There is a new article at trialsitenews. "High Death Rate Among Vaccinated Brings Vaccine Dystopia Into View" https://trialsitenews.com/high-death-rate-among-vaccinated-brings-vaccine-dystopia-into-view/ The source of data is here, official data from the UK: https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf Not sure what I should think about. (page 19) Need to have a closer look...
That's just shameful! Like Yen said: pure soap opera journalism. This is what you've been posting since this thread started. REAL HONEST UNBIASED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES IS THE WAY TO FIGHT COVID-19
I had a closer look. I wonder why @gorski didn't jump in to correct this. You cannot add numbers (deaths) of unvaxxed and add numbers of vaxxed (deaths) and compare them! Joel S. Hirschhorn is wrong!!! When you go on and vaccinate people the number of unvaxxed decreases while the numbers of vaxxed increases, right? So if you would now reach a vaccination rate of 100% you would only count deaths from the vaccinated since no vaccine is 100% protective even from deaths. In other words: If there are no more unvaxxed left, no unvaxxed can die anymore. You only would have to 'wait' until the summarized number of deaths caused in vaccinated would exceed the summarized number of deaths caused in unvaccinated people. So you have to relate to a constant amount of vaxxed and unvaxxed, let's say per million and THEN compare. Result: The vaccines are still protective against deaths compared to the unvaccinated people. Fair enough. Just relate to a normalized amount. Edit: The data collection period is from 1 February 2021 to 2 August 2021. Within this period of time the ratio unvaxxed to vaxxed has changed constantly. So the tendency that the vaxxed die anyways is raising, too. But this does not mean the vaccines are 'causing' more relative deaths...they have to 'cause' more absolute deaths since more and more are vaccinated and no vaccine is 100%. 'Cause' in the meaning of 'not to be able to prevent'.
What this girl is saying is that there is expected to be an increase in deaths in the fall among those who have been vaccinated. And the reports will not indicate that these people are vaccinated. States are now deciding how to blame the unvaccinated, not the vaccines themselves. That's what booster vaccinations (revaccinations) are designed to do. Just as with the first two doses, those who died after the first or second dose but before they should have had an immune response (two weeks) are recorded as patients with "death by Covid-19," so now people who received only two doses will officially be considered unvaccinated if they did not receive the booster shot.
Infinitesimal, dear prof... Yes, "grabbed by the pharmaceutical industry"... Around the world. All the MSM! And all the govs, add all the scientists, researchers, all the regulatory bodies, every smart person in the world... Sure. At which point I switch off...
Grabbed by greed ermm alliance of interests, perhaps. (I mean why is there still no interest on repurposed drugs, tell me?) Malone has been trained like me. Evidence based science. Proper bio ethics. I totally agree about anything medically / ethically he is saying about the experimental vaccines. I also agree with his idea how the vaccines should be used. And I agree with his opinion about public health and their 'performance' on pandemic management. All the rest is....just his opinion...nothing bad IMHO.
@Yen yes I totally agree with your reasoning and remembering that you are in the business so you know what you are saying is clear ...
