It is quite amazing how so many people blindly believe everything the government tells them.The same people who foolishly believe the Ukranians are the good guys and Russia the baddies.They are blissfully unaware that Ukraine fought on the side of the Nazis in WW2.They also believe that 99.9% of scientists believe in the efficacy of the covid jabs.Actually it's about 50/50. The ones funded by big Pharma and the Gov't as opposed to the ones not funded and therefore able to give an honest opinion.
Excellent. Got to be satire at this point. You must absolutely fucking hate people from Germany, Finland, Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand and Slovakia as well if that's your basis for judging others. Of course, saying 'Ukraine fought on the side of the Nazis' is inaccurate and reductive beyond belief, but it's no surprise that your grasp on history is about as good as your understanding of science. Distrusting a group of people based on a stereotypical (and incorrect) perception of them as a whole based on historical decisions made by individuals to tar them all with the same brush and mark them as bad? There's a word for something like that..
Genuinely amazed this thread hasn't been closed yet
I keep thinking about it. Mainly because it was me that started this thread and I didn't think that three years on I'd be getting notifications every time someone posted some junk conspiracy. Then I have a little crisis of conscience and I think threads shouldn't be closed just because I disagree with what's being said. I can see the day coming though, because it has largely descended into the majority completely dispelling the nonsense of a minority who seemingly never bother to read what's posted because they never respond other than to post more unsubstantiated guff.
It is quite amazing how so many people blindly believe everything the government tells them.The same people who foolishly believe the Ukranians are the good guys and Russia the baddies.They are blissfully unaware that Ukraine fought on the side of the Nazis in WW2.They also believe that 99.9% of scientists believe in the efficacy of the covid jabs.Actually it's about 50/50. The ones funded by big Pharma and the Gov't as opposed to the ones not funded and therefore able to give an honest opinion.
Excellent. Got to be satire at this point. You must absolutely fucking hate people from Germany, Finland, Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand and Slovakia as well if that's your basis for judging others. Of course, saying 'Ukraine fought on the side of the Nazis' is inaccurate and reductive beyond belief, but it's no surprise that your grasp on history is about as good as your understanding of science. Distrusting a group of people based on a stereotypical (and incorrect) perception of them as a whole based on historical decisions made by individuals to tar them all with the same brush and mark them as bad? There's a word for something like that..
Genuinely amazed this thread hasn't been closed yet
I keep thinking about it. Mainly because it was me that started this thread and I didn't think that three years on I'd be getting notifications every time someone posted some junk conspiracy. Then I have a little crisis of conscience and I think threads shouldn't be closed just because I disagree with what's being said. I can see the day coming though, because it has largely descended into the majority completely dispelling the nonsense of a minority who seemingly never bother to read what's posted because they never respond other than to post more unsubstantiated guff.
On the plus side, some of these conspiracy theories are really incredibly amusing to read.
It is quite amazing how so many people blindly believe everything the government tells them.The same people who foolishly believe the Ukranians are the good guys and Russia the baddies.They are blissfully unaware that Ukraine fought on the side of the Nazis in WW2.They also believe that 99.9% of scientists believe in the efficacy of the covid jabs.Actually it's about 50/50. The ones funded by big Pharma and the Gov't as opposed to the ones not funded and therefore able to give an honest opinion.
Yep. Ukrainians fought with the Nazis and so did the Italians. I’d argue that the Germans and Italians are now two of our closest friends and allies and post the end of the Cold War so are Ukraine. What’s your point ? Do you still distrust the French because of Napoleon. What about the Spanish Armada, snakey bastards. As for scientific scepticism of vaccines being 50/50 - prove that to me. Do you class medical doctors as scientists ? I do and I’m estimating that 99.9% support the vaccine programme.
It is quite amazing how so many people blindly believe everything the government tells them.The same people who foolishly believe the Ukranians are the good guys and Russia the baddies.They are blissfully unaware that Ukraine fought on the side of the Nazis in WW2.They also believe that 99.9% of scientists believe in the efficacy of the covid jabs.Actually it's about 50/50. The ones funded by big Pharma and the Gov't as opposed to the ones not funded and therefore able to give an honest opinion.
