Will you take the H5N1 bird flu vaccine

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Durden
The American College of Cardiology and the World Congress of Cardiology are at the forefront of cardiac care and they would be well aware if their caseload had suddenly exploded. They are, however, reporting that cases have dropped significantly over the last decade, and are using finalized data as a basis of that report.

You mean the very same medical organizations that have lied to the entire world claiming that fatty red meat (saturated animal fats/proteins) and cholesterol (eggs) cause cancer and heart disease, and recommend eliminating both of those - that are actually the foods that human beings have evolved to eat over the last 3-5 million years and that are the healthiest foods for us all), and instead recommend eating lots of whole grains (that turn into sugar in the body - sugar, that is the true and actual cause of metabolic dysfunction, and consequently heart disease and cancer)?

Those medical organizations?

Thanks, but no thanks, I wouldn't trust anything coming from them, even if they just started quoting people like Ken Berry and Anthony Chaffee. The entire medical/industrial complex needs to be completely disbanded, and new ones set up under very strict rules that forbid any and all potential sources of bias and influence by either commercial or political interests. Government organizations also should never, ever have the power to force their will on any privately practicing medical professionals.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Durden
Vaccines present the immune system with aspects of a pathogen, so that there can be an immune response prior to infection.

That is the idea and how they were sold, at least.

But to clarify by putting it in very clear and simple terms:

Vaccines are supposed to be used to 'train the immune system', to teach it about a pathogen, but doing so without exposing it to the full real deal that might be very dangerous.

To clarify even further, they were never, ever intended to replace/supersede the body's natural immune system, they were and are, again, only intended to train it so that it can do a better job if and when exposed to real, actual pathogens in the wild.

They also can reinforce immune response in situations where immune response degrades over time.

But again, only in the sense of re-training the existing immune system.

As always, it is the immune system that is doing and always has done the actual work.

The immune system has time to identify those aspects of the pathogen as 'alien' to normal biology, and to generate antibodies to the pathogen.

Again, that is how they were sold to the world.

There are a range of different types of vaccines. The older types had whole pathogens, but killed or disabled, there are vaccines with minute amounts of the toxins produced by a pathogen attack, there are vaccines that only contain aspects of the pathogen, there are mRNA and DNA vaccines which contain the genomic code for the cells to recreate parts of a pathogen.

Yeah, except the latter two are extremely new, whose very short - what, maybe 10-12 year? - history has been ...

deep breath...

nothing but massive failure and death in what little testing that was done right up until these brand new ones were unlawfully forced on us by the unethical and criminal suppression of existing treatments and therapies that could have saved 90+% of those who actually died from complications directly related to the virus, and saved every single one of those poor peopl who were murdered in the death houses (hospitals) by their officially recommended - and subsequently mandated by the death house administrators - "no treatment" protocol until the patient couldn't breathe, and then the only allowed treatment was remdesivir and/or ventilators, which was the direct cause of 99+% of the people who dies in the death houses (hospitals).

Alongside most vaccines are additions into the vaccines called adjuvants which are like chemical 'irritants' that have the effect of creating a stronger immune response than would be normal.

Yes, simple sounding little things. Things like extremely toxic aluminum, mercury and many other things that can in and of themselves cause very serious problems, especially when the concentration are exponentially higher than is claimed on the label (due to problems during the manufacturing process that makes it very difficult if not impossible to ensure consistent and uniform distribution of said ingredients.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut
"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients.

In contrast to controls, the finding of high levels of unbound full-length spike protein in myocarditis patients may point to the mechanism by which this condition arises. Similarly, MIS-C patients had circulating SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The spike protein appears to evade immune antibodies found at normal levels in these patients, with adequate functional and neutralization capacity. The spike may damage the cardiac pericytes or endothelium, perhaps by reducing the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), reducing nitric oxide production in the endothelium, or activating inflammation via integrins, causing the endothelium to become abnormally permeable."

The vast majority of cases of myocarditis post vaccination are due to the free spike protein i.e due to the mRNA vaccines. That is true for all other related heart issues post vaccination. This study proves in a few words that the usual suspect is most likely responsible for any problems created post vaccination.

So, in other words, it was a really really bad idea to isolate and use the one single aspect of the virus - the spike protein - you know, the one that causes so much damage to human organs and tissues - and just inject gobs and gobs of that into the body.

Got it.

Not just a bad idea but a terrible idea to get injected with an untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous product that could cause a range of serious debilitating conditions and death.


Bombshell

"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients

Ok. We knew that but the vaccine apologists and those defending the pharmaceuticals and the 'vaccines' didn't want to admit it.

