Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Movies Popular culture Pseudoscience Quackery

“Died Suddenly”: Resurrecting the old antivax lie of depopulation

Everything old is new again when it comes to antivax tropes. Died Suddenly resurrects the old antivax conspiracy that vaccines kill, the plan being to cause “depopulation” that would allow “global elites” to control the world.

I realize that I sometimes repeat this to the point of annoyance, but it really does need to be repeated over and over: In the age of the pandemic, everything old is new again with respect to antivaccine disinformation. The most recent example is the claims that, thanks to COVID-19 vaccines, huge numbers of people have “died suddenly,” because the vaccines are designed to result in “depopulation” (which the “global elites” apparently want for reasons that are never made coherent). This particular conspiracy theory that’s trending now about COVID-19 vaccines is an echo—hell, a rehash—of old antivax conspiracy theories. The problem is that most people, who hadn’t been paying attention in years past, don’t realize this. Coming out next month is a book pushing a similar conspiracy theory, “Cause Unknown”: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022. It’s written by Ed Dowd, described as a “former Wall Street analyst and BlackRock portfolio manager”—because that’s who should be doing amateur epidemiology, right?—who:

…examines the epidemic of sudden deaths in America. Throughout his stock picking career, he utilized pattern recognition to get ahead of his peers and the street before his bullish or bearish thesis became consensus. Early in 2021, he noticed a rise of news anecdotes about sudden deaths among very fit athletes and other seemingly healthy young people across the country. His question was simple: What changed in 2021? 

Gee, I don’t know. What changed, Mr. Dowd, besides the amplification of your confirmation bias.?

Unsurprisingly, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his antivax group Children’s Health Defense were involved in writing this book.

"Cause Unknown": "Died Suddenly" in book form, apparently.

Back in the day, when I was learning how to counter antivax disinformation, this claim took the form of antivaxxers claiming that childhood vaccinations were killing children and causing a wave of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and that HPV vaccines (particularly Gardasil) were killing girls and young women. Nor are antivax “documentaries” making such claims new either. For example, I once described such a film entitled Sacrificial Virgins—antivaxxers aren’t subtle with their penchant for comparing vaccines to religion—that blamed Gardasil for killing young women, and the very first times I ever wrote about the antivax conspiracy theory that vaccines are causing “depopulation” was in reference to claims that Bill Gates wanted to use them for that purpose and when Jon Rappoport made the “depopulation” claim over a decade ago, linking it with germ theory denial.

I’ve discussed variations the false idea that vaccines are part of a “depopulation agenda,” be it through mass death or causing infertility (or both). Perhaps the most ridiculous version of this conspiracy theory came from—who else?—Mike Adams, who before the pandemic claimed that vaccines were bioweapons designed to depopulate the planet so that the global elite and aliens—yes, aliens!—could rule. Adams then renamed his “vaccine holocaust” as the Oblivion Agenda, in which COVID-19 vaccine took on the role of the bioweapon that would kill 90% of the global population and leave the survivors to be used by the global elite and their alien overlords as workers to exploit the earth’s resources.

Died Suddenly drops

It’s easy to laugh at the sheer over-the-top ridiculousness of Mike Adams’ conspiracy theories about global “depopulation.” (In one of my posts about it, I even included a poster for The Omega Man, the 1971 dystopian movie in which a plague has wiped out over 99% of the earth’s population and left the vast majority of the survivors photophobic mutants who come out at night to destroy the remnants of the old world, which they blame for the catastrophe that had befallen them and whom Charlton Heston hunts during the day, when they are sleeping.) However, it’s not so easy to laugh at something like Died Suddenly, a pseudodocumentary by Stew Peters that has been going trending on Twitter and going viral on other social media since it dropped a couple of days ago. The basic idea behind Died Suddenly is that COVID-19 vaccines are part of—you guessed it!—a global “depopulation agenda,” with COVID-19 designed to give governments a pretext to impose authoritarian controls. The evidence? Young people supposedly “dying suddenly” without any apparent cause, except that the filmmakers just know that it was the vaccine that caused it.

