the vaccine poses. Which are considerable as we now slowly start to witness.
So. Equivalent to a futile 0.35% risk reduction.
Such a number is at all levels unacceptable to be touted as a vaccine (from official medical and practical perspective from the past)
Because those need to be at least 15% or more to begin with (which it is the case for annual flu vaccines)
In my personal opinion even that is close to bs.
And such are the games of numbers.
* rolling my eyes*
Yeah, their whole study has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's ridiculously biased. A few additional points to consider (as mentioned by a Dutch neurologist):
- People who can actually be at risk (those with an immunocompromising disease for example) were not included in the study.
- The study was designed, conducted, analyzed, published and paid for by Pfizer/BioNTech itself. As the neurologist said: "The fact that an independent data and safety committee was able to see the data doesn't change this, simply because they had no say in the design of the research, selection of the participants, the statistics used or the publication. ... I don't need to explain here how such a construction can lead to biased results of scientific research, because it has been extensively researched and published about over the past twenty years."
- They tested the onset of COVID-19 by using the unreliable RT-PCR plus the presence of only one symptom (!) such as a sore throat. They didn't look whether influenza caused the symptom(s) or not. The neurologist writes: "As far as the definition of COVID-19 in the study is concerned, it goes without saying that these are without exception complaints and symptoms for which the general practitioner would advise taking a paracetamol and getting under a blanket. Without exception, these are complaints and symptoms for which people generally don't even consult a doctor. It's therefore very questionable how relevant the outcome measure that is given - the occurrence of COVID-19 - is, if it's defined in this way. In my opinion it's an irrelevant outcome measure."
... and more. We're currently translating a blog post written by this neurologist and will post the link here when finished.
Also, you all might laugh at this one. Dutch Deputy PM Hugo de Jonge said in an interview: "The only thing we need to do is to just get a lil' vax. And people who sit down and say 'well I have to see if I want it or not'. Yeah well, you can't do that. And I hear people say 'I don't know what's exactly in the vaccine'. When I hear that, I'm thinking 'well, you've eaten meat rolls [frikandel, a Dutch snack] all your life and you also don't know what's exactly in them'. They really tested these vaccines."
Yes, this is how they're trying to win over people who are doubtful about taking the vaccine. By comparing injecting a poorly tested mRNA vaccine in your body with eating a meat roll. I'll end it with some good news:
In case if someone want to do some "number crunching" by himself, Wodarg was reffering to this comment on BMJ:German Dr Wodarg
said it already several weeks ago: that the amount of risk reduction of the Pfizer/BioNTech “vaccine” is equivalent to 0.35% according to their “trial” claiming 95%. But one you dig into the numbers.
if you have 300 people getting vaccinated it may benefit one with “covid-19” - but the remaining 299 will not benefit at all BUT have to carry all the risks that the vaccine poses. Which are considerable as we now slowly start to witness.
So. Equivalent to a futile 0.35% risk reduction.
Such a number is at all levels unacceptable to be touted as a vaccine (from official medical and practical perspective from the past)
Because those need to be at least 15% or more to begin with (which it is the case for annual flu vaccines)
In my personal opinion even that is close to bs.
And such are the games of numbers.
* rolling my eyes*
XPan
The Living Force
Exactly. Bravo.
I never saw the text or study you just showed.
I only referred to an interview i remembered made with Dr Wodarg a month ago - from and wrote here out of memory (in which Wodarg was mentioning three different risk-reducing numbers in the range of 0.35% to 0.50% for two vaccines.
great is of course to have text / studies to access.
Bravo and thank you