Excellent. Got to be satire at this point. You must absolutely fucking hate people from Germany, Finland, Italy, Japan, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand and Slovakia as well if that's your basis for judging others. Of course, saying 'Ukraine fought on the side of the Nazis' is inaccurate and reductive beyond belief, but it's no surprise that your grasp on history is about as good as your understanding of science. Distrusting a group of people based on a stereotypical (and incorrect) perception of them as a whole based on historical decisions made by individuals to tar them all with the same brush and mark them as bad? There's a word for something like that..
Genuinely amazed this thread hasn't been closed yet
I keep thinking about it. Mainly because it was me that started this thread and I didn't think that three years on I'd be getting notifications every time someone posted some junk conspiracy. Then I have a little crisis of conscience and I think threads shouldn't be closed just because I disagree with what's being said. I can see the day coming though, because it has largely descended into the majority completely dispelling the nonsense of a minority who seemingly never bother to read what's posted because they never respond other than to post more unsubstantiated guff.
On the plus side, some of these conspiracy theories are really incredibly amusing to read.
They are but also they sort of aren't. They start off funny like Peanuts posting about mad bollocks and then before long they descend into the last poster claiming that people from Ukraine are evil because some of their grandparents were fascists. It always escalates and you realise that these people often aren't just dafties who read something silly online, many of them actually have deeply unpleasant views and they're filled with hate. It's really depressing.
Leaving aside the nonsense, just tested positive again...
Just been on holiday on a group tour of Saudi Arabia, so either caught it from one of the other people, or on Sunday on the flight home from Jeddah. No vaccine since last autumn as I am bit longer eligible, but definitely would have had it if offered.
Rather than shut down an important thread, wouldn't it be better to stop the posters who post fake news, or at least give them a warning.
Is that not a echo chamber ?
No, people can still disagree on the need to take the vaccine, it should just be based on actual facts not completely made up lies. It's like going on the post match thread; posters can disagree for a week abut whether or not Lloyd Jones is good enough for a promotion team but it falls apart fairly quickly if there's a bunch of idiots screaming that he's actually a government plant put in place by ministers sympathetic to Crystal Palace and we're all idiots for believing the players we signed this season are anything other than loads of ants glued together by big FIFA.
Rather than shut down an important thread, wouldn't it be better to stop the posters who post fake news, or at least give them a warning.
I'd delete all of the crank anti vax posts from the likes of Peanuts, Welling & Queensland etc. I wouldn't want the misinformation spreading on my watch, because just one person choosing not to take the vaccine because of some guff they've read on here is one too many.
Rather than shut down an important thread, wouldn't it be better to stop the posters who post fake news, or at least give them a warning.
Is that not a echo chamber ?
No, people can still disagree on the need to take the vaccine, it should just be based on actual facts not completely made up lies. It's like going on the post match thread; posters can disagree for a week abut whether or not Lloyd Jones is good enough for a promotion team but it falls apart fairly quickly if there's a bunch of idiots screaming that he's actually a government plant put in place by ministers sympathetic to Crystal Palace and we're all idiots for believing the players we signed this season are anything other than loads of ants glued together by big FIFA.
Crazy, but less dangerous than anti-vax conspiracy posts.
Rather than shut down an important thread, wouldn't it be better to stop the posters who post fake news, or at least give them a warning.
Is that not a echo chamber ?
No, people can still disagree on the need to take the vaccine, it should just be based on actual facts not completely made up lies. It's like going on the post match thread; posters can disagree for a week abut whether or not Lloyd Jones is good enough for a promotion team but it falls apart fairly quickly if there's a bunch of idiots screaming that he's actually a government plant put in place by ministers sympathetic to Crystal Palace and we're all idiots for believing the players we signed this season are anything other than loads of ants glued together by big FIFA.