Showing how Twitter has changed for the worse since Elon Musk took it over, the filmmakers were allowed to post the entire hour-plus video directly onto Twitter:

Twitter slapped as “sensitive content” warning on this? Great strategy, Elon!

And, of course, the documentary is on Rumble:

Perhaps the best retort to the movie was this:

But what about the Bilderbergs?

Be that as it may, it’s worth looking at this movie, because you need to understand that this is absolutely nothing new for antivaxxers. The idea that vaccines are deadly to the point of causing a “holocaust” or “global depopulation” is a longstanding antivax conspiracy theory. The only people who should be surprised that it has been so effectively repurposed to produce a film like Died Suddenly are those who weren’t paying attention to the antivaccine movement. It’s understandable that most people were unaware of these sorts of antivax conspiracy theories, but unforgivable that apparently our public health leadership either was not or didn’t have messaging ready. In this post, I’ll discuss Died Suddenly and try to relate it to similar prepandemic antivax conspiracy theories.

Before that, however, I feel that I should mention that Stew Peters has been featured on this blog before. Peters is a radio host and podcaster who runs the Stew Peters Network, a network of conspiracy blogs that promote conspiracy theories about COVID-19, vaccines, public health, politics, religion, and just about everything else. His appearance on this blog was related to a claim by a nurse practitioner named Jane Ruby that COVID-19 vaccines are causing massive clots (that kill people), although she is a regular on his network with standard COVID-19 disinformation, such as the false claim that COVID-19 vaccines “permanently alter your DNA.” His last film, Watch the Water, posited that COVID-19 vaccines are a synthetic version of “snake venom” and that evil forces are spreading via the vaccines, remdesivir, and drinking water to “make you a hybrid of Satan.” It’s almost as bonkers as anything Mike Adams has produced. Almost. (Think of Stew Peters as Del Bigtree with a wider range of conspiracy topics that he likes to fear monger about.)

From the advertising materials, it’s obvious that this the conspiracy theory about COVID-19 vaccines causing fatal blood clots features prominently in Died Suddenly:

Died Suddenly
Clots. It had to be…clots.

Prelude: The misinformation didn’t wait for the full movie

Before Died Suddenly was released, it was obvious just how bad it would be just from the social media promotional campaign that launched about a month before its release. Indeed, the trailer alone was full of out-and-out misrepresentations, as noted in this story:

In the film’s trailer, footage of a basketball star collapsing on the court is cited as proof of the vaccine’s dangers. In reality, the footage is from 2020, long before the vaccine became available to the entire public.

As our friend The Real Truther noted:

Regarding the first example, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine only received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA on December 11, 2020. Regarding the second example, of course this wasn’t the vaccine.

Here are a couple of more examples from just the trailer alone:

You get the idea. It’s an old antivax technique: Blame sudden deaths on vaccines, even if there was no sudden death or, as was often the case in the past, there was not even good evidence of correlation, much less causation. There had been a long run-up to Died Suddenly in the form of conspiracy theories about healthy younger doctors supposedly “dying suddenly” (because of. the vaccine) and young people suffering Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, in which antivaxxers attributed a different name to the acronym SADS, which before the pandemic described a known uncommon syndrome in which cardiac conduction abnormalities led to Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome, a condition first described over 50 years ago. Basically, in the age of the pandemic, the tragic sudden and unexpected cardiac arrests and deaths of young people have been exploited by antivaxxers, who falsely blame them on vaccines, and Died Suddenly does that in spades.

As I was looking at the trailer before the movie was even released to Rumble, I was thinking: If just the trailer contains so many obvious, easily refuted lies, what the hell is the movie like? I was afraid, very afraid. Still, I decided that I had to subject myself to this movie. The things I do for you, my readers. As I watched this, I was grateful that I had written posts about nearly every conspiracy theory referenced in this movie. This post would have been close to book length if I had to write about every conspiracy in depth as I analyzed this movie. Instead, I can just briefly discuss each one and then link to my much longer discussions for interested readers who want more information.

Died Suddenly: Let the conspiracies flow!

