- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly you assume the language that is imposed from the mass media, if supposedly they suck, well, they suck when you want it: “denialism”, “conspiranoia”…
Certainly most of the sources that question the official narratives on this matter are more than questionable.
You proudly wear the flag of reason … and when a user simply questions some mantras, or that lines of investigation be ruled out a priori … he is a denier! And besides, he says that journalism is a prostituted profession! And he said “elites”! :O
And then they provide you with more than 2000 scientific studies that could support a hypothetical harmfulness of vaccines and you attack them all at once. That’s what wolves and yenas do.
Some sources are easily refuted, the ones that are not, then we resort to the personal attack, right Glenn?
But no prob. Feel free to pay attention to only one part of the scientists, ignoring another, yes, a priori, because they are deniers. I wonder what tribe you feel like a member of, since you’ve done a full psychoanalysis on Weasel or whoever.
So I give you the reason, those sources are not impeccable. But when you are given impeccable sources simply to consider a working hypothesis, you short-circuit.
And then I’m the one who loses dignity, you know?
An impartial jury would have long ago ruled that the virus came from a laboratory.
And an impartial jury would consider the possibility that, as has happened with many other Big Pharma products, in this case more than ever there is the possibility of unreported adverse effects, at the very least, due to the speed of development.
So continue with your sarcasm, supply the psychological deficiency that you intend to supply and if things get out of hand, the thread is closed. All very democratic and scientific.
By the way, I use VPN for other things than fabricating other identities. I also wear an aluminum cap. Some of you would do well to wear it.
It is seen that the strategy of fear as a weapon, which I already referred to in another thread, has wreaked havoc on common sense.
Instead of trying to ridicule users who are afraid, like you, and who have a virtue little practiced today, such as seeking the truth and being able to question authority… like you (I attribute those virtues to you), instead of ridiculing, censuring, insulting and looking over your shoulder, you could try to help understand. It is true that many of these people do not know how to turn to the right sources, it is true that they are scared… but I do not consider them worse for that. And if they need something, it is an understanding of their frame of reference and teaching them. The last thing they deserve, at least most of them, is the humiliating treatment you give them/us here. We, “deniers” according you, will be ignorant, but at least we want to know and do our best in the search. That that does not satisfy your high intellect? Yes, the one that when presented with evidence simply to weigh, short-circuits… if we are not as high as you, help us, if being a good person goes with you.
I speak only to those who take the hint, know who they are and are not limited to those of the thread of the vaccines. I recommend you read Hannah Arendt, or watch a movie that has recreated the Eichmann trial, or read about the banality of evil. In the other thread I said that your thinking was closer to that of the conspiracy theorists and paranoid types than you thought… and now I tell you that we are all potential Eichmanns, as I said in another thread, but some attitudes distill more danger than others… although I would not dare to judge the order…
Go with God.
I don’t see what’s new here John. From the outset Pfizer stated that their trials were not set up to discover if transmission was affected or not. This was discussed ad nauseum in other covid threads on these forums about 2 years ago. There are other areas where the Pfizer trials are somewhat suspect but this is not one of them. Again, don’t overly narrow what a vaccine is. Please let us not have the “sterilising imunity” vs “altering the course of a disease” argument again.
– “We never tested COVID vaccine against transmission”
So what?
– “we had to do everything at risk.”
Ooh scary! Until you listen to your own damn clip! She’s talking about Pfizer risking money –
– “And therefore, as a result of that” (meaning the pandemic) “we actually, um, spent, two billion dollars, at risk, of self-funded money from Pfizer.”
So she’s essentially bragging that the company risked two billion dollars developing a vaccine and manufacturing it at scale without knowing how well it might work, presumably out of the goodness of its Big Pharma heart – which sounds very generous, until you consider that two billion was only about 1.25% of the value of the company. Investment is always a risk.