Imagine you are in the position of some members here who have realised that they made a serious mistake but they don't want to admit publicly. They cannot admit they have misplaced their trust in organisations and institutions that are no longer credible and reliable and they have invested emotionally and mentally in an ideology that was based on vaccinations. It's like all that you believed is now taken apart and dismantled.

I wasn't naive or foolish enough to play Russian Roulette with my health. I want to state this for once more.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut
"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients.

In contrast to controls, the finding of high levels of unbound full-length spike protein in myocarditis patients may point to the mechanism by which this condition arises. Similarly, MIS-C patients had circulating SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The spike protein appears to evade immune antibodies found at normal levels in these patients, with adequate functional and neutralization capacity. The spike may damage the cardiac pericytes or endothelium, perhaps by reducing the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), reducing nitric oxide production in the endothelium, or activating inflammation via integrins, causing the endothelium to become abnormally permeable."

The vast majority of cases of myocarditis post vaccination are due to the free spike protein i.e due to the mRNA vaccines. That is true for all other related heart issues post vaccination. This study proves in a few words that the usual suspect is most likely responsible for any problems created post vaccination.

So, in other words, it was a really really bad idea to isolate and use the one single aspect of the virus - the spike protein - you know, the one that causes so much damage to human organs and tissues - and just inject gobs and gobs of that into the body.

Got it.

The vaccines have an effect. To have ensured that they were absolutely benign in every circumstance, means that they would also have to have no effect. That is the compromise that always arises in these sorts of things.

This then leads us with the question of the 'actual risk' posed by the vaccines balanced both against their effectiveness, and against the risks from the disease?

It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %. Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

If we assume that myocarditis and pericarditis occasioning death every time they have occurred in the vaccinated population, are caused by the vaccines, then we can get some numbers from VAERS to give us a likely number of those cases (and remember, although mild adverse reactions are likely to not be recorded in VAERS, serious ones, especially fatal ones, are highly likely to be faithfully recorded). Using the filter for various myocarditis and pericarditis conditions we come up with 554 fatal cases after vaccination. That is a 0.00008298 % dose/fatality ratio.

Clearly, in a risk assessment situation, the 2% case fatality ratio of the disease is way higher than the worst-case assumption that every death post vaccination was caused by the vaccination, the disease appears to be 125 times more risky than even the most ridiculous of alleged vaccine dangers. Of course, the very specific risks assumed with the vaccines are way-way smaller.

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

a reply to: chr0naut

Did you see the NICE guidelines for treating covid in hospital in the UK when deaths were at their highest?
What was your country and other countries treating covid patients with when they were in hospital?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut
"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients.

In contrast to controls, the finding of high levels of unbound full-length spike protein in myocarditis patients may point to the mechanism by which this condition arises. Similarly, MIS-C patients had circulating SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The spike protein appears to evade immune antibodies found at normal levels in these patients, with adequate functional and neutralization capacity. The spike may damage the cardiac pericytes or endothelium, perhaps by reducing the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), reducing nitric oxide production in the endothelium, or activating inflammation via integrins, causing the endothelium to become abnormally permeable."

The vast majority of cases of myocarditis post vaccination are due to the free spike protein i.e due to the mRNA vaccines. That is true for all other related heart issues post vaccination. This study proves in a few words that the usual suspect is most likely responsible for any problems created post vaccination.

So, in other words, it was a really really bad idea to isolate and use the one single aspect of the virus - the spike protein - you know, the one that causes so much damage to human organs and tissues - and just inject gobs and gobs of that into the body.

Got it.

The vaccines have an effect. To have ensured that they were absolutely benign in every circumstance, means that they would also have to have no effect. That is the compromise that always arises in these sorts of things.

This then leads us with the question of the 'actual risk' posed by the vaccines balanced both against their effectiveness, and against the risks from the disease?

It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %. Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

If we assume that myocarditis and pericarditis occasioning death every time they have occurred in the vaccinated population, are caused by the vaccines, then we can get some numbers from VAERS to give us a likely number of those cases (and remember, although mild adverse reactions are likely to not be recorded in VAERS, serious ones, especially fatal ones, are highly likely to be faithfully recorded). Using the filter for various myocarditis and pericarditis conditions we come up with 554 fatal cases after vaccination. That is a 0.00008298 % dose/fatality ratio.

Clearly, in a risk assessment situation, the 2% case fatality ratio of the disease is way higher than the worst-case assumption that every death post vaccination was caused by the vaccination, the disease appears to be 125 times more risky than even the most ridiculous of alleged vaccine dangers. Of course, the very specific risks assumed with the vaccines are way-way smaller.

