Coronavirus Pandemic

Just as I thought. It's disgusting. So basically you (Silence) are saying there is no need for concern, and that what this doctor is saying at the risk of his own job is just noise. Well I don't know a single person who has even contracted Covid, does that mean it does not exist?

You may as well just go and spit in the face of these people who are suffering and their families. Not on the moral high ground? You have to have some to claim that. You want to play statistics while at the same time parroting the meaningless fatality rates thrown about that are known not to distinguish between those who have died of covid19 and those who die with covid19 or any other flu like or respiratory type symptoms. And when this is brought up it is rejected while saying just how deadly this virus is. Do we see the inconsistency with this line of reasoning?

These reports are just the tip of the iceberg, it has always been known that the reports for adverse events in any pharmaceutical is just a indicator of a much larger problem. And the fatalities due to Cov19 are absolutely exaggerated and and used to generate fear while tragic reactions are simply exceedingly rare, or even expected, or not a concern and are for the greater good. That is until it happens to you your family or someone you love. It is horrendous. Just what percentage of human damage is acceptable?

If this experiment was being done in a clinical environment as it should be it would have been stopped by now!

People are being mislead, some are simply not educated enough to know the full breadth of what is being done here. These are not vaccines, yet every fool wants to throw the antivax thing at the concerns like it actually means something. They have been labeled vaccines to mislead people as well as to conform to existing regulations that fall into that category.

The truth is that it is experimental gene therapy, a synthetic medical device that has never been known to have success in people. Do you think people are going to line up at "emergency unapproved experimental gene therapy centers"!!!!?

.....Signing agreements that it is completely unknown what may eventually happen to them?

No they think it is a vaccine, and project everything they know onto it because of that label when it is nothing of the sort.

It is not a vaccine, everything that follows that is simply a lie!

Fair enough if people want to risk that while knowing this and the dubious history of these techniques and knowing that Covid is only a risk for a subset of people, most having only mild symptoms or none at all then fine. Yet it was not this subset that were used in the initial trials at all, it were healthy people who will be less likely to suffer preliminary adverse effects.

Do they sign consent forms with this information, or rather lack of information? Are they advised by people who actually know? The majority are being jabbed by non professionals who are just as misled as the recipient. The blind leading the blind.

The real damage is more likely to occur a year and half to two years down the road based on the animal studies. Possibly even beyond since there is no off switch. If they are not in danger immediately they may eventually be when their biological conditions change or the biological condition encounters another novel pathogen or mutated version. Let alone your body made to attack it's own similar proteins. The reasons why no human trials were done with SARS Cov1 was because the long term animal studies were so disastrous.

It is the spike protein that makes people sick, it is the means for viral infection. Why the f##k would you want to make your body produce them and not be able to control the production!!!?

Do they know that it is not even known whether it can amount to a adequate defense at all! Or that it may not prevent transmission? We have the first signs that it is not very effective or even effective at all. How about approximately 60% of new covid patients being vaccinated! Nah, that's just a tiny fraction, just meaningless numbers like everything else thrown about. Unless it comes from the government or the manufacturers of the vaccines right? How tragically hilariously naïve.

Now there is talk of a third jab and regular boosters so similar they will not require safety checks! So at what point does this become reckless and dangerous?

It can't be emphasized how unique this method is. They have actually been working on these things for sometime and all of a sudden quite magically it has been resolved in mere months? Seriously?

Well no it hasn't, it is completely unknown, don't try and say it is otherwise. Want to take that risk for something that most are not in danger of?

There is no evidence at all this is beneficial, and there is every reason for concern.

How absurd.

I would say that it is a miniscule amount of people who actually realize this, the ones who do accept are either very brave or very stupid, the rest simply do not know, and what is seriously stupid is the majority are not even at risk of covid at all!

This world has gone absolutely mad, perhaps covid has effected the consciousness and common sense of people as well. Well actually this seems quite obvious.
 
Last edited:
Here are few more minor statistical noise and unscientific correlations to inspect, or are just too rare to even bother with.

TERRIBLE COVID VACCINE REACTIONS - PLEASE SHARE
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SJ6rSG5gQlue/

And these are all at the very beginning of the roll out.

Unfortunately the first guy here passed away.

As long as it is not you right? Well line up for your unproven unapproved genetic experimental jab for a wuss of a virus that most do not even suffer from.
 
Last edited:
The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed.
it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1

The reactions are so insignificant you need a AI to help process them it seems.
 
Just as I thought. It's disgusting. So basically you (Silence) are saying there is no need for concern, and that what this doctor is saying at the risk of his own job is just noise.
LS, I didn't make any such claims. I simply made the clear and uncontroversial point that this was a small sample size of 900 people.

Remember, you offered up the video of this doctor as evidence of non-bias.
 
