Stumuz2 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2020, 12:38
LJ,
It is perfectly normal not to test new vaccines on pregnant women. For the simple medical ethical reasoning of the the foetus cannot give consent. Therefore, if it cannot be tested on pregnant women, logically there cannot be any data, which in turn prevents doctors administrating it, which in turn leads to Reg 174.
Horse before cart etc.
Nope, it is not merely that fact. This novel vaccine technology, whilst never having been deployed with humans, has been used in other mammals. Most notably cats. It affects fertility by triggering the body's immune response into attacking its own reproductive system. There are, additionally, other serious complications from it that, if you make the effort to read past the BBC propaganda, you will discover easily enough. Though, I recommend using a search engine other than Google, which is now shadow banning many of the links to entirely valid research and stats.
The majority of cancer patients are curable. But they are not if you delay. The average age of Covid death is 82.4 years, so the number of life-years lost from cancer is going to be massive compared with Covid.
Karol Sikora (ex chief of the cancer programme at the World Health Organisation) on Covid and cancer
The majority of cancer patients are curable. But they are not if you delay. The average age of Covid death is 82.4 years, so the number of life-years lost from cancer is going to be massive compared with Covid.
Karol Sikora (ex chief of the cancer programme at the World Health Organisation) on Covid and cancer
Which is precisely why the government is doing its best to ensure that the NHS doesn't get overwhelmed by Covid patients.
Which is why Cambridge has not been put in a higher tier in spite of the high headline figures. The government knows blanket testimg will result in false positives and factored that in. The zero confirmed positiyes shows that proactive management of the virus works, if you can afford it. other universities have seen hundreds of confirmed cases each. The students grumble but it saves lives .
Imagine, if you will, a vaccine so safe you have to be threatened with all manner of implied sanctions if you refuse to take it for a disease so dangerous you have to be repeatedly tested to see if you even have it.
506,790 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2013
501,424 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2014
529,655 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2015
525,048 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2016
533,253 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2017
541,589 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2018
530,841 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2019
485,564 - deaths registered in England and Wales - 2020 (up to and including week 45)
I'm suspicious of graphs showing percentages of critical care beds occupied, critical care beds are defined as those that can deliver mechanical ventilation and I seem to remember a drive to increase the number of ventilators in hospitals.
Perhaps the total reported death rate figure, although including people dying from effects of lockdown, is less liable to misrepresentation.
485,500 deaths in 45 weeks is equivalent to 560,500 deaths in 52 weeks, the highest in a decade. Except more people die on average in December, and late reporting will make 480,500 an underestimate. So the real number will be about 60,000 more than the long term average. Where have I heard that number before?
Oh yes. The number of people so far who have died of Covid
The Oxford analysis was based on the researchers’ calculation of excess mortality – the number of deaths above what would be expected in a normal year based on the 10-year average from 2010-19 – and encompassed all deaths, including those from Covid-19.
They looked at data from the week beginning 2 March, in which the first death attributable to Covid-19 was registered in England and Wales, to the week ending 20 November and found that 57,419 extra deaths occurred, a roughly 15% increase compared with the expected level in 2020.
Life expectancy was 83.5 for females and 79.9 for males in 2019. For 2020, those numbers have fallen to 82.6 and 78.7 respectively, the researchers found, noting that this too was likely to be an underestimation given that there were small lags in the registration of deaths.
“To put this into perspective, male and female life expectancy regressed to the levels of 2010,” they wrote in their analysis, which is under peer review.
This makes covid 5 times worse than flu in 2015, which was a bad year.
Little John wrote: ↑10 Dec 2020, 11:52
Yes, yes of course you are suspicious of actual data
You are ridiculous
I forgot that I have to explain more.
So, for example, if the number of ventilators are doubled, and thus the number of critical care beds are doubled then a doubling of patients in critical care beds will still show the same percentage occupancy as the previous year.
Someone could easily misrepresent that as there being no increase, not that I'm suggesting you would do that, but someone smarter might.
Little John wrote: ↑10 Dec 2020, 11:52
Yes, yes of course you are suspicious of actual data
You are ridiculous
I forgot that I have to explain more.
So, for example, if the number of ventilators are doubled, and thus the number of critical care beds are doubled then a doubling of patients in critical care beds will still show the same percentage occupancy as the previous year.
Someone could easily misrepresent that as there being no increase, not that I'm suggesting you would do that, but someone smarter might.
The use of ventilators is now massively reduced in terms of treatment of Covid19.