Thank you for determining what is and is not acceptable to debate about the mRNA vaccines. So, it is acceptable to disagree about the need to take the vaccine but not to query its safety or efficacy or to quote findings from independent scientists (originally pro-vaccine) that the manufacturing process for the mRNA vaccine rolled out to the masses was materially different to the process used for the trialled version. Or to quote the opinion of a leading British oncologist, who happens to have long experience of vaccine development, and who has material concerns about the that he has observed in his patients formerly in remission, who have suffered the return of aggressive and untreatable cancers after receiving repeated boosters. Anyone raising these matters here is a "nutter" or "conspiracy theorist" and must be muted "because just one person choosing not to take the vaccine because of some guff they've read on here is one too many". Because you (and others) know the absolute, unimpeachable truth. Well, apologies for doubting your infinite wisdom and that pharmaceutical companies are to be implicitly trusted to put patients' health before their own profit, but here is my latest offering, from the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research And rather than dismissing it as "guff", try reading it without your head stuck up your arse.
The analysis reported here is unique in that it is the first study of the original data from the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial (CA4591001) to be carried out by a group unaffiliated with the trial sponsor. Our study is a forensic analysis of the 38 trial subjects who died between July 27, 2020, the start of Phase 2/3 of the clinical trial, and March 13, 2021, the data end date of their 6-Month Interim Report. Phase 2/3 of the trial involved 44,060 subjects who were equally distributed into two groups and received Dose 1 of either the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinated or the Placebo control (0.9% normal saline). At Week 20, when the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. FDA, subjects in the placebo arm were given the option to be BNT162b2 vaccinated. All but a few accepted. Surprisingly, a comparison of the number of subject deaths per week during the 33 Weeks of this study found no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial, the placebo-controlled portion of the trial. After Week 20, as subjects in the Placebo were unblinded and vaccinated, deaths among this still unvaccinated cohort of this group slowed and eventually plateaued. Deaths in the BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects continued at the same rate. Our analysis revealed inconsistencies between the subject data listed in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators. Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls.This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer/BioNTech. Potential sources of these data inconsistencies are identified.
Recently turned 70. I had my pneumonia jab in September, and then the Covid and flu jabs at the same time at the beginning of October. No side effects. Have been taking Statins for over 20 years as my cholesterol reading without is double the safe levels. Again, never had a single side effect.
Don’t have any problems with those who are against vaccinations per se. Good luck to them. The only time I have lost my temper in the last few years is when an anti - vac group were demonstrating in Maidstone and one of them asked me if I had had the covid jab. I said yes, and this chap who was half my age tried to lecture me.
Put it this way, I think he regretted it quite quickly.
Rather than shut down an important thread, wouldn't it be better to stop the posters who post fake news, or at least give them a warning.
Is that not a echo chamber ?
No, people can still disagree on the need to take the vaccine, it should just be based on actual facts not completely made up lies. It's like going on the post match thread; posters can disagree for a week abut whether or not Lloyd Jones is good enough for a promotion team but it falls apart fairly quickly if there's a bunch of idiots screaming that he's actually a government plant put in place by ministers sympathetic to Crystal Palace and we're all idiots for believing the players we signed this season are anything other than loads of ants glued together by big FIFA.
Thank you for determining what is and is not acceptable to debate about the mRNA vaccines. So, it is acceptable to disagree about the need to take the vaccine but not to query its safety or efficacy or to quote findings from independent scientists (originally pro-vaccine) that the manufacturing process for the mRNA vaccine rolled out to the masses was materially different to the process used for the trialled version. Or to quote the opinion of a leading British oncologist, who happens to have long experience of vaccine development, and who has material concerns about the that he has observed in his patients formerly in remission, who have suffered the return of aggressive and untreatable cancers after receiving repeated boosters. Anyone raising these matters here is a "nutter" or "conspiracy theorist" and must be muted "because just one person choosing not to take the vaccine because of some guff they've read on here is one too many". Because you (and others) know the absolute, unimpeachable truth. Well, apologies for doubting your infinite wisdom and that pharmaceutical companies are to be implicitly trusted to put patients' health before their own profit, but here is my latest offering, from the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research And rather than dismissing it as "guff", try reading it without your head stuck up your arse.