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

What are you talking about?? The vaccines are benign?! You may have missed or you are deliberately missing some facts.....

"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients

The quote from my text is the interpretation of the author not a formal risk to benefit ratio that should have happened long time ago. The risks from the 'vaccines' may far outweigh any benefits.

Your estimations are wrong as usual.

insulinresistance.org...

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19.

Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

Did you see the NICE guidelines for treating covid in hospital in the UK when deaths were at their highest?
What was your country and other countries treating covid patients with when they were in hospital?

Weekly deaths from COVID-19 peaked on 25/1/2021, just as the vaccines were beginning to be rolled out in the US (the roll-out to medical carers actually began on 10 December 2020, and was rolled out to the general public began 4 days later, but was delayed by the election and did not begin in earnest until after 20th January).

The NICE guidelines changed over time as more became known about treatment. By 25 January, 2021, they were fairly mature and there were only a few changes after that date.

COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing COVID-19 NICE guideline [NG191] Published: 23 March 2021 Last updated: 14 July 2022

About that time, monoclonal antibody treatments were being touted at the top of the list, however, there were supply related issues for them, as well, at that time.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut
"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients.

In contrast to controls, the finding of high levels of unbound full-length spike protein in myocarditis patients may point to the mechanism by which this condition arises. Similarly, MIS-C patients had circulating SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The spike protein appears to evade immune antibodies found at normal levels in these patients, with adequate functional and neutralization capacity. The spike may damage the cardiac pericytes or endothelium, perhaps by reducing the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), reducing nitric oxide production in the endothelium, or activating inflammation via integrins, causing the endothelium to become abnormally permeable."

The vast majority of cases of myocarditis post vaccination are due to the free spike protein i.e due to the mRNA vaccines. That is true for all other related heart issues post vaccination. This study proves in a few words that the usual suspect is most likely responsible for any problems created post vaccination.

So, in other words, it was a really really bad idea to isolate and use the one single aspect of the virus - the spike protein - you know, the one that causes so much damage to human organs and tissues - and just inject gobs and gobs of that into the body.

Got it.

The vaccines have an effect. To have ensured that they were absolutely benign in every circumstance, means that they would also have to have no effect. That is the compromise that always arises in these sorts of things.

This then leads us with the question of the 'actual risk' posed by the vaccines balanced both against their effectiveness, and against the risks from the disease?

It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %. Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

If we assume that myocarditis and pericarditis occasioning death every time they have occurred in the vaccinated population, are caused by the vaccines, then we can get some numbers from VAERS to give us a likely number of those cases (and remember, although mild adverse reactions are likely to not be recorded in VAERS, serious ones, especially fatal ones, are highly likely to be faithfully recorded). Using the filter for various myocarditis and pericarditis conditions we come up with 554 fatal cases after vaccination. That is a 0.00008298 % dose/fatality ratio.

Clearly, in a risk assessment situation, the 2% case fatality ratio of the disease is way higher than the worst-case assumption that every death post vaccination was caused by the vaccination, the disease appears to be 125 times more risky than even the most ridiculous of alleged vaccine dangers. Of course, the very specific risks assumed with the vaccines are way-way smaller.

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

Your estimations are all over the place. You are even struggling to understand what herd immunity is and you have argued several times that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccinations although this is debunked claim usually made by those who want to promote mass vaccinations.

May I remind you that herd immunity is

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity.

Clearly you are mistaken

From my thread on herd immunity

Achieving herd immunity with Covid vaccines when the highly infectious delta variant is spreading is "not a possibility," a leading epidemiologist said.

Herd immunity is achieved when a majority of people in a population are immune to a virus or disease. It's achieved through vaccination or natural infection, leading to reduced transmission.
Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford Vaccine Group, described the idea of achieving herd immunity as "mythical."

Have we become immune to infection from SARS-CoV-2?? Herd immunity is not just mythical but a science fiction scenario.

a reply to: chr0naut

What were the guidelines in your country in the spring of 2020, for covid patients in hospital with covid?

If you are unaware of the NICE guidelines around at that time then go and see John Campbells video about it.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Covid vaccine campaign was established with political decisions and coercion of large numbers of the population and tactics that are anti-scientific. There is nothing to support that this campaign has been successful. If anything the opposite is true. The most failed campaign in medical history with the most failed medical product in history.

Your claim that the benefit of vaccination outweighs any risks is an unsubstantiated assertions and nothing more than the official narrative which is false.

As the matter of fact the UK and Denmark are no longer making available these products to anyone under the age of 50. Florida is trying to ban them and have issued a major health warning and Idaho is trying to criminalise their administration. Other States and Countries are thinking of similar policies.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

The only problem with this is - well, everything.

