England accidently reveals death numbers .

a reply to: chr0naut

see you say she didn't say that but do you have a link to the transcript because it seems your ability to find the original quote was miserable and your avoiding putting down her actually words is just as bad. We can't trust your interpretation because so far you've dodge every direct chance to go on record with a fact.

What did she actually say in regards to the headline?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Normally you'd be correct, but sadly not in the case of mRNA vaccines for Covid.

boriquagato.substack.com...

And the consequences going forward will be truly catastrophic.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

see you say she didn't say that but do you have a link to the transcript because it seems your ability to find the original quote was miserable and your avoiding putting down her actually words is just as bad. We can't trust your interpretation because so far you've dodge every direct chance to go on record with a fact.

What did she actually say in regards to the headline?

The video taken from the NZ Channel 1 Today Show, and both linked an quoted in the article, has what she said.

I am unable to find any other definitive reference to what others are purporting that she said, as I pointed out in a previous post.

You said that you found it immediately with a Google search and as I have explained, even in that linked article you provided, she didn't actually say that. But I already knew that before you posted your original reply, because I actually read the article and watched the video prior to you providing the link to the misleading article.

Now, what you could do at this point, is to actually find some relevant response that disproves my assertion that she never said that they were not going to make vaccinations mandatory. I'll admit I'm wrong, when proven so.

I really get annoyed that people use misquotes and plain fabrications to support their arguments. Much reporting, and especially that from US news sources, is biased and 'spun' to support specific viewpoints. It hold little adherence to the truth, and is usually revealed if you are a bit skeptical and actually check into what an article purports.

originally posted by: MaplePatriot

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: anonentity
"Dying soon after the vaccine was received" is not necessarily the same thing as "dying from the vaccine". Other existing cuases may have been in play already.

Same thing with covid numbers. Just because someone died with covid, doesn't mean they died from it.

Clearly the governments havent gotten the memo on that.

Bingo. The numbers can be tortured to make them "fit" any agenda. The average person who's not fearful of his/her shadow, needs to do the wise thing, and stay away from the Vaccines, if possible.

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
a reply to: DISRAELI

too bad nobody applied that logic to the covid figures.

ONS figures are based on cause of death on the death certificate.

That seems a pretty logical way of recording covid deaths.

Considering we have had numerous Coroners come out and blow the whistle that they were making them mark cause of death as covid, even if they died from something else, such as a car wreck and tested positive, I would say those numbers arent right either.

You guys really really need to do your own research and not just stop at things that only prop up your confirmation bias

If by research you mean watching bitchute videos I think I will stick to the actual numbers thanks.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
a reply to: DISRAELI

too bad nobody applied that logic to the covid figures.

ONS figures are based on cause of death on the death certificate.

That seems a pretty logical way of recording covid deaths.

Considering we have had numerous Coroners come out and blow the whistle that they were making them mark cause of death as covid, even if they died from something else, such as a car wreck and tested positive, I would say those numbers arent right either.

You guys really really need to do your own research and not just stop at things that only prop up your confirmation bias

If by research you mean watching bitchute videos I think

1.It doesnt really matter where the videos come from if the information in them is factual

2. No there are literally main stream news reports of these coroners coming out and verifying this, again all you have to do is your own research

I will stick to the actual numbers thanks.

Is that all it takes to make you believe something? Someone who claims to be an authority just throwing out numbers , DESPITE all the evidence to the contrary

Well arent you a good little follower

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CrazyWater

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
a reply to: DISRAELI

too bad nobody applied that logic to the covid figures.

ONS figures are based on cause of death on the death certificate.

That seems a pretty logical way of recording covid deaths.

Considering we have had numerous Coroners come out and blow the whistle that they were making them mark cause of death as covid, even if they died from something else, such as a car wreck and tested positive, I would say those numbers arent right either.

You guys really really need to do your own research and not just stop at things that only prop up your confirmation bias

If by research you mean watching bitchute videos I think

1.It doesnt really matter where the videos come from if the information in them is factual

2. No there are literally main stream news reports of these coroners coming out and verifying this, again all you have to do is your own research

I will stick to the actual numbers thanks.

Is that all it takes to make you believe something? Someone who claims to be an authority just throwing out numbers , DESPITE all the evidence to the contrary

Well arent you a good little follower

What evidence to the contrary?

The unlinked claims of an anonymous poster on conspiracy web site who thinks watching videos counts as research and who doesn't seem to know who issues death certificates in England.

a reply to: ScepticScot

That's, why you have to ask the right questions, like why has the death rates in England and Wales gone up about ten percent when those deaths are not Covid related. It's just a raw data rise in the previous five-year average death rate pre covid. is it caused by unresearched vaccine side effects or not.?