– – – – – – – – – – –There actually is some scandal here, but not vaguely like you make out, John. Trivially, she’s referring to the population, made of living, breathing people, as “the market”. But far more importantly, listen to what the EU government official says at the beginning of the clip:
– “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus, before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want straight answer, yes or no…”
Why should a government have to beg for data from a private company? Why should a government, which nominally represents the people, have to make emphatic requests, apparently fully expecting to be fobbed off, from a privately owned, profit-making organisation, about a vaccine which that same population paid for through taxation? Why can’t said government simply demand the information it requires on behalf of its taxpayers and, if refused, extract it forcibly by sending in its police force? Does profit and capital actually have greater rights than the public that the company claims to act in the interests of? Apparently so.
– – – – – – – – – – –– “Thank god I was moving at the speed of Yeadon, Malone and McCullough”
The same few names come up over and over ad nauseam, as if the rest of the tens of thousands of the scientific community, ordinary working scientists and doctors, must all be sheeple or evil agents. I haven’t paid much attention to Malone and McCullough, but Yeadon, a medical company exec worth about ten million I think, popularised by the Torygraph’s resident liar Delingpole, not only predicted that there couldn’t be a second wave, just before the second wave, but was also developing nebuliser inhalers to treat respiratory illness, ie. he stood to profit from the wave of illness he was helping to create with his MSM-backed disinformation. What a ghoul! And this is who you trust, John?
[ Mod: You may not be aware, Oscar, that comments about moderation should not be posted in a topical thread, as they are off topic and distract from the issues under discussion. However, you are welcome to comment on moderation in the Blog Support ForumThe recent activity on this thread exemplifies some of the flaws inherent in the earlier thread concerning the content of the covid vaccines. The analysis of that discussion is underway, and recommendations should be posted in the Blog Support Forum within a week or so. In the meantime, the moderation rules will be applied more strictly, and any comments featuring sarcastic or disrespectful language will eligible for deletion without further explanation. ]
And a timely analysis from Dr John:
Dr John Campbell: Viral transmission not tested in Pfizer trials (12 Oct 2022) – YouTube, 9m 51s
I’d love to hear what Dr John Campbell would have to say about Yeadon, Malone and McCullough, but as far as I know, he has never stooped to so much as mentioning such bullshitters. Am I wrong about that, John? Am I? If I am, please link!
John Campbell is generally pretty sensible, but he’s missed a rather obvious point here – Roos is being too simplistic, thinking merely individualistically, and not about society as a whole, which for an elected representative is unforgivable. Even if the vaccine doesn’t reduce transmission, we still get vaccinated for others.
Why?
Before vaccination, COVID frequently overloaded hospitals. We knew this right from the very start, in Wuhan, where the Chinese authorities, famously, built and staffed new emergency hospitals in under a fortnight.
Vaccination greatly reduces the severity of the illness, slashing hospital admissions to a fraction, which permits hospitals to treat the seriously ill who would otherwise die or be seriously injured.
So get vaccinated, so that you don’t squander resources that could treat others in greater need than yourself.
OK, John?
Didn’t it turn out, after deployment, in studies of the general population, that vaccination actually does reduce transmission, just not by very much? Genuine question; I thought I’d read something to that effect but I don’t know the answer. On the other hand Omicron spread considerably faster, but by then people were exercising far less precaution.
This is all such a non-issue. Mandatory vaccination and COVID “passports” were always wrong and I said so from the start, but to argue that because Pfizer didn’t test for transmission means that Yeadon must be right is like arguing that astrology must be true because sometimes computers break down.
The original emergency use authorisation (in UK) was based on prevention of symptomatic covid disease only and not on any data about transmission. From uk.gov:
Summary of the Public Assessment Report for COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech
“What benefits of BNT162b2 have been shown in studies?
BNT162b2 has been studied in approximately 43,000 individuals 16 years of age and older who were equally allocated to the vaccine or a placebo. Those who received vaccination with BNT162b2 had a reduction in the rate of COVID-19 illness compared to those who received placebo (8 cases of COVID-19 illness in the vaccinated group compared to 162 cases in the placebo group). These results were observed 7 days following the second dose in study participants with no evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
similar benefit of the vaccine was observed in subjects with one or more other medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 disease, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, or asthma.”