The vast majority of those millions of people were murdered, my friend, murdered by the officially recommended NO-TREATMENT protocols established by our top-down friendly neighborhood WHO, CDC and NIH. Every hospital that followed those protocols had thousands and thousands of deaths, because those poor people were simply allowed to die... in other words, again, they were murdered.

This is extremely easy to prove by simply looking at areas where one of the most effective early treatments - Ivermectin - was administered in large amounts to an entire geographical area. This occurred in at least two locations, one in India, and one in Mexico. I don't have the links, but I absolutely remember reading about them, before it was all covered up by the MSM by simply ignoring it.

And don't get me started on the murderous psychopathic governors who knowingly sent covid positive people into nursing homes and hospitals, instead of isolating them.

You are of course free to be disingenuous and ridicule/ignore reality. Or, you could surprise everyone, actually exhibit a modicum of intellectual honesty, and address this extraordinarily narrative-destroying little factoid.

Sadly, I fear you are too blinded by your worship of these psychopaths to even consider this, but I choose to have hope..

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %.

Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

Only for those without a brain.

There is so much missing from your attempt at an analysis I'm not sure where to start, but I'll give it a shot...

First, you're forgetting that this was an ongoing trial, and an unknown number of those so-called vaccines were saline placebos. This was also admitted by tptb. I'm betting at least half were placebo, if not more, in the beginning, and even more now. This dramatically changes that number that your calculations is based on.

Then you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, unlike prior jabs, reporting in VAERS for these jabs has been systematically and actively suppressed by the medical establishment (politicians masquerading as hospital administrators), so the real numbers are more likely to be on the order of 500 to 1,000 times more.

Lastly, you conveniently neglected to contrast and compare this number with available historical data - meaning, numbers from other jabs.

So... you're assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and re-calculate, and I'll even allow a generous margin of error...

First, go back and compare the same figures for every other vaccine in VAERS, but feel free to pad those numbers by lumping in all vaccines over the last 30 years, all combined. Present those numbers.

Then, for each one individually, provide the number of vaccines that were pulled from the market, and how many VAERS reports resulted in them being pulled.

Last, go back and re-calculate based on a) the VAERS numbers being off by a factor of (only) 200, and b), that (only) half of deaths attributed to the virus/disease were not from the virus, but from the failure to make proper recommendations for preventative measures (sunshine/vitamin D, zinc, NAC, quercetin, vitamin C, etc etc) and early treatment protocols for those who developed serious symptoms.

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

"This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

So someone inserted - the narrative - into the summary, and you... eat it up.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut
"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients.

In contrast to controls, the finding of high levels of unbound full-length spike protein in myocarditis patients may point to the mechanism by which this condition arises. Similarly, MIS-C patients had circulating SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The spike protein appears to evade immune antibodies found at normal levels in these patients, with adequate functional and neutralization capacity. The spike may damage the cardiac pericytes or endothelium, perhaps by reducing the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), reducing nitric oxide production in the endothelium, or activating inflammation via integrins, causing the endothelium to become abnormally permeable."

The vast majority of cases of myocarditis post vaccination are due to the free spike protein i.e due to the mRNA vaccines. That is true for all other related heart issues post vaccination. This study proves in a few words that the usual suspect is most likely responsible for any problems created post vaccination.

So, in other words, it was a really really bad idea to isolate and use the one single aspect of the virus - the spike protein - you know, the one that causes so much damage to human organs and tissues - and just inject gobs and gobs of that into the body.

Got it.

The vaccines have an effect. To have ensured that they were absolutely benign in every circumstance, means that they would also have to have no effect. That is the compromise that always arises in these sorts of things.

This then leads us with the question of the 'actual risk' posed by the vaccines balanced both against their effectiveness, and against the risks from the disease?

It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %. Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

If we assume that myocarditis and pericarditis occasioning death every time they have occurred in the vaccinated population, are caused by the vaccines, then we can get some numbers from VAERS to give us a likely number of those cases (and remember, although mild adverse reactions are likely to not be recorded in VAERS, serious ones, especially fatal ones, are highly likely to be faithfully recorded). Using the filter for various myocarditis and pericarditis conditions we come up with 554 fatal cases after vaccination. That is a 0.00008298 % dose/fatality ratio.

Clearly, in a risk assessment situation, the 2% case fatality ratio of the disease is way higher than the worst-case assumption that every death post vaccination was caused by the vaccination, the disease appears to be 125 times more risky than even the most ridiculous of alleged vaccine dangers. Of course, the very specific risks assumed with the vaccines are way-way smaller.

