Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

https://hectordrummond.com/part-5-a-loo ... iterature/

[Joe Hillshoist]

Serious and very basic question: When these "vaccines" were first rolled out (with huge fanfare, remember), did any government anywhere ever suggest that anyone would ever need more than one "jab"?

Yes.

It was a two dose vaccination course for nearly every vaccine available in western countries. One vaccine is a one dose one, made by Johnson and Johnson.

There was no talk about boosters until Bourla met Biden at the White house last year.

[Joe Hillshoist]

No, only one side is manipulated the numbers.

Fair numbers should compare only COVID-19 associated and overall outcomes of vaxxed populations starting at day one of the very first dose compared to demographically comparable totally unvaxxed populations. Any other comparison is Bayesian data crime rigged in favor of the vaccines.

But that rigged against vaccines. They don't work immediately. So anything that starts at day one is automatically going to bias the data agaonst vaccines. This isn't just covid vaccines either. Its a standard thing.

Honestly if you want to compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated for efficacy it needs to be done from two weeks after full dosage (ie two doses for most.) Otherwise you are comparing unvaccinated to unvaccinated until the vaccines start forcing a response.



But if you want to compare side effects then its fair enough the results should start from the moment of dose one.

[stickdog99]

No, only one side is manipulated the numbers.

Fair numbers should compare only COVID-19 associated and overall outcomes of vaxxed populations starting at day one of the very first dose compared to demographically comparable totally unvaxxed populations. Any other comparison is Bayesian data crime rigged in favor of the vaccines.

But that rigged against vaccines. They don't work immediately. So anything that starts at day one is automatically going to bias the data agaonst vaccines. This isn't just covid vaccines either. Its a standard thing.

Honestly if you want to compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated for efficacy it needs to be done from two weeks after full dosage (ie two doses for most.) Otherwise you are comparing unvaccinated to unvaccinated until the vaccines start forcing a response.

The medical decision is between getting it and not getting it. If it increases hospitalization and death within the first two weeks, how can this not be included in the calculus? How does that make a shred of sense?

What if we started measuring the health outcomes of those exposed to radiation poisoning only two weeks after the poisoning?

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/sta ... 5608502273

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/CheckConspiracy/sta ... 4278788100

[stickdog99]

https://twitter.com/SgtJames13/status/1 ... 3045374980

[alloneword]

Serious and very basic question: When these "vaccines" were first rolled out (with huge fanfare, remember), did any government anywhere ever suggest that anyone would ever need more than one "jab"?

The 'need' for more than one dose of these 'vaccines' ("that provide durable and effective immunity to COVID-19", no less) was implicit from the outset, e.g. when the UK Gov 'Covid Winter Plan' of Nov 2020 announced that they had "secured access to over 350 million doses between now and the end of 2021". Also a 'second dose' is explicitly mentioned (23.c.&d.).

In the initial Pfizer press release on their 'Phase 3 Study' results (from the same time) they explicitly talk of a 'second dose'.

As for the third (booster), I think it was announced by JCVI on 14th September 2021 (but was under discussion as a 'potential' as far back as June 2021) with the switch from a 6 month interval to 3 months being made on 29th November, 2021.

[Joe Hillshoist]

No, only one side is manipulated the numbers.

Fair numbers should compare only COVID-19 associated and overall outcomes of vaxxed populations starting at day one of the very first dose compared to demographically comparable totally unvaxxed populations. Any other comparison is Bayesian data crime rigged in favor of the vaccines.

But that rigged against vaccines. They don't work immediately. So anything that starts at day one is automatically going to bias the data agaonst vaccines. This isn't just covid vaccines either. Its a standard thing.

Honestly if you want to compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated for efficacy it needs to be done from two weeks after full dosage (ie two doses for most.) Otherwise you are comparing unvaccinated to unvaccinated until the vaccines start forcing a response.

The medical decision is between getting it and not getting it. If it increases hospitalization and death within the first two weeks, how can this not be included in the calculus? How does that make a shred of sense?

No they are two different measurements.

I'm still not convinced the vaccine increases hospitalisation and death within the first two weeks. Maybe I've missed it so perhaps you could explain in your own words what i've missed and why.

BTW You left this out when you quoted me.

But if you want to compare side effects then its fair enough the results should start from the moment of dose one.

Is that so you could pretend I didn't say it and still have an argument?

What if we started measuring the health outcomes of those exposed to radiation poisoning only two weeks after the poisoning?

What if the sky turned purple and rained unicorns?

What if your aunt had whiskers? Would she be your uncle?

What relevence is that. YOu seem to be claimed that vaccine efficacy should be measured from the moment of the vaccine?

Why?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Serious and very basic question: When these "vaccines" were first rolled out (with huge fanfare, remember), did any government anywhere ever suggest that anyone would ever need more than one "jab"?

The 'need' for more than one dose of these 'vaccines' ("that provide durable and effective immunity to COVID-19", no less) was implicit from the outset, e.g. when the UK Gov 'Covid Winter Plan' of Nov 2020 announced that they had "secured access to over 350 million doses between now and the end of 2021". Also a 'second dose' is explicitly mentioned (23.c.&d.).