The analysis reported here is unique in that it is the first study of the original data from the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial (CA4591001) to be carried out by a group unaffiliated with the trial sponsor. Our study is a forensic analysis of the 38 trial subjects who died between July 27, 2020, the start of Phase 2/3 of the clinical trial, and March 13, 2021, the data end date of their 6-Month Interim Report. Phase 2/3 of the trial involved 44,060 subjects who were equally distributed into two groups and received Dose 1 of either the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinated or the Placebo control (0.9% normal saline). At Week 20, when the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. FDA, subjects in the placebo arm were given the option to be BNT162b2 vaccinated. All but a few accepted. Surprisingly, a comparison of the number of subject deaths per week during the 33 Weeks of this study found no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial, the placebo-controlled portion of the trial. After Week 20, as subjects in the Placebo were unblinded and vaccinated, deaths among this still unvaccinated cohort of this group slowed and eventually plateaued. Deaths in the BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects continued at the same rate. Our analysis revealed inconsistencies between the subject data listed in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators. Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls.This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer/BioNTech. Potential sources of these data inconsistencies are identified.
The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research isn't a credible scientific journal. It is, unsurprisingly, an anti-vaccine mouthpiece. Two members of its editorial board are also members of Children's Health Defense, which is an American anti-vaccine activist group.
I haven't read the article you've cited, partly because of the difficulty I've been having extracting my head from my arse, but mainly because if it were credible it would have been submitted to a reputable scientific journal. This is just more anti-vaccine disinformation.
I had a quick read, but it will take me a while to read it more thoroughly. I did note that the journal started in mid 2020 and much is a bit of a red flag, as is the inclusion of the daily clout in the author list - a site that mediabiasfactcheck describes as right wing based conspiracy and pseudoscience focused. No whilst I haven’t read the paper in enough detail I suspect the likelihood of bias is quite high.
I will read it it more detail this evening though.
So whilst watching Charlton doing a great job at Wigan I had a more detailed read of this journal. This is a long post for which I apologise.
TLDR summary: 38 out of 40,000+ subjects in the trial died. 21 were vaccinated and 17 were unvaccinated. 20 were due to cardiac causes (10 in each group) more unvaccinated subjects died due to Covid infection. The authors make assumptions/conclusions throughout and do not back them up with data. Certainly doesn’t suggest the vaccine cause cardiac issues and increased deaths.
Caveat: I am not a vaccine expert nor a doctor. I am a healthcare professional who has, as part of my study, had to critically analyse journal paper. There are many out there with a better analysis I am sure.
1. Widespread use of inverted commas in the article including terms ‘safe and effective’ and ‘prevented transmission and serious illness’ . These are not quotes but clear evidence of bias on the part of the authors as these are mentioned prior to presentation of any data or analysis of that data.
2. Abstract and main body have different numbers of participants for the phase 2/3 trial they concentrate on. Would suggest a lack of rigour on the part of the authors.
3. Using the daily clout website search tool to find abstracts is not something I have heard of as a recognised way of searching for clinical trial data.
4. Bottom of page 7 when talking about numbers of deaths they state the increase in number of deaths in the latter part of the trial and state this is presumably partly die to the increase in people vaccinated. This is suggestive of bias in the part of the authors as it appears to be an assumption. However the following graph shows 21 deaths in those vaccinated and 17 in those unvaccinated. Across a data set of over 40,000 I suspect there is no significant difference between those figures and the fact that over the course of this phase all but 5% appear to have remained unvaccinated you would expect that difference to be much higher if the vaccine was causing increased cardiac related fatalities.