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

Your estimations are all over the place. You are even struggling to understand what herd immunity is and you have argued several times that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccinations although this is debunked claim usually made by those who want to promote mass vaccinations.

May I remind you that herd immunity is

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity.

Clearly you are mistaken

From my thread on herd immunity

Achieving herd immunity with Covid vaccines when the highly infectious delta variant is spreading is "not a possibility," a leading epidemiologist said.

Herd immunity is achieved when a majority of people in a population are immune to a virus or disease. It's achieved through vaccination or natural infection, leading to reduced transmission.
Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford Vaccine Group, described the idea of achieving herd immunity as "mythical."

Have we become immune to infection from SARS-CoV-2?? Herd immunity is not just mythical but a science fiction scenario.

Your response has nothing to do with the post you were quoting, because I made no mention of herd immunity in it.

We spoke of herd immunity some time ago and you have not responded to any of the questions that I put to you in my responses those posts, but changed the topic of your response, just like you did in your response that I am directly replying to here in this post.

You keep implying that I have some deficit in my general knowledge, without basis (you never explain exactly what points I have misunderstood). This repetitive baseless troll-like insinuation usually indicates that you have insufficient knowledge, enough to fill-in the gaps.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The Covid vaccine campaign was established with political decisions and coercion of large numbers of the population and tactics that are anti-scientific. There is nothing to support that this campaign has been successful. If anything the opposite is true. The most failed campaign in medical history with the most failed medical product in history.

Your claim that the benefit of vaccination outweighs any risks is an unsubstantiated assertions and nothing more than the official narrative which is false.

As the matter of fact the UK and Denmark are no longer making available these products to anyone under the age of 50. Florida is trying to ban them and have issued a major health warning and Idaho is trying to criminalise their administration. Other States and Countries are thinking of similar policies.

Worldwide, the peak in weekly deaths from COVID-19 occurred in the week if 25th January 2021, just as the vaccines were starting to be rolled out.

The peak in weekly numbers of active COVID-19 cases occurred in the week of 31 January 2023.

This vast reduction in the ratio of deaths compared with active infections have been attributed to a combination of less deadly, more infectious strains, the extinction of the more deadly strain, and vaccination efforts.

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

It is clear from the numbers of adverse reactions in databases like VAERS, compared with the numbers of vaccinations administered, that your belief that the vaccines pose a high risk is a massive exaggeration of the real-world situation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut
"In vaccinated patients, infection with the virus was not likely to be a cause or contributing factor for myocarditis since anti-Nucleoprotein IgG was not found in these patients.

In contrast to controls, the finding of high levels of unbound full-length spike protein in myocarditis patients may point to the mechanism by which this condition arises. Similarly, MIS-C patients had circulating SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

The spike protein appears to evade immune antibodies found at normal levels in these patients, with adequate functional and neutralization capacity. The spike may damage the cardiac pericytes or endothelium, perhaps by reducing the expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), reducing nitric oxide production in the endothelium, or activating inflammation via integrins, causing the endothelium to become abnormally permeable."

The vast majority of cases of myocarditis post vaccination are due to the free spike protein i.e due to the mRNA vaccines. That is true for all other related heart issues post vaccination. This study proves in a few words that the usual suspect is most likely responsible for any problems created post vaccination.

So, in other words, it was a really really bad idea to isolate and use the one single aspect of the virus - the spike protein - you know, the one that causes so much damage to human organs and tissues - and just inject gobs and gobs of that into the body.

Got it.

The vaccines have an effect. To have ensured that they were absolutely benign in every circumstance, means that they would also have to have no effect. That is the compromise that always arises in these sorts of things.

This then leads us with the question of the 'actual risk' posed by the vaccines balanced both against their effectiveness, and against the risks from the disease?

It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %. Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

If we assume that myocarditis and pericarditis occasioning death every time they have occurred in the vaccinated population, are caused by the vaccines, then we can get some numbers from VAERS to give us a likely number of those cases (and remember, although mild adverse reactions are likely to not be recorded in VAERS, serious ones, especially fatal ones, are highly likely to be faithfully recorded). Using the filter for various myocarditis and pericarditis conditions we come up with 554 fatal cases after vaccination. That is a 0.00008298 % dose/fatality ratio.

Clearly, in a risk assessment situation, the 2% case fatality ratio of the disease is way higher than the worst-case assumption that every death post vaccination was caused by the vaccination, the disease appears to be 125 times more risky than even the most ridiculous of alleged vaccine dangers. Of course, the very specific risks assumed with the vaccines are way-way smaller.