Record of adverse effects Good morning to all the members of Akasha Community. I share the link to a scientific article, written by Pomara and collaborators (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8229116/pdf/diagnostics-11-00955.pdf) that exposes the causal algorithms of the WHO to determine the causality of vaccination to the presentation of clinical events. One of the most important points that scientists put forward is the need to perform autopsies on people who die after vaccination, since without that, causality is difficult to establish. [I was thinking, as I read this, how many of the people who have died in the last 18 months have undergone an autopsy? Unlike post-vaccination adverse events, the causality of SARS-CoV-2 has been established in a flash, despite the fact that the criterion for determining that the cause of death was COVID-19 is that the person is positive (or it has been in the 28 days prior to death) to the official test]. Returning to the article that I share with you, the WHO criteria to establish causality between vaccination and adverse events or death is based on the following steps: eligibility (that the vaccine has been applied before the clinical event and not after), checklist , algorithm and classification. Some questions that need to be asked and answered scientifically and clinically are: 1) Is there strong evidence of other causes of what happened (requires analysis of the patient's medical history)? 2) are there previous causal associations with vaccines? 3) is there strong evidence against a causal association? 4) Are there pre-existing conditions and events related to previous vaccinations? If the relationship between the two events (vaccination and event) persists, then the WHO algorithm is applied (see table on page 7) and classified into one of 4 categories: a) consistent causal relationship, b) indeterminate, c) inconsistent, d) not classifiable. Applying these criteria, they systematically analyze two cases of post-vaccination death in Italy in the study. The authors conclude that the evaluation of adverse effects events is crucial to implement evidence-based policies and also to counteract vaccination reluctance and suspicions (in other words, more suspicion and reluctance to accept a product is generated when there is no openness to study adverse effects seriously. I have said that before in some of my talks: refusing to accept that adverse effects can occur and shutting down to study these effects further damages public confidence in vaccines). It would be essential that doctors, coroners, hospitals and health agencies in various countries are aware of this article and the WHO criteria and apply them. That's what evidence-based medicine is all about. Of course, the reports in the registry systems (such as VAERS, Eudravigillance, etc.) have not applied these criteria, so there is no way to establish causality, but even with this limitation, it is worrying that the number of events registered in less than 1 year exceeds by more than 100 times the number of annual records of adverse events of other vaccines. In this vein, yesterday I read that VAERS (the post-vaccination adverse event registry system in the United States) has recorded adverse events of 726 people in a single registry (the registries are individual, that one - which is the number 1669577) it grouped 726 deaths. I do not know if this is being a common practice, but if it is, then you have to question whether the high number of adverse events, hospitalizations and deaths recorded post vaccination against COVID-19 on your own page, is actually higher. I remind you that in previous messages I explained how you can search VAERS yourself, in case you are curious or need to do so. I hope this information is useful to you and I wish you have a nice day, Karina AW
COVID - EUROPE TAKES A NEW STEP INTO THE ABYSS European countries, starting with Italy, have adopted laws at the state level - the people who have not received vaccination are not allowed to work officially. And you can be vaccinated at least 100 times, but if you have not passed the next (monthly, weekly, three-monthly) RE-vaccination, you are considered NOT-vaccinated (!). And in all annals, even in case of death or arrest or the like, you will be listed as NOT vaccinated. The uselessness and unreliability of PCR tests was confirmed not only by the creator and author of PCR tests (murdered), but also by several resolutions of the WHO itself. From which it is easy to conclude that PCR tests are not used for medical purposes, but exclusively for commercial and police purposes. The issue with "vaccination" and "RE-vaccination" certainly carries with it commercial and police purposes as well. But more interesting is the global phich of "biomechanical" vaccines. It is also confirmed by the latest WHO resolution concerning changes in the human genome aimed at preserving health. So, any "biomechanical" vaccine is the property of this or that pharmaceutical corporation. The altered gene (or gene modification system) is also the property of that pharmaceutical corporation. The main trick, however, is that a person who has been vaccinated and acquired a certain gene mutation through this vaccination ceases to be human in the legal sense of the word and ceases to be a free individual. He, with his altered genotype, becomes the property of the corporation that created this patented mutagen. Who, against the laws of life, logic, health and common sense, stubbornly tries to put the whole world under one roof?