5. The authors reference around 400 subjects lost to follow up during the trial stating this is not insignificant and clearly suggest this is why the number of deaths is low, there does not appear to be any analysis to proof the statistical significance of this number nor any evidence offered that finding these lost patients would increase the number of death amongst subject in the trial.
6. When analysing the deaths the authors state that it is ‘their experience’ that unexpected deaths are due to cardiac events or strokes. They offer no statistical evidence of percentage of unexpected deaths due to such events even though this will be available to them. It certainly is recorded in the NHS.
7. 10 of the 21 deaths in the vaccinated group are clearly not cardiac in origin. The same number as in the unvaccinated group. Although it is worth noting there was only one death attributed to Covid in the vaccinated group versus 5 in the unvaccinated.
8. The authors took the view that because they couldn’t find more extensive medical information about those subjects that died that this means the listed causes of death may be wrong. This is making an assumption that because this information was not found by them that it means the clinician deciding cause of death did not have it either. There is no evidence offered as to how they came to this conclusion.
9. The authors note that 12 of the 15 sudden deaths amongst subjects were found to be cardiac in origin and state this to be interesting. This is despite their assertion earlier that this is in their experience a normal occurrence (see point 6).
10. It is worth noting that the authors state clearly that their analysis of the deaths leads them to agree with the cause of death in all but 2 of the cases. My reading of their disagreement with these cases is it is very opinion based rather than offering clear evidence, that said I would agree that one of those two could more clearly have been described based on what the authors describe - Although I am not a doctor or a pathologist and as such my view is far from expert especially given the limited amount of information available to me.
11. After this there is lots of discussion about possible data discrepancies that is very wordy and not clear the point it is making. It certainly doesn’t appear to clearly be a detailed analysis of the 38 deaths the paper claims it is.
The issue is that there’ll be no engagement with the important, considered and objective views that have been shared by @kigelia
It's a pattern we saw many times in the HoC threads, on various subjects. Conspiracy nutters post some crap they found online (#doingtheirresearch ), thinking it's a jolly impressive 'mic drop' moment but within minutes it's thoroughly debunked. Rather than think about why this keeps happening, they just move onto the next online crank, rinse and repeat.
The issue is that there’ll be no engagement with the important, considered and objective views that have been shared by @kigelia
It's a pattern we saw many times in the HoC threads, on various subjects. Conspiracy nutters post some crap they found online (#doingtheirresearch ), thinking it's a jolly impressive 'mic drop' moment but within minutes it's thoroughly debunked. Rather than think about why this keeps happening, they just move onto the next online crank, rinse and repeat.
On this very thread a poster moved on to Ukraine. 🤷🏻♂️
The issue is that there’ll be no engagement with the important, considered and objective views that have been shared by @kigelia
It's a pattern we saw many times in the HoC threads, on various subjects. Conspiracy nutters post some crap they found online (#doingtheirresearch ), thinking it's a jolly impressive 'mic drop' moment but within minutes it's thoroughly debunked. Rather than think about why this keeps happening, they just move onto the next online crank, rinse and repeat.
On this very thread a poster moved on to Ukraine. 🤷🏻♂️
It’s classic we’re all being lied to by government about everything conspiracy stuff. What is never taken into consideration is that if we are being lied to about eg vaccines, and the war in Ukraine, then we’re looking at a conspiracy that takes in every government in the world, even the rogue ones and every doctor and scientist. For god sake, even Iran had a vaccine programme.
The issue is that there’ll be no engagement with the important, considered and objective views that have been shared by @kigelia
It's a pattern we saw many times in the HoC threads, on various subjects. Conspiracy nutters post some crap they found online (#doingtheirresearch ), thinking it's a jolly impressive 'mic drop' moment but within minutes it's thoroughly debunked. Rather than think about why this keeps happening, they just move onto the next online crank, rinse and repeat.
On this very thread a poster moved on to Ukraine. 🤷🏻♂️
It’s classic we’re all being lied to by government about everything conspiracy stuff. What is never taken into consideration is that if we are being lied to about eg vaccines, and the war in Ukraine, then we’re looking at a conspiracy that takes in every government in the world, even the rogue ones and every doctor and scientist. For god sake, even Iran had a vaccine programme.