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

Your estimations are all over the place. You are even struggling to understand what herd immunity is and you have argued several times that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccinations although this is debunked claim usually made by those who want to promote mass vaccinations.

May I remind you that herd immunity is

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity.

Clearly you are mistaken

From my thread on herd immunity

Achieving herd immunity with Covid vaccines when the highly infectious delta variant is spreading is "not a possibility," a leading epidemiologist said.

Herd immunity is achieved when a majority of people in a population are immune to a virus or disease. It's achieved through vaccination or natural infection, leading to reduced transmission.
Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford Vaccine Group, described the idea of achieving herd immunity as "mythical."

Have we become immune to infection from SARS-CoV-2?? Herd immunity is not just mythical but a science fiction scenario.

Your response has nothing to do with the post you were quoting, because I made no mention of herd immunity in it.

We spoke of herd immunity some time ago and you have not responded to any of the questions that I put to you in my responses those posts, but changed the topic of your response, just like you did in your response that I am directly replying to here in this post.

You keep implying that I have some deficit in my general knowledge, without basis (you never explain exactly what points I have misunderstood). This repetitive baseless troll-like insinuation usually indicates that you have insufficient knowledge, enough to fill-in the gaps.

The herd immunity topic has come up several times and it's to remind you that just as you were wrong about herd immunity and the Cambrian Explosion and natural immunity you are also wrong about the topics you discuss here. Especially when you implied I have had my text copy pasted from an anti-vaccination site which was also wrong just as everything else you have said. It's a commentary from Dr Thomas MD.

The peer reviewed publication that I have linked shows clearly that myocarditis post vaccination is most likely related to the free spike protein and not to any viral infections. Hence the many myocarditis cases and other related heart issues are most likely related to the mRNA products.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The Covid vaccine campaign was established with political decisions and coercion of large numbers of the population and tactics that are anti-scientific. There is nothing to support that this campaign has been successful. If anything the opposite is true. The most failed campaign in medical history with the most failed medical product in history.

Your claim that the benefit of vaccination outweighs any risks is an unsubstantiated assertions and nothing more than the official narrative which is false.

As the matter of fact the UK and Denmark are no longer making available these products to anyone under the age of 50. Florida is trying to ban them and have issued a major health warning and Idaho is trying to criminalise their administration. Other States and Countries are thinking of similar policies.

Worldwide, the peak in weekly deaths from COVID-19 occurred in the week if 25th January 2021, just as the vaccines were starting to be rolled out.

The peak in weekly numbers of active COVID-19 cases occurred in the week of 31 January 2023.

This vast reduction in the ratio of deaths compared with active infections have been attributed to a combination of less deadly, more infectious strains, the extinction of the more deadly strain, and vaccination efforts.

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

It is clear from the numbers of adverse reactions in databases like VAERS, compared with the numbers of vaccinations administered, that your belief that the vaccines pose a high risk is a massive exaggeration of the real-world situation.

The number of adverse reactions in VAERS is a huge underestimate. It is not a belief that the vaccines pose a high risk to the population. Evidence and data show precisely why they pose a risk.

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19.

Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue

Source is this page.

In addition the State of Florida has issued a major health alert and tries to ban the mRNA products and Idaho is trying to criminalize the administration of these products. Also the UK is no longer offering them to anyone under the age of 50 as well as Denmark. Other countries thinking likewise.

I am afraid your understanding of the safety and effectiveness of these products is poor and compromised by some false beliefs you have just as the false beliefs you have when you were talking about herd immunity, natural immunity and the rest.

Answering your post above. I didn't imply you have some deficit in your knowledge. I think you have absolute confusion of even the most basics and that is clear from most posts you have made. It's also pointed out by other members in this thread and other threads. You only engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality when at the same time you claim that herd immunity has been achieved through vaccinations or can be achieved in the future and that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. Not to mention the replies about natural immunity and the claims about safety and efficacy where you don't even get what absolute risk reduction means.

a reply to: chr0naut

John Hopkins is quite wrong to use the recorded cases and fail even to make a comment about the total numbers of cases which have been estimated long time ago at different times in the pandemic. After 3+ years of exposure most of the human population has been infected at least once.

You are making the same mistakes by presenting the CFR instead of the IFR but the CFR is a poor measure how fatal this virus is. You have given a 2% I think earlier and others have given around 1%. The IFR however was very low to start with and around 0.15% (global average). Now it is probably the same as that of the flu or even lower.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

John Hopkins is quite wrong to use the recorded cases and fail even to make a comment about the total numbers of cases which have been estimated long time ago at different times in the pandemic. After 3+ years of exposure most of the human population has been infected at least once.