The overwhelming majority of extra critical care beds are in the Nightingale emergency hospitals. You know, the ones that have remained empty since they opened.
As for critical care bed occupancy in main hospitals, I have contacts in both York and Middlesbrough NHS trusts. Both hospitals are running at lower ICU bed capacity than last year.
The longer you hold out from acknowledging you have been a gullible fool, the harder it will be to have to face up to your foolishness when it is no longer possible, even for someone like you, to hold out.
The numbers are coming in and it looks like the R number has tipped over one since the end of the second lockdown, at least in the tier 2 areas. Cases are up, hospital admissions are up, and in a couple of weeks deaths will start rising again.
With Christmas just 10 days away a third wave looks inevitable in the new year. to reach herd immunity will require 80 million vaccination doses. To to that in 6 months will require 500,000 vaccinations a day,
Mass vaccination is only ever appropriately used when:
(a) It is not known who or how many may get seriously ill with a given virus
(b) It is known that a majority will get seriously ill with a given virus
(c) there is a section of the population whom it is known will choose not be vaccinated and so will be herd-protected if the majority of the rest of the population get vaccinated.
Thus, 70% or so of children are vaccinated for measles, for example, on the basis that this will protect the unknown number of unidentifiable in advance kids who may get seriously ill with measles plus it will have the added benefit of providing herd immunity for the remaining 30% or so of kids who do not get vaccinated.
In the case of Covid19, however, we KNOW the following FACTS:
1) The vast majority of the people who catch this virus will NOT die. They will RECOVER.
2) We know PRECISELY who is at risk from Covid19. They are the VERY ELDERLY and/or the already VERY FRAIL.
On the above basis, the only people who should be offered a Covid19 vaccine up front - IF THEY WANT IT - should be the very elderly and/or already very frail.
There is absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever for pushing this out onto the mass of the population. After all, if someone takes the vaccine and I don't and I get Covid19 (which I personally have a huge likelihood of recovering from), they are safe because the vaccine works...right?
Having said all of the above, I couldn't actually give a single solitary toss if this vaccine is perfect in every way since I (along with the vast majority of the rest of the population) am at no more more significant risk of dying of Covid19 than I am of dying of the flu and I along with the majority of the population do not currently get a vaccine for the flu.
In other words, we only vaccinate the vulnerable against flu. The old. The diabetic. Other chronically ill people.
We don't vaccinate healthy children against flu. Influenza is five to ten times more dangerous to 0-18 year olds than CoVID-19. The CoVID-19 infection fatality rate for 0-18 years is 0.00003% or 0.3 per million infections.
This Covid19 vaccine, according to the manufacturers, does not even prevent someone contracting Covid19 nor does it stop transmission of Covid19 (in saying this alone, they reveal they really don't know what it does). Additionally, the WHO have already stated, on the record, asymptomatic transmission is "very rare".
If these maniacs try to force this vaccination on anyone who isn't vulnerable, by mandate or by proxy, that is a huge red flag. Add into all of the above, the fact that this vaccine is using novel technology never before used on a human population, has not undergone any of the normal testing protocols (usually 5 to 10 years in duration), where the manufacturers are being given special legal indemnity from prosecution should anything go wrong and, finally, is being pushed by a government that have demonstrably and provably lied to us about Covid19 from the very start, anyone would either have to be a moron to take this vaccine or, perhaps even worse, be prepared to sacrifice their liberty and partake of what they know to be a lie in order to not have to stand up to power and so feel more secure. In which case, they deserve neither liberty nor security.
A growing number of scientists are now, finally, belatedly, speaking out against this lunacy. Notably, former Pfizer vice president and scientific director Dr. Michael Yeadon and German lung specialist and parliamentarian Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg have filed an urgent application with the European Medicine Agency calling for the immediate suspension of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies - particularly the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
Yeadon and Wodarg say the studies should be halted until a design study is available which addresses a host of serious safety concerns expressed by a growing body of renowned scientists who are skeptical of how quickly the vaccines are being developed, according to Germany's 2020 News.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se. -2020 News
The pair also point to concerns raised in previous studies involving other coronaviruses - including (via 2020 News):
The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
But, each to their own I guess. If anyone else wants to take it, they should knock themselves out. But, if anyone thinks the rest of us can be legally coerced into taking it - either directly or indirectly - they are very much mistaken. The number of people waking up to this bullshit is growing by the day. Indeed, it was even admitted on Radio 4's today programme the other day that the number of people who will refuse the vaccine is growing rapidly in both the UK and across Europe.