There was no mention of preventing transmission and indeed from the original trial protocol that was not one of the endpoints of the trial. Neither were hospital admission, severe disease, admission to ICU, death or a host of other endpoints they might have used but would have needed a much bigger number of trial participants and much longer time to evaluate.
Subsequently, other independent studies found that the Pfizer vaccine and others reduced transmission but that that effect waned with time and was different for the various vaccines. I don’t see why Pfizer admittedly very badly articulating this at this hearing is such sensational news.
ET –
“Subsequently, other independent studies found that the Pfizer vaccine and others reduced transmission but that that effect waned with time and was different for the various vaccines.”
Thanks. That’s what I thought. I’ll be getting a booster as I haven’t had either covid or a jab for over six months, so my immunity will have waned.
—
[ Mod: This response about horoscopes was suspended for using heavy sarcasm to ridicule an alternative viewpoint by association with obviously untenable ideas. ]Ah. So the man I called an “EU government official” is actually Roos, and he already knew the answer to his question because it had been published in Pfizer’s trial protocol.
So it was all merely political theatrics. What an utter non-issue.
To be clear Clark, my reference to the effect the vaccines had on transmission was based on studies of the earlier variants (delta). I haven’t really looked hard for the evidence relating to the current variants (omicron). We are entering into a new wave with hospital admissions and infections rates rising. Please look at the admissions by age in the first link above further down the page. Whilst I think they should break down the 18‒64 age group further, note that that age group represents 38% of total admissions over the whole period of the pandemic. The admissions per 100,000 people in that age group are 4 times lower than the 65‒84 age group and 13 times lower than the over 85 age group but that age group (18‒64) make up the bulk of the population (at least for now).
(note: Updates to the data on the above linked uk.gov site are now added weekly and not daily.)
(note 2: The case rates graphs are confusing. Look through all of them by scrolling down the page.)The good news is that deaths and people ventilated are not rising to the same degree. The bad news is that UK, USA, Europe and other regions still have significant excess deaths over previous 5-year averages with most of those deaths not attributable to covid. Still there is no corporatocratic (CRAP) media attention to this.
And an appropriate response from all of you Pfizer apologists:
James Smith @jamessmithPT_
Oct 11, 2022 · 10:10pmSo it turns out “get vaccinated to save other people” was a farce.
I think I owe a lot of people an apology.
I genuinely thought I could trust the ‘experts’. I’m very disappointed to have been hoodwinked by the propaganda of 2020.
May I make a humble contribution? It is for all those who have doubts about the official versions —because there are several— of the covidian issue.
I maintain that the virus came from a laboratory. And I have tons of data to back it up. And that doesn’t mean that I am saying that some evil people released the virus on purpose to kill or sterilize the population or anything about the vaccines, ok? (Although History shows that people with power are capable of that and worse).
I have suspicions that vaccines are causing more damage than is formal and oficially recognized —again, that statement in itself does not imply any conspiracy. But I can’t confirm it because I can’t prove it with a high probability (perhaps the information to prove it is already available —or not—, but I haven’t processed it yet), so it remains in the realm of hypotheses.
As much as possible, link to reliable sources, if sources might be scientific articles (you can bypass paywalls via sci-hub).
And if you search in sources of “alternative information”, always go to the source of the source of the source of the source.
Extraordinary claims require equally strong evidence —although absolute certainty never exists, in science it does not exist either.
The more extraordinary claims —contrary to the official narratives— we make without supporting it by reliable sources, we will be doing a disservice to the hypothetically ignorant population and a great favor to the hypothetically caste behind the event whatever.
As a measure of the solvency of a source —and I say this with sincere affection :)— we can think: what would Clark say? If our imagined Clark dismantles the argument for us in a few lines, we have done a bad job.