There's usually a kernel of truth then a load of nonsense gets added and you end up with 1+1=7. A lot of anti vax stuff comes from Thalidomide side effects in the 1950s. The 5G weirdness has been going on in some form for decades. Some people in the Victorian age believed radio waves were used by the government to control people.
Rather than shut down an important thread, wouldn't it be better to stop the posters who post fake news, or at least give them a warning.
Is that not a echo chamber ?
No, people can still disagree on the need to take the vaccine, it should just be based on actual facts not completely made up lies. It's like going on the post match thread; posters can disagree for a week abut whether or not Lloyd Jones is good enough for a promotion team but it falls apart fairly quickly if there's a bunch of idiots screaming that he's actually a government plant put in place by ministers sympathetic to Crystal Palace and we're all idiots for believing the players we signed this season are anything other than loads of ants glued together by big FIFA.
Thank you for determining what is and is not acceptable to debate about the mRNA vaccines. So, it is acceptable to disagree about the need to take the vaccine but not to query its safety or efficacy or to quote findings from independent scientists (originally pro-vaccine) that the manufacturing process for the mRNA vaccine rolled out to the masses was materially different to the process used for the trialled version. Or to quote the opinion of a leading British oncologist, who happens to have long experience of vaccine development, and who has material concerns about the that he has observed in his patients formerly in remission, who have suffered the return of aggressive and untreatable cancers after receiving repeated boosters. Anyone raising these matters here is a "nutter" or "conspiracy theorist" and must be muted "because just one person choosing not to take the vaccine because of some guff they've read on here is one too many". Because you (and others) know the absolute, unimpeachable truth. Well, apologies for doubting your infinite wisdom and that pharmaceutical companies are to be implicitly trusted to put patients' health before their own profit, but here is my latest offering, from the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research And rather than dismissing it as "guff", try reading it without your head stuck up your arse.
The analysis reported here is unique in that it is the first study of the original data from the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial (CA4591001) to be carried out by a group unaffiliated with the trial sponsor. Our study is a forensic analysis of the 38 trial subjects who died between July 27, 2020, the start of Phase 2/3 of the clinical trial, and March 13, 2021, the data end date of their 6-Month Interim Report. Phase 2/3 of the trial involved 44,060 subjects who were equally distributed into two groups and received Dose 1 of either the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinated or the Placebo control (0.9% normal saline). At Week 20, when the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. FDA, subjects in the placebo arm were given the option to be BNT162b2 vaccinated. All but a few accepted. Surprisingly, a comparison of the number of subject deaths per week during the 33 Weeks of this study found no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial, the placebo-controlled portion of the trial. After Week 20, as subjects in the Placebo were unblinded and vaccinated, deaths among this still unvaccinated cohort of this group slowed and eventually plateaued. Deaths in the BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects continued at the same rate. Our analysis revealed inconsistencies between the subject data listed in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators. Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls.This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer/BioNTech. Potential sources of these data inconsistencies are identified.
Excellent, so we've established that you can engage with people after you post what you do. With that in mind, would you like to engage with the fact every single thing you've posted has been debunked on here often minutes after you posted it, including kigelia's excellent takedown of the unscientific trash you've linked above, or are you just going to ignore that in favour of being dangerously wrong and never engaging when facts overcome your YouTube videos? I promise I'll remove my head from my arse long enough to hear you.
I prefer to rely on my natural immune system which l look after with diet,fresh air and excersise.l will not compromise it with experimental drugs.l have never had covid although many of my friends and family are now having ill health which they attribute to the jab.lt seems that people would rather shoot the messenger than admit they have been had.