Why vaccinate adolescents and children against SARS-CoV-2? I have already shared the scientific evidence available to date that shows 1) that children and adolescents do not have a significant risk of becoming ill if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2, much less dying, and 2) that those who do have serious COVID-19, have an imbalance in their immune system, and are prone to a systemic inflammation syndrome. It is by no means a high risk since few children and adolescents have these conditions. In that sense, why vaccinate this age group? Surely there are a number of possible responses, and many stem from fear. After all, you hear every day that hospitals are saturated with children with COVID, and although official data and studies do not show that, the effect on fear is profound. When I hear a mother or father say that "of course they will vaccinate their children as soon as the vaccine is available", or I read news about the protections granted to vaccinate children, I know that those decisions come from fear, in the same way that many children pressured their parents and / or grandparents to get vaccinated. The point is that fear does not allow you to think clearly, much less reason. There is growing scientific information that does not seem to be read (or understood) by the media, nor by many doctors, responsible for giving science-based advice for the health of their patients. Sure, some are being aware of the risk-benefit of vaccines in children, and are being clear in their positions. For example, Dr. Anthony Harnden, Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) recently stated that "His responsibility to him is to the children of England, and not to the government." He said this because, together with other JCVI doctors, he determined that "they have up-to-date information from pediatric cardiologists in the United States who are treating children with post-vaccination myocarditis, and that there is concern that this could be a problem in the long run." . Despite the JCVI recommendation not to vaccinate children in the UK, the government decided to go ahead. Where was "follow science"? In addition, in late 2020, University of California pediatrician Dr. Whelan expressed concern to the FDA about the harm that mRNA vaccines could do to children's brains, hearts, and other organs, and that none of the clinical trials were studying this possibility. His conclusion was overwhelming: "Special caution must be exercised about the potential vaccination of children before real data on the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines are available in pediatric trials that are just beginning." A search of the scientific literature shows that as of today (09/16/21), there is only one published scientific study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34043894/) that has evaluated the safety of vaccines in adolescents. They defined safety as adverse reactions that occurred within 7 days after the 2nd dose. As you can see (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728), they excluded adolescents with health problems, vaccine allergies, and those who had already been exposed to the virus. Will pediatricians recommending vaccination know that there is only one scientific study, still ongoing? Will decision makers know? They care? It may not be science or children's well-being that drives the actions of decision makers. In that case, it may be necessary for parents to take responsibility in making the decision about their children. Choosing (whatever you choose) from knowledge is different than choosing from fear. You can see the news on Dr. Harnden's decision at: https://www.channel4.com/news/my-re...nt-jcvi-deputy-chair-defends-vaccine-decision I hope this information is useful to make informed decisions, Karina AW https://t.me/akashacomunidad/546
Facts, anyone? Coronavirus data Covid-19 in the UK 66.0% fully vaccinated Daily cases 32,651 -4,971 v last week In hospital 8,068 -59 v last week Daily deaths 178 +31 v last week Cases and deaths as published on 17 Sep, hospital numbers on 16 Sep. Vaccine rate is % total population to have received two doses by 16 Sep. Source: PHE. This is just the reported stuff. Tons of it goes unreported...
I am working at preclinical research. When I did drug design, we were trained on evidence based science and followed bio ethics. (Who should get it and under which circumstances). We did not skip any experiments which are mandatory for a proper safety profile. (2 years toxicology and much more). I synthesized drugs (our entire work group did) later people got administered in clinical trials. We followed all guidelines and proper GLP / GMP. When I compare now what's going on with the experimental vaccines, I see lots of things which are not right. My opinion is conform to Malone's here. I know a doc which sends anybody home who has no comorbidites and is under the age of 30 when asking for the vaccines. I did own analyses, although the data do vary. When having no comorbidities the risk of the vaccines are exceeding those of the covid when being under the age of 26. I myself stick to my opinion. COVID vaccines only for the 'vulnerable' persons. 2 factors do significantly correlate. Both can be influenced the latter a bit harder. - low vitamin D level - obesity Other comorbidities not that easy. Such as diabetes. And some not at all. (Organ related).
Interesting article on the outcome of using Ivermectin in India. https://www.thedesertreview.com/new...cle_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html The problem with the Covid-19 vaccines..... The protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn't protect the protected.
You find similar data for Peru, Argentina and Mexico (test and treat program). I still cannot believe why IVM is not on every hospital's / local docs treatment protocol. Even those being sceptical should be clear about. Since it is one of the safest drugs and would have only a tiny efficacy, it would be better than nothing. Vaccinated people get sick, too. They also need proper treatment. Protected people who still need protection aren't protected. Insanity takes place.
It's not a problem to use it additionally, Yen. The problem is the undercurrent: using it INSTEAD of vaccines etc.! We need vaccines to reduce hospitalisations and deaths from C-19! There is NO doubt about that!
Current circulating vaccines were designed based on Spike protein from the first variant at that time. Such first variant is not circulating anymore. It's gone due to mutations. Spike protein has the highest mutation rate, ergo how current vaccines can protect?
We don't need current vaccines to fight COVID-19. There are serious mortifying concerns and doubts regarding their safety founded on scientific evidence. Early treatment is KEY in this fight vs covid. Early treatment DO prevent death and long haul from covid.
ok thank you very much for your explanation should not be easy, l I just wish good luck and continue in your fight congrats
X, don't talk nonsense! They still protect just fine - from getting hospitalised or dying! And we got them in a shockingly short time! If you were to hope for something good at such a desperate time - you would have gone for far less, when millions were dying of it!!!