If there really is something rotten, and I think there is, we have to silence the “Clarks” —skeptical and rational people— of the world. And we must do it with evidence or, at least, with solid and convincing indications that, added together, make our working hypothesis viable.
So come on, we can do better!
*Back up = ¿respaldar?, better I sal “support”.
ET, I’m looking at the data you linked and I agree that it is worrying. Regarding both the “Patients admitted to hospital” and the “Patients in hospital” graphs, we see an interesting pattern. The first and second waves are clearly visible, each followed by notably deep troughs which presumably indicate the effectiveness of the two lockdowns. Then, from August 2021 to December 2021 we see a plateau, followed by three middling peaks and troughs, with the most recent data suggesting that we’re currently climbing to another similar middling peak, though it could of course just keep climbing…
I wonder why the dynamic changed from relative stability to oscillation? I note that the troughs are not much lower than the preceding plateau whereas the peaks average over twice as high, so average demand is higher compared with the plateau. Comparing the three recent middling peaks against the larger two peaks of the first two waves, these represent major but not overwhelming demand for hospital care. But hospitals have other important conditions to treat, so this extra demand is likely to cause significant reduction of hospital care for all other conditions.
You wrote:
– “The bad news is […] significant excess deaths over previous 5-year averages with most of those deaths not attributable to covid.”
We have to be a bit careful about this. I think what you mean is “a negative covid test result near the time of death”. But we don’t know what long term damage covid* might inflict. So yes, “not attributable to covid”, but potentially caused by prior covid infection, ie. caused by covid nonetheless.
* Yes, these other deaths could be caused by vaccination, but there is a strong theoretical reason that covid is the primary suspect – the virus can reproduce and spread within the host, damaging organ after organ, whereas vaccines, by design, omit all the reproductive elements of the virus, and therefore cannot.
John, James Smith has made the same individualistic oversimplification that Roos and Dr Campbell did, which I pointed out earlier:
– “Vaccination greatly reduces the severity of the illness, slashing hospital admissions to a fraction, which permits hospitals to treat the seriously ill who would otherwise die or be seriously injured.”
You seem to be ignoring this point; don’t you engage in discussion? Do you merely dismiss challenges to your assertions as the words of “Pfizer apologists”? And I note from his Twitter profile that James Smith is a “3x No.1 Sunday Times Best Selling Author”. Is quoting him what you regard as “ignoring the corrupt MSM”?
Glenn_nl, regarding your Oct 12 18:27 and 18:40 comments, I feel I should give Oscar a bit of support. I visited your third link, to mediabiasfactcheck, and it doesn’t describe True North Centre as “far right”, merely “conservative”. Their accuracy it describes as “mixed”; many tabloids must do worse than that. And they don’t seem to be promoting conspirania; just the usual misinterpretation of VAERS data.
However, the links about Malone and McCullough were quite entertaining.
@Clark
If we are going to attribute cause of death then we need to be consistent in our use of data. Covid deaths are enumerated on the basis of a combination of sources, deaths within 28 days of positive test (by date of test or date of death), mentions in the death cert cause of death, clinical picture etc. The same sources of cause of death lead us to the fact that most of the current excess deaths are not attributable to covid. I don’t disagree that it could be an otherwise heretofore unrecognised covid complication but let’s credit the docs with the acumenn to have worked that out too.I don’t know what the cause of this excess deaths phenomenon is and it would seem no one else does either. Looking at Excess mortality in England and English regions you can look at individual causes of death on the left. This data is very well organised and updated weekly. You’ll see that there are excess deaths from multiple causes of death (though not all).
Eurostat data shows that excess deaths in the EU are 16% over previous 5 year averages. Scroll down the page to the graph and you can view individual countries. This data is up to end July 2022. It doesn’t go into detail about causes of deaths.As it stands right now most of the excess deaths are not directly attributable to covid. That begs the question what is causing it and how are authorities going about finding out. I remain surprised that the corporatocratic (CRAP) media are not bringing attention to it.
@Oscar
“I maintain that the virus came from a laboratory. And I have tons of data to back it up.”