The issue is that there’ll be no engagement with the important, considered and objective views that have been shared by @kigelia
It's a pattern we saw many times in the HoC threads, on various subjects. Conspiracy nutters post some crap they found online (#doingtheirresearch ), thinking it's a jolly impressive 'mic drop' moment but within minutes it's thoroughly debunked. Rather than think about why this keeps happening, they just move onto the next online crank, rinse and repeat.
On this very thread a poster moved on to Ukraine. 🤷🏻♂️
That wasn't very wise considering there's a war going on over there.
The issue is that there’ll be no engagement with the important, considered and objective views that have been shared by @kigelia
It's a pattern we saw many times in the HoC threads, on various subjects. Conspiracy nutters post some crap they found online (#doingtheirresearch ), thinking it's a jolly impressive 'mic drop' moment but within minutes it's thoroughly debunked. Rather than think about why this keeps happening, they just move onto the next online crank, rinse and repeat.
On this very thread a poster moved on to Ukraine. 🤷🏻♂️
That wasn't very wise considering there's a war going on over there.
Comments
Just been on holiday on a group tour of Saudi Arabia, so either caught it from one of the other people, or on Sunday on the flight home from Jeddah. No vaccine since last autumn as I am bit longer eligible, but definitely would have had it if offered.
My final rabies jab tomorrow.
Thank you for determining what is and is not acceptable to debate about the mRNA vaccines.
So, it is acceptable to disagree about the need to take the vaccine but not to query its safety or efficacy or to quote findings from independent scientists (originally pro-vaccine) that the manufacturing process for the mRNA vaccine rolled out to the masses was materially different to the process used for the trialled version.
Or to quote the opinion of a leading British oncologist, who happens to have long experience of vaccine development, and who has material concerns about the that he has observed in his patients formerly in remission, who have suffered the return of aggressive and untreatable cancers after receiving repeated boosters.
Anyone raising these matters here is a "nutter" or "conspiracy theorist" and must be muted "because just one person choosing not to take the vaccine because of some guff they've read on here is one too many".
Because you (and others) know the absolute, unimpeachable truth.
Well, apologies for doubting your infinite wisdom and that pharmaceutical companies are to be implicitly trusted to put patients' health before their own profit, but here is my latest offering, from the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research
And rather than dismissing it as "guff", try reading it without your head stuck up your arse.
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/86
In summary
The analysis reported here is unique in that it is the first study of the original data from the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial (CA4591001) to be carried out by a group unaffiliated with the trial sponsor. Our study is a forensic analysis of the 38 trial subjects who died between July 27, 2020, the start of Phase 2/3 of the clinical trial, and March 13, 2021, the data end date of their 6-Month Interim Report. Phase 2/3 of the trial involved 44,060 subjects who were equally distributed into two groups and received Dose 1 of either the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinated or the Placebo control (0.9% normal saline). At Week 20, when the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization from the U.S. FDA, subjects in the placebo arm were given the option to be BNT162b2 vaccinated. All but a few accepted. Surprisingly, a comparison of the number of subject deaths per week during the 33 Weeks of this study found no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms for the first 20 weeks of the trial, the placebo-controlled portion of the trial. After Week 20, as subjects in the Placebo were unblinded and vaccinated, deaths among this still unvaccinated cohort of this group slowed and eventually plateaued. Deaths in the BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects continued at the same rate. Our analysis revealed inconsistencies between the subject data listed in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators. Most importantly, we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to Placebo controls. This significant adverse event signal was not reported by Pfizer/BioNTech. Potential sources of these data inconsistencies are identified.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-help-further-debunking-ijvtpr-international-journal-of-vaccine-theory-practice-and-research-paper-titled-worse-than-the-disease.12201/
7. 10 of the 21 deaths in the vaccinated group are clearly not cardiac in origin. The same number as in the unvaccinated group. Although it is worth noting there was only one death attributed to Covid in the vaccinated group versus 5 in the unvaccinated.
11. After this there is lots of discussion about possible data discrepancies that is very wordy and not clear the point it is making. It certainly doesn’t appear to clearly be a detailed analysis of the 38 deaths the paper claims it is.