The next biggy is we have valid research data from the New England journal of medicine which says that the spontaneous abortion rate of the vaccinated mothers is 84% in the first and second trimester. We also have a drop in live births as well. Is this caused by unresearched vaccine side effects, or not? well, this one does appear to be valid.

On the TV tonight is see they are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine because the research says it is safe. It's an utter lie. They are saying that hardly anyone will not get an exemption because it is so safe. another utter lie. So what do you think will happen when all this comes out.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

That's, why you have to ask the right questions, like why has the death rates in England and Wales gone up about ten percent when those deaths are not Covid related. It's just a raw data rise in the previous five-year average death rate pre covid. is it caused by unresearched vaccine side effects or not.?

The next biggy is we have valid research data from the New England journal of medicine which says that the spontaneous abortion rate of the vaccinated mothers is 84% in the first and second trimester. We also have a drop in live births as well. Is this caused by unresearched vaccine side effects, or not? well, this one does appear to be valid.

On the TV tonight is see they are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine because the research says it is safe. It's an utter lie. They are saying that hardly anyone will not get an exemption because it is so safe. another utter lie. So what do you think will happen when all this comes out.

Can you provide a link to your claim of 84% spontaneous abortion rate.

Here is one showing no increased risk.

jamanetwork.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

This one analyses the New England study vlichtnahrung2015.wordpress.com... s/?fbclid=IwAR3EUcauSq6vFo_Ryn-6I9J75--NeXimQvR_arNkieAIvLSGvoATDHl0Nzg

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

That's, why you have to ask the right questions, like why has the death rates in England and Wales gone up about ten percent when those deaths are not Covid related. It's just a raw data rise in the previous five-year average death rate pre covid. is it caused by unresearched vaccine side effects or not.?

The next biggy is we have valid research data from the New England journal of medicine which says that the spontaneous abortion rate of the vaccinated mothers is 84% in the first and second trimester. We also have a drop in live births as well. Is this caused by unresearched vaccine side effects, or not? well, this one does appear to be valid.

On the TV tonight is see they are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine because the research says it is safe. It's an utter lie. They are saying that hardly anyone will not get an exemption because it is so safe. another utter lie. So what do you think will happen when all this comes out.

Can you provide a link to your claim of 84% spontaneous abortion rate.

Here is one showing no increased risk.

jamanetwork.com...

It's a made up claim by Natural News - the NEJM paper found no increased risk also but the preliminary report was at three months so 82% of those studied had not yet completed their pregnancy. NatNews falsely interpreted this data as miscariages rather than using basic human biology and realising it takes longer than three months to go from 1st trimester to viablew birth.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

That's, why you have to ask the right questions, like why has the death rates in England and Wales gone up about ten percent when those deaths are not Covid related. It's just a raw data rise in the previous five-year average death rate pre covid. is it caused by unresearched vaccine side effects or not.?

The next biggy is we have valid research data from the New England journal of medicine which says that the spontaneous abortion rate of the vaccinated mothers is 84% in the first and second trimester. We also have a drop in live births as well. Is this caused by unresearched vaccine side effects, or not? well, this one does appear to be valid.

On the TV tonight is see they are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine because the research says it is safe. It's an utter lie. They are saying that hardly anyone will not get an exemption because it is so safe. another utter lie. So what do you think will happen when all this comes out.

Can you provide a link to your claim of 84% spontaneous abortion rate.

Here is one showing no increased risk.

jamanetwork.com...

I've seen the data but I'm on my phone so don't have the link.

The 84 percent rate comes from a study of about 2000 women, what it showed was that about 200 women lost a pregnancy after getting a shot. Which is in line with the average for the US in any given year.

84 percent of the women who lost their pregnancy lost it within a month of their shot. which sounds bad, BUT they lost it at the most common stage of pregnancy lose a child, and the data is totally in line with what you would expect shot or no shot.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

This one analyses the New England study vlichtnahrung2015.wordpress.com... s/?fbclid=IwAR3EUcauSq6vFo_Ryn-6I9J75--NeXimQvR_arNkieAIvLSGvoATDHl0Nzg

A misinterpretation of the results so wrong it can only be deliberate.


:www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

That's, why you have to ask the right questions, like why has the death rates in England and Wales gone up about ten percent when those deaths are not Covid related. It's just a raw data rise in the previous five-year average death rate pre covid. is it caused by unresearched vaccine side effects or not.?