It’s been a long time since I’ve subjected myself to such concentrated antivaccine propaganda as Died Suddenly; so I was naturally concerned if my neurons were still resistant to apoptosis from waves of burning stupid emanating from antivaxxers. I needn’t have worried. My neurons remain strong, even though they are older and have been battered as never before. Perhaps the last nearly three years of constant COVID-19 disinformation has hardened them. Even so, in making Died Suddenly, Stew Peters not infrequently approaches Mike Adams territory.

Don’t believe me? Just watch the first few minutes of the movie, which begins with text warning that the film is “not suitable for children,” with the ominous tones of the Pink Floyd song Sheep. followed by a narrator intoning that there has been an “overwhelming and unexplainable increase in all-cause mortality” and deaths among 18-49 year olds, along with an increase in miscarriages and Bell’s palsy. (Again, antivaxxers are not known for their subtlety.) Those of you familiar with the song will recognize that the sheep represent mindless people who just follow the herd and end up as veal cutlets or killed by predators like wolves. Indeed, underlying part of the song is a robotic voice parodying Psalm 23 thusly, “The Lord is my shepherd, He converteth me to lamb cutlets….”

Then the film cuts to a man claiming that there were all these “anomalies” and “abnormalities” in the blood in people who died, going on to say that he feels as though he is seeing something that could be causing their deaths and that “no one will see what I see,” which is, of course, what all conspiracy theorists say. He then speculates that perhaps COVID-19 caused this; that is, until he realized that many of these people had never had COVID-19 and that—of course!—they had been vaccinated. My first guess was that this was Richard Hirschman, perhaps the most famous of the embalmers and morticians who have made misleading claims about finding huge clots in vaccinated people who died, his claims that they are “unnatural” having led people like Mike Adams and Jane Ruby to speculate wildly that the clots are “self-assembling nanostructures.”

Died Suddenly: Richard Hirschman
My, what a strange hobby you have there, Mr. Hirschman!

Sure enough, later in the movie, he’s identified as Richard Hirschman and portrayed looking at vials containing clots on a table with skeletons arrayed in “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” poses as he intones about carotid artery clots and clots from veins. I’m not going to discuss the segment featuring Hirschmann much, given that I’ve written about Hirschman’s conspiracy theories in depth and his inability to tell the difference between postmortem and antemortem clots. That a series of other embalmers echo his conspiracy theories doesn’t persuade me in the least, the images of embalmers pulling clots out of corpses notwithstanding. One wonders if any of these embalmers had permission from the loved ones of the deceased to video the embalming process and take pictures. I suspect not. Yet, by 50:30 in the movie, there’s extensive video of an embalmer working on a corpse.

That diversion to further into the movie aside, next the film cuts to the opening credits, as Roger Waters vocals and Pink Floyd’s music swell. (What I wonder is where Peters got the money to afford the royalties for using Pink Floyd music in his soundtrack. That couldn’t have been cheap!) As the credits roll, we’re treated to a montage of images ranging from Big Foot to UFOs to Jeffrey Epstein to President George Bush claiming “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, interspersed with images from the COVID-19 pandemic, such as children undergoing nasal swabs, and recent news, such as an image of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. They even include the killing of John F. Kennedy’s assassin Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby while he was in police custody. (More subtlety.) There are also images of Elvis Presley getting vaccinated against polio juxtaposed with President Joe Biden getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Amusingly, a shaky graphic of the words “conspiracy theory” precedes an image of Alex Jones followed by images of the World Trade Towers falling and astronauts driving the lunar rover on the Moon. Truly, Peters checks all the conspiracy boxes. I will, however, admit to some surprise at seeing a clip of Tom Hanks being interviewed on The Today Show about his movie Inferno and discussing Malthusian theory, triage, and overpopulation.

And the was just the first four minutes! Truly Peters knows his audience, especially given that the Dan Brown novels whose movie adaptations star Hanks are some of the most amazing conspiracy-fests I’ve ever seen.

Here come the clots, here come the clots!