You guys may find the air has cleared a bit for the time being, so you can have your discussion in peace. Some time-limited bans have been issued for different time spans, depending on the number of complaints received. Make use of the time while it lasts! For those who are going on "vacation", when you come back (if you choose to do so) please keep in mind the concept of making a positive contribution to a thread rather than derailing them in feeble debunking attempts. Reversion to previous posting styles may lead to longer bans. If you don't like it, go to Facebook, where everyone is welcome to talk about everything Mark Zuckerberg allows users to talk about.
 
LS, I didn't make any such claims. I simply made the clear and uncontroversial point that this was a small sample size of 900 people.

Remember, you offered up the video of this doctor as evidence of non-bias.
The point is their are actual Frontline professionals speaking up that simply care and have no agenda.

I was well aware of the the small number of total people but that goes both ways Silence. The numbers actually infected in phase 3 trials were far less than that. The latest covid ifr stats (if accurate) give 1.35 possible fatality rate even if all those people were actually infected symptomatically.

He did not disclose any figures but it is one dead (presumably) and at least three most probably permanently disabled. HE was obviously concerned enough to risk himself under gag orders. I merely was interested in your response, if you actually would show some compassion.

Statistically speaking none of those people were likely to die of the virus. Just speculating of course. Only a small number would be at risk and it would of course have to be actually present. There was no apparent danger. Instead all were put at risk, even the healthy. This is also uncontroversial. It is all relative. So this is a unnecessary tragedy and possible a microcosm of the bigger picture. We just can't see it yet but the potential for disaster is clear and present, and no one is willing to take responsibility, for good reason.

Statistics can be deceptive depending on criteria. Which numbers are we to believe? I don't know.

Numbers are relative. Have we over reacted?
Covid’s IFR just keeps DROPPING
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/04/24/covids-ifr-just-keeps-dropping/
 
Last edited:
This was published last year, yet the results were not implemented. This amounts to criminality with failure to provide informed consent.

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

Aims of the study:
Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.

Results of the study:
COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications:
The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed
to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
 
LS, I didn't make any such claims. I simply made the clear and uncontroversial point that this was a small sample size of 900 people.

Remember, you offered up the video of this doctor as evidence of non-bias.
And when you get your selective reasoning and arguments 'debunked', you switch tactics to some other random point like the above, and never address what has been offered up by others on purpose. The first post at the top of this page 116 by LS and then your 'reply' is a classic example of the way you work.

So that why I believe you to be insincere Silence. You pretend to be well meaning and to engage in good faith, but you clearly have an an intent to prove a point and have a specific agenda, so next time, why don't you just drop the pretence and the so called neutrality, and just argue your position without all the B.S.
 
The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed.
it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1

The reactions are so insignificant you need a AI to help process them it seems.
Look at the the above Silence, Malf, Bart V.

Just look at what it says, and then look at your own arguments.

This isn't some obscure source or a bunch of ragtag rebel doctors. It's from the EU government.

Also

Events unforeseeable — the Covid-19 crisis is novel and developments in the search of a Covid-19 vaccine have not followed any predictable pattern so far.
Doesn't sound very convincing regarding the background in the development of the vaccines now does it? This was in the middle of September 2020, so not too long before the vaccines came out either. Plus you don't award contracts out for 1.5 million quid for nothing.
 
Last edited:
Look at the the above Silence, Malf, Bart V.

Just look at what it says, and then look at your own arguments.

This isn't some obscure source or a bunch of ragtag rebel doctors. It's from the EU government.
No, not for sure.
But this is a very large scale vaccination campaign, one like no other in recent times. So it's pretty clear that the volume of ADRs reports will exceed what's normal by orders of magnitude and we don't have the tools to manage that.

The high volume of reports (combined with the facts that not all of them represent actual side effects) requires lots of data processing to extract a clear picture of what's happening. Hence the idea to put an AI to work which is supposed to sift through this mountain of reports and find patterns that are significant.

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/emea/uk-use-ai-covid-19-vaccine-side-effects

This is not to say that's all fine and dandy. We're looking at a rushed and massive deployment of experimental drugs, the outcome of which won't be clear for several years.

Cheers
 
Numbers are relative. Have we over reacted?
Covid’s IFR just keeps DROPPING
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/04/24/covids-ifr-just-keeps-dropping/
Ioannidis' paper is also published in the official WHO website, although the one you've linked seems more recent. I clearly remember TV news casters pointing at the scary 3.4% mortality rate, indicated by the WHO last year. Then came Ioannidis and corrected it. The WHO retracted their silly figures, but I've heard zero news about the more reassuring (or rather, less ludicrous) IFR.

Have we over reacted?
I would be on it.
 
And when you get your selective reasoning and arguments 'debunked', you switch tactics to some other random point like the above, and never address what has been offered up by others on purpose. The first post at the top of this page 116 by LS and then your 'reply' is a classic example of the way you work.

So that why I believe you to be insincere Silence. You pretend to be well meaning and to engage in good faith, but you clearly have an an intent to prove a point and have a specific agenda, so next time, why don't you just drop the pretence and the so called neutrality, and just argue your position without all the B.S.
Odds lean towards he's getting paid... or he's independantly wealthy enough to sit there all day behind a PC, all and only to enjoy being so annoying. Never met someone so void of rationality and compassion as a combination. Mind blowing that something like this can exist.
 