Please present your data to us so that we can evaluate it too. But do it in the “Origins of SARS cov2” thread.
“If there really is something rotten, and I think there is, we have to silence the “Clarks” —skeptical and rational people— of the world.”
What an extraordinary thing to say. You wish to exclude rationality and logic? Any argument must stand up to scrutiny and the facts and premise upon which an argument is based must also stand up to scrutiny. One should always be skeptical about everything and question the validity of all data. By that I mean verifying that the data upon which an argument is based is valid, not disregarding all data. Ultimately, in an ideal situation, opinions shouldn’t matter in an argument. The ideal argument being that everyone presented with the same set of facts would come to the same conclusion. It rare that that happens but that is the ideal to strive for.
I agree with you on how to approach reality rationally and scientifically, ET. It is precisely what I have already said several times.
My position should have been clear by now, especially after my last post!
So I’m not going to waste any more time justifying myself to a deaf audience.
Think of me what you want. 🙂
ET, 14:25 –
– “I don’t disagree that it could be an otherwise heretofore unrecognised covid complication but let’s credit the docs with the acumenn to have worked that out too.”
I think there hasn’t been time yet. When you have hospitals with many dying with a positive test and a clear set of clinical symptoms, it’s easy to count them up. But SARS-CoV-2 is an ACE2-receptor virus and as such it invades, hijacks and damages multiple tissue types including nerve cells and immune cells, so it is probably implicated in multiple types of illness and causes of death. It’s messy data and it will take time to work out what is going on. But the rise in excess deaths has been in the Lancet etc., so relevant experts are looking into it, and understanding will increase with time.
– “I remain surprised that the corporatocratic (CRAP) media are not bringing attention to it.”
I’m not; they’re CRAP. They bungle everything remotely technical, and most else besides. They treated climate change as a clash of opinions for thirty years, and have never even mentioned peak hydrocarbons. “By the year 3000, all men will have big willies, and women’s boobs will be more pert”.
ET, you misunderstood Oscar’s remark “we have to silence the […] skeptical and rational people of the world”. It was just one of the usual misunderstandings in textual communication; Oscar meant the opposite.
Oscar, ET’s OK; a good rationalist.
ET, remember that Oscar’s first language is Spanish.
Thank you Clark for trying to clarify what I express poorly.
Unfortunately these forums have left me exhausted and feeling disheartened.
I don’t have the time, nor the desire after everything that’s happened, to search through gigabytes of information on the subject of the lab leak. (Also, this would not be the right thread).
I already searched once for a compilation of 2000 studies, simply to share and be able to study a hypothetical harmfulness of inoculations (or in other words: unrecognized side effects, something that has happened many times in the history of medicine and pharmacology; NOTHING MORE —no less), and some mentally short-circuited and ended up attacking me ad hominem. And the thread ended up blocked…
So no, ET, I have no time, no energy. But as I have said in other threads, the sources to turn to are already among messages in these forums. And they have nothing to do with the links that Glenn has shared for questionable purposes and that certainly have nothing solvent (those sources).
And your distorted perception, wildly searching for crazy conspiracy theorists, literally ended up inventing things that I didn’t say or think or anything… I repeat: extremes meet.
And the sad thing is that here I am not the protagonist. We are all and it is Veritas who is shipwrecked while we fight (I am no longer talking only about these forums; this polarization also has its counterpart in the real world).
And if conspiracy theorists are useful to the System, those who -in an equally fanatical way- dedicate themselves to seeking out and combating conspiracy theorists, whether they are in front of them or not, are no less useful to System to the extent that, without going deeper, they discard certain facts because they sound conspiracy-themed.
There is nothing better for any power than to discard the fingers that point at it as conspiracy. No further explanations are required. Conspiranoid. Denialist. “X”. Out of public debate.
And yes, the powerful smile with silent disdain — even greater than that shown here by more than one user.
I refuse to participate in that dialectic that only benefits the few.
My best wishes to all,
César (aka Oscar)