Johns Hopkins choose to use the CFR.

The CFR is a real world definite number based upon actual known and verified cases. Not a figure that is arrived at by dividing by an estimate.

I have no idea if everyone in the entire world has had COVID at least once. Neither does anyone else.

You are making the same mistakes by presenting the CFR instead of the IFR but the CFR is a poor measure how fatal this virus is. You have given a 2% I think earlier and others have given around 1%. The IFR however was very low to start with and around 0.15% (global average). Now it is probably the same as that of the flu or even lower.

What, subsequent to the administration of more than 13 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccines, the virus is now not as deadly as it originally was?



COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

Similarly, databases of COVID vaccine adverse reactions from other countries also show vanishingly small numbers of severe adverse events when compared with the number of vaccine doses administered in each relevant region.

There is no authoritative credible statistical collection of the numbers of people who may have had asymptomatic or mild symptom COVID-19. This leads to the situation where guessing at estimates is just making stuff up, because there is no real hard data to support it.

Discarding the known credible data collections in favor of wild estimates of values formed in the dearth of actual data collection, is not how you do science, nor statistics, either.

A paper, even by someone who might normally be held in high regard, but who bases their work on estimates without the backing of strong evidential data, is a work of speculative fiction.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

John Hopkins is quite wrong to use the recorded cases and fail even to make a comment about the total numbers of cases which have been estimated long time ago at different times in the pandemic. After 3+ years of exposure most of the human population has been infected at least once.

Johns Hopkins choose to use the CFR.

The CFR is a real world definite number based upon actual known and verified cases. Not a figure that is arrived at by dividing by an estimate.

I have no idea if everyone in the entire world has had COVID at least once. Neither does anyone else.

You are making the same mistakes by presenting the CFR instead of the IFR but the CFR is a poor measure how fatal this virus is. You have given a 2% I think earlier and others have given around 1%. The IFR however was very low to start with and around 0.15% (global average). Now it is probably the same as that of the flu or even lower.

What, subsequent to the administration of more than 13 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccines, the virus is now not as deadly as it originally was?

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

Similarly, databases of COVID vaccine adverse reactions from other countries also show vanishingly small numbers of severe adverse events when compared with the number of vaccine doses administered in each relevant region.

There is no authoritative credible statistical collection of the numbers of people who may have had asymptomatic or mild symptom COVID-19. This leads to the situation where guessing at estimates is just making stuff up, because there is no real hard data to support it.

Discarding the known credible data collections in favor of wild estimates of values formed in the dearth of actual data collection, is not how you do science, nor statistics, either.

A paper, even by someone who might normally be held in high regard, but who bases their work on estimates without the backing of strong evidential data, is a work of speculative fiction.

Well it's clearly wrong and misleading as they don't even acknowledge that these are the recorded cases when in reality almost the entire planet has been infected after three years of exposure.

The IFR of SARS-CoV-2 was 0.15% before any medical interventions and natural immunity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Conclusions: All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

1.5 to 2 billion infections estimated by February 2021. By February 2023 it's almost entire planet that has been infected.

And yes due to exposure the infection fatality rate should be much lower. It was always low to start with. Now it is as low as the flu or even much lower than that.

And yes there have been many papers that try to estimate the IFR of SARS-CoV-2 with the most important and cited paper the one by Dr John Ioannidis from Stanford who is probably the most cited paper in the world, cited by another 548 scientists, and is published in one of the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation and has been accepted by almost the entire scientific community. It gives a median of around 0.23% for the IFR. Here it is:

apps.who.int...


Your assertion that "There is no authoritative credible statistical collection of the numbers of people who may have had asymptomatic or mild symptom COVID-19" is clearly false. Nobody uses the CFR to describe the mortality rates as it is very misleading.



In terms of the current infection fatality rate

www.ft.com...

A combination of high levels of immunity and the reduced severity of the Omicron variant has rendered Covid-19 less lethal than influenza for the vast majority of people in England, according to a Financial Times analysis of official data

Pretty much the same picture for everyone else in the world.

The rest of the your text has no basis in anything and is just an unsubstantiated assertion.



In terms of the total number of infections

www.thelancet.com...(22)02465-5/fulltext

As of June 1, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had caused an estimated 17·2 million total deaths (6·88 million reported deaths), and an estimated 7·63 billion total infections and re-infections[/b.

Which proves me right as I have used common sense by implying that almost the entire human race has been infected.



In terms of the vaccines from the reply above:

insulinresistance.org...

Results: In the non-elderly population the “number needed to treat” to prevent a single death runs into the thousands. Re-analysis of randomised controlled trials using the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology suggests a greater risk of serious adverse events from the vaccines than being hospitalised from COVID-19.

Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety. Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021, with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16–39-year-old age group.

Conclusion: It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue

a reply to: litterbaux


sounds like a no-win situation or dilemma...

i think i will stand aside and have Mother Nature determine my fate...beyond my deadly allergies to 'eggs' & 'PEG' both are components in the blending of prior 'Vaccines' / 'vaxxines'

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
It is clear from the millions of deaths attributed directly to the disease (from its deadliness in cases that are absolutely confirmed that the disease is present at time of death, and also attributed as primary cause of death - the case/fatality ratio), prior to the vaccines becoming available, that worldwide, approximately 2% of people who had the diagnosis so confirmed, have died with the disease identified as primary cause of death on their death certificate.

The only problem with this is - well, everything.

The vast majority of those millions of people were murdered, my friend, murdered by the officially recommended NO-TREATMENT protocols established by our top-down friendly neighborhood WHO, CDC and NIH. Every hospital that followed those protocols had thousands and thousands of deaths, because those poor people were simply allowed to die... in other words, again, they were murdered.

This is extremely easy to prove by simply looking at areas where one of the most effective early treatments - Ivermectin - was administered in large amounts to an entire geographical area. This occurred in at least two locations, one in India, and one in Mexico. I don't have the links, but I absolutely remember reading about them, before it was all covered up by the MSM by simply ignoring it.

And don't get me started on the murderous psychopathic governors who knowingly sent covid positive people into nursing homes and hospitals, instead of isolating them.

You are of course free to be disingenuous and ridicule/ignore reality. Or, you could surprise everyone, actually exhibit a modicum of intellectual honesty, and address this extraordinarily narrative-destroying little factoid.

Sadly, I fear you are too blinded by your worship of these psychopaths to even consider this, but I choose to have hope..

In VAERS I have just established at this time there have been 106,990 deaths from any cause, after vaccination. This does not mean that these deaths were caused by the vaccination, but just that they happened afterwards.

In the same time-frame, in the US (where the VAERS database applies) there have been 667,617,372 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered. This gives us a dose/fatality ratio of 0.0160 %.

Again, this is for all deaths from all causes, and not specifically caused by the vaccines (The ratio that are actually caused by the vaccines would, rationally, have to be a small fraction of that).

Even if you make the assumption that the VAERS database only represents a tenth or a hundredth of actual issues that have occurred, the disease still comes out as riskier than the vaccines. It's a no-brainer!

Only for those without a brain.

There is so much missing from your attempt at an analysis I'm not sure where to start, but I'll give it a shot...

First, you're forgetting that this was an ongoing trial, and an unknown number of those so-called vaccines were saline placebos. This was also admitted by tptb. I'm betting at least half were placebo, if not more, in the beginning, and even more now. This dramatically changes that number that your calculations is based on.

Then you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, unlike prior jabs, reporting in VAERS for these jabs has been systematically and actively suppressed by the medical establishment (politicians masquerading as hospital administrators), so the real numbers are more likely to be on the order of 500 to 1,000 times more.

Lastly, you conveniently neglected to contrast and compare this number with available historical data - meaning, numbers from other jabs.

So... you're assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and re-calculate, and I'll even allow a generous margin of error...

First, go back and compare the same figures for every other vaccine in VAERS, but feel free to pad those numbers by lumping in all vaccines over the last 30 years, all combined. Present those numbers.

Then, for each one individually, provide the number of vaccines that were pulled from the market, and how many VAERS reports resulted in them being pulled.

Last, go back and re-calculate based on a) the VAERS numbers being off by a factor of (only) 200, and b), that (only) half of deaths attributed to the virus/disease were not from the virus, but from the failure to make proper recommendations for preventative measures (sunshine/vitamin D, zinc, NAC, quercetin, vitamin C, etc etc) and early treatment protocols for those who developed serious symptoms.

And quoting the article that Asmodeus3 keeps re-posting and reposting:

"This finding does not amount to evidence against the benefit of vaccination with these vaccines, which effectively protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes. (from the sixth paragraph after the heading "What are the implications?")

So someone inserted - the narrative - into the summary, and you... eat it up.

Clearly, everyone who has actually tried to do something to prevent deaths from COVID-19 are actually all murderers, the only ones we can trust have done nothing to help and are just dumping blame on everyone else.

LOL

(Also, *hint: there were no cases of COVID-19 among the general public in New Zealand during Spring - September to November - 2020. Which means also there were no cases hospitalized in the same time-frame. It was a period between outbreaks which New Zealand had, famously, brought under control).