Last edited:
No, not for sure.
But this is a very large scale vaccination campaign, one like no other in recent times. So it's pretty clear that the volume of ADRs reports will exceed what's normal by orders of magnitude and we don't have the tools to manage that.

The high volume of reports (combined with the facts that not all of them represent actual side effects) requires lots of data processing to extract a clear picture of what's happening. Hence the idea to put an AI to work which is supposed to sift through this mountain of reports and find patterns that are significant.

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/emea/uk-use-ai-covid-19-vaccine-side-effects

This is not to say that's all fine and dandy. We're looking at a rushed and massive deployment of experimental drugs, the outcome of which won't be clear for several years.

Cheers
Yes it very difficult to gauge.

An older study but the same issues remain.

Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.
https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/defa...ion/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

We can only imagine what the reality is.

http://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html
https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data?start=40
 
Yes it very difficult to gauge.

An older study but the same issues remain.

Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.
I was aware of the underreporting, but 1% seems very very low :eek:
I mean, even if it was less than 20% adverse events reported it would still look pretty bad.
I've found a counter-argument to this claim here: https://vaxopedia.org/2019/09/03/percentage-of-reports-to-vaers/
though it's not particularly compelling, nor it provides different estimates.

And that's for short-term adverse reactions, I presume? Long term is even trickier!
 
No, not for sure.
But this is a very large scale vaccination campaign, one like no other in recent times. So it's pretty clear that the volume of ADRs reports will exceed what's normal by orders of magnitude and we don't have the tools to manage that.

The high volume of reports (combined with the facts that not all of them represent actual side effects) requires lots of data processing to extract a clear picture of what's happening. Hence the idea to put an AI to work which is supposed to sift through this mountain of reports and find patterns that are significant.

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/emea/uk-use-ai-covid-19-vaccine-side-effects

This is not to say that's all fine and dandy. We're looking at a rushed and massive deployment of experimental drugs, the outcome of which won't be clear for several years.

Cheers
Yes, the number of adverse effects is probably also due to the volume of persons vaccinated. But I believe that correlation on its own doesn't really stand true for anything until we take into consideration at what is happening overall, globally, and you've also said along the lines of a few of these points too.

  • The global and unrelenting coercive nature of the push to vaccinate everyone and to demonise those who do not want to get them.

  • The fact that the UK government employed social engineering, using social scientists who looked at what messages would 'nudge' people into complying and getting the vaccine. You wouldn't need that B.S if there really was a dangerous and deadly virus on the scale that the mainstream narrative pushes. It would be self evident. No convincing needed. I'm certain that other governments have used similar measures. This on its own is highly problematic for me.

  • The threat of loosing jobs, careers, social reputation, holidays abroad, houses and places to keep a roof over ones head, going to the pub etc etc etc, if you do not get the jab, is just completely insane and unethical.

  • Then we get onto the fact that all of this combined pressure, is to get you to take an experimental 'vaccine' that has already shown serious adverse effects so far in the short term, never mind longer term, speaks to something rotten somewhere.

This ain't all 'by accident' and due to 'circumstance', that's for sure. Some low level idiots in government and other authorities might have used it as that, but from somewhere, there has always been an agenda to depopulate, and also to control people more than what we had in pre-covid times.

Is that the case now? Probably to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Brilliant post and in its whole makes an innarguabl point, diverdown. "Like" was insufficient
Thanks Chester.

I'd like to add that with the depopulation thing, I think that it is going to be hard to prove definitively a correlation with vaccines. The control of people thing is a no brainer and is case closed as far as I am concerned, but when people like Dr Yeadon are upset about things, it makes me worry that it is actually the case that depopulation might be a thing, and that plausible deniability allows everyone involved to get away with it due to the nature of it all.

I don't actually want this to be the case y'know, despite what some of our 'holidaying' members may think.
 
Yes, the number of adverse effects is probably also due to the volume of persons vaccinated. But I believe that correlation on its own doesn't really stand true for anything until we take into consideration at what is happening overall, globally, and you've also said along the lines of a few of these points too.
I'd take that and also apply it to the individual. Statistics are meaningless for a individuals choice when considering the individual health factors. What I mean is its not a good idea to look at clinical numbers and project them when there are individual health factors to consider.

What if someone has a heart condition, diabetes, allergies, immune disorders, obesity or any number or numbers of conditions known or unknown?

You can't reliably say that a statistic is going to apply to you, that the number is your number when it comes to safety or effectiveness. Especially if it is in a clinical environment. In this way it can be very misleading to the individual. This is not to say it is entirely useless, just that there is much more to consider when it comes to individual choice. That is if we can retain individual choice.

It is what I hate about such arguments, it removes the humanity and creates a artificial bench mark that is useless to individual conditions.

There is no such thing as a one fits all solution. Which is why mandatory practices or vaccine passports are tantamount to shooting a gun in a dark room full of people,
 
Last edited:
Top