In the initial Pfizer press release on their 'Phase 3 Study' results (from the same time) they explicitly talk of a 'second dose'.

As for the third (booster), I think it was announced by JCVI on 14th September 2021 (but was under discussion as a 'potential' as far back as June 2021) with the switch from a 6 month interval to 3 months being made on 29th November, 2021.

So you're admitting it was explicitly stated from day 1 that the vaccines would be a two dose process.

From day one...

That was all it ever was until about 10 months ago when Pfizer started suggesting their vaccine may need a booster.

[JackRiddler]

In the U.S., from the moment of introduction in 2020, the Pfizer & Moderna mrna vaccines were two doses at least 2 weeks apart, the Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine single dose. Boosters became a thing later in 2021.

[Belligerent Savant]

Pfizer’s own trial data, are starting to be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FDA. Cumulatively, between Dec. 1, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021 — a period of just 2.5 months — Pfizer received 42,086 injury reports, including 1,223 fatalities.

Who made the reports? On what basis? Does the drugmaker evaluate them, and if so, what is their conclusion or response? What is substantiated and what is just people flooding their site like they were voting for Boaty McBoatface ? Just as dying with Covid is not the same as dying from Covid, an injury report is not the same as a real injury. Can we get some context to this number?

The above data is direct from Pfizer. This has already been established back in December 2021. It was part of a FOIA request.

Here, this will help you catch up:

https://twitter.com/akheriaty/status/14 ... 3VIj03Wv1g

Aaron Kheriaty, MD
@akheriaty

First bolus of Pfizer vax data from our FOIA request yields alarming adverse event findings: "Cumulatively, through 28 February 2021 [less than three months], total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events.

More data to come, stay tuned. Here's the link to the relevant Pfizer document. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... rience.pdf

Take a look at “APPENDIX 1. LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST” which goes on for 9 very dense pages.

https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

And here's a more recent update on the FDA's attempts to delay production of trial data:

Instead of FDA’s Requested 500 Pages Per Month, Court Orders FDA to Produce Pfizer Covid-19 Data at Rate of 55,000 Pages Per Month!

Aaron Siri
January 6th

A great win for transparency that removes a stranglehold "health" authorities have had on data independent scientists need to offer solutions and address serious issues with the vaccine program.

Instead of FDA’s Requested 500 Pages Per Month, Court Orders FDA to Produce Pfizer Covid-19 Data at Rate of 55,000 Pages Per Month!
A great win for transparency that removes a stranglehold "health" authorities have had on data independent scientists need to offer solutions and address serious issues with the vaccine program.

On behalf of a client, my firm requested that the FDA produce all the data submitted by Pfizer to license its Covid-19 vaccine. The FDA asked the Court for permission to only be required to produce at a rate of 500 pages per month, which would have taken over 75 years to produce all the documents.

I am pleased to report that a federal judge soundly rejected the FDA’s request and ordered the FDA to produce all the data at a clip of 55,000 pages per month!

This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal “health” authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program – issues which include waning immunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.

No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure. And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what it relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead. That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society.

In ordering the release of the documents in a timely manner, the Judge recognized that the release of this data is of paramount public importance and should be one of the FDA’s highest priorities. He then aptly quoted James Madison as saying a “popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy” and John F. Kennedy as explaining that a “nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

The following is the full text of the Judge’s order, a copy of which is also available here.

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/instea ... -500-pages

[alloneword]

On the subject of Pfizer trials...

So I used the 'real world' figures given in the UKHSA wk 5 vaccine report (for >18 year olds) to perform the 'Relative Risk Reduction' calculation that Pfizer used to claim '95% efficacy'.

This data represents well over 1000 times the number of people involved in the Pfizer trial.

Unvaxxed - Denominator: 9,306,765 Cases: 137,891 Vaxxed: Denominator: 30,383,470 Cases: 605,888

Remember their endpoint was symptomatic infection (a positive virological test plus at least one COVID-19 symptom), so to be super-fair I reduced the 'case' counts in the UK data on the basis that 40.5% would be 'asymtomatic' - although doing so has no effect on the 'Relative Risk Reduction', only the 'Absolute', which becomes -0.51% instead of -0.86%.

Anyway, I make it -34.59%

[Harvey]

This event probably deserves it's own thread. The idea - of filling the vacuum left by the retreat of law beyond the aspiration of most individuals, and the courts and judiciary from the idea of justice - will stand or fall on the quality of the arguments and the evidence presented. I can think of no good reason why these arguments should not be heard, discussed, challenged, supported or improved upon. Apart from anything else, this is an ambitious attempt to begin to create the kind of parallel structures we will be forced to create anyway - before too long. And what's not to like about subjecting every aspect of the emerging corporate global techno-state to sustained and searching scrutiny in a structured and methodical way by a large number of competent witnesses?


Opening remarks (duration 01:25:35) : https://rumble.com/vu9uq6-dr.-reiner-fu ... -gran.html