The next biggy is we have valid research data from the New England journal of medicine which says that the spontaneous abortion rate of the vaccinated mothers is 84% in the first and second trimester. We also have a drop in live births as well. Is this caused by unresearched vaccine side effects, or not? well, this one does appear to be valid.

On the TV tonight is see they are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine because the research says it is safe. It's an utter lie. They are saying that hardly anyone will not get an exemption because it is so safe. another utter lie. So what do you think will happen when all this comes out.

Can you provide a link to your claim of 84% spontaneous abortion rate.

Here is one showing no increased risk.

jamanetwork.com...

It's a made up claim by Natural News - the NEJM paper found no increased risk also but the preliminary report was at three months so 82% of those studied had not yet completed their pregnancy. NatNews falsely interpreted this data as miscariages rather than using basic human biology and realising it takes longer than three months to go from 1st trimester to viablew birth.

Amazingly when you discount people who are still pregnant you do get a higher miscarriage rate.

Who would have thought it.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

That's, why you have to ask the right questions, like why has the death rates in England and Wales gone up about ten percent when those deaths are not Covid related. It's just a raw data rise in the previous five-year average death rate pre covid. is it caused by unresearched vaccine side effects or not.?

The next biggy is we have valid research data from the New England journal of medicine which says that the spontaneous abortion rate of the vaccinated mothers is 84% in the first and second trimester. We also have a drop in live births as well. Is this caused by unresearched vaccine side effects, or not? well, this one does appear to be valid.

On the TV tonight is see they are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine because the research says it is safe. It's an utter lie. They are saying that hardly anyone will not get an exemption because it is so safe. another utter lie. So what do you think will happen when all this comes out.

Can you provide a link to your claim of 84% spontaneous abortion rate.

Here is one showing no increased risk.

jamanetwork.com...

I've seen the data but I'm on my phone so don't have the link.

The 84 percent rate comes from a study of about 2000 women, what it showed was that about 200 women lost a pregnancy after getting a shot. Which is in line with the average for the US in any given year.

84 percent of the women who lost their pregnancy lost it within a month of their shot. which sounds bad, BUT they lost it at the most common stage of pregnancy lose a child, and the data is totally in line with what you would expect shot or no shot.

See Bastions post or my link above. Its even more misleading than that.

In fact let not be coy, its an outright and fairly obvious lie that people on this site should (but wont) be embarrassed to propagate.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Fact checker is owned by a trust , which is funded by Bill Gates good luck pushing that one.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

Fact checker is owned by a trust , which is funded by Bill Gates good luck pushing that one.

So souces matter when you disagree with the conclussion?

You can easily go look at the paper yourself rather that trusting your preferred source of confirmation bias. I suspect you won't.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

Fact checker is owned by a trust , which is funded by Bill Gates good luck pushing that one.

I didn't rely on a factchecker - I read the original paper

The actual numbers in the original paper show there 2740 women in 1st and 2nd trimester as opposed to the false claim by the blog that only 127 women were vaccinated in the 1st and 2nd trimester. NEJM Paper

Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.

a reply to: ScepticScot

This should please you Bitchute looks like it has been unavailable i wondered when they would start to lean on it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

That's, why you have to ask the right questions, like why has the death rates in England and Wales gone up about ten percent when those deaths are not Covid related. It's just a raw data rise in the previous five-year average death rate pre covid. is it caused by unresearched vaccine side effects or not.?

The next biggy is we have valid research data from the New England journal of medicine which says that the spontaneous abortion rate of the vaccinated mothers is 84% in the first and second trimester. We also have a drop in live births as well. Is this caused by unresearched vaccine side effects, or not? well, this one does appear to be valid.

On the TV tonight is see they are urging pregnant women to get the vaccine because the research says it is safe. It's an utter lie. They are saying that hardly anyone will not get an exemption because it is so safe. another utter lie. So what do you think will happen when all this comes out.

Can you provide a link to your claim of 84% spontaneous abortion rate.

Here is one showing no increased risk.

jamanetwork.com...

It's a made up claim by Natural News - the NEJM paper found no increased risk also but the preliminary report was at three months so 82% of those studied had not yet completed their pregnancy. NatNews falsely interpreted this data as miscariages rather than using basic human biology and realising it takes longer than three months to go from 1st trimester to viablew birth.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

Fact checker is owned by a trust , which is funded by Bill Gates good luck pushing that one.

I didn't rely on any fact checker, I read the original paper.

The actual numbers in the original paper rather than false claim by the blog that only 127 women were vaccinated in the 1st and 2nd trimester. NEJM Paper

Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.