What follows is a discussion of Malthusian theory about what happens when there are more people on the planet than the earth can support, including famines, plagues, and shortages. This segment is all very ominous, with frequent references to dire consequences of overpopulation portrayed through video clips of people ranging from Bill Maher to Bill Gates discussing it, and of course the clip of Gates is the famous clip in which he points out that population growth could be slowed through providing better healthcare including vaccines. It’s a clip that antivaxxers love because they misrepresent it as Gates “confessing” in a TED Talk that vaccines are part of a global “depopulation” plot when in reality it’s just Gates pointing out the obvious, namely that populations with access to better health care, including vaccines, and more wealth tend to delay childbearing, not produce as many children, and therefore not grow as fast, as is the case in older, more established wealthy countries such as the US and those in Europe.

Enter a funeral director named Chad Whisnat, whom, oddly enough, I had never heard of before this movie, going on about, “What does that mean?” with respect to decreasing the rate of population growth by 15% “using vaccines,” saying:

Well, common sense would tell you, if you have a man standing in front of you say … he’s going to reduce the world’s population by 10 or 15% using vaccines. What does that mean to you? It means somebody’s gonna die because you put a vaccine in them. It doesn’t mean you’re going to save people. That’s pretty much common sense in my brain.

Let’s just say that Whisnat’s “common sense” is not really “sense.” I gathered right away that he must be one of those conspiracy mongering morticians who have been claiming that vaccines are killing people based on his anecdotal experience as a funeral home director.

Hilariously, he invokes an “argument by Google” by voicing over a montage of Google searches how Googling “died suddenly” brings up a list of stories and web pages about people who—surprise! surprise!—died suddenly! (Google is nothing if not literal that way. when it does a search for a phrase.) There’s even what looks to me like a shot of Hank Aaron getting the vaccine. Of course, Aaron was 86; so his death two weeks later could easily have been coincidence, and, indeed, was attributed to natural causes. (That’s part of the conspiracy in these narratives, of course.) Of course, to the conspiracy theorists making this film, they must have died from the vaccine. However, as Lead Stories noted over three weeks ago:

The montage flashes an article from October 16, 2022, headlined “Dad of two, 46, dies suddenly in his sleep.”

But the article makes no mention of a COVID vaccine. “Edward died in his sleep in the early hours of September 27, having spent some time in hospital while struggling with his mental health,” the article states.

Another article in the montage is headlined: “Actor’s sudden death aged 33,” but the piece itself explains that the actor died as a result of a “tragic fall” and does not mention vaccination.

Another article, the first-person essay of a mother who lost a son, is about his death in a car crash.

This segment then leads into Hirschman’s claims and several conspiracy mongering embalmers and funeral directors, including some with their faces and voices obscured, because, of course, they are “afraid” to identify themselves. Personally, I myself could tell that most of the clots shown look like postmortem clots, but I’d love my readers who are pathologists to take a look. Several close-up images are shown at around 14:20, and the whole segment starts around 8:10 and continues for several minutes, with embalmer after embalmer demonstrating confirmation bias. Of note, none of these embalmers could say whether the corpses that they had embalmed had been vaccinated, had COVID-19, or had an asymptomatic case of COVID-19. In any event, if you’re squeamish, this segment might gross you out, but I’d love pathologists to watch it, especially ones who have a lot of experience doing autopsies.

There are, however, people debunking this nonsense on Twitter:

Seriously, I see only two possibilities. Either these embalmers and some of the doctors parroting these claims about clots don’t understand the difference between postmortem and antemortem clots, or they do and are lying. My take is that, depending on the specific person, one or the other is true.

In any event, by around 17:30, the film shifts to stories of young people who “died suddenly,” the film’s view being, of course, that it must be the COVID-19 vaccines that caused these deaths. Again, almost none of these stories mention whether these people had been vaccinated, and this entire segment consists of, in essence, an appeal to personal incredulity. Just because these people were unaware, for example, that young people sometimes suffer sudden and unexpected cardiac arrest, to the point that they syndrome was described in the 1970s and 1980s, does not mean that vaccines did it.

During a montage of various “whistleblowers” testifying about people who “died suddenly,” there was a recounting of the claim that a military database had shown a huge increase in cancers since the vaccines had started being required for military personnel. I won’t discuss that one in much detail, given that I did so in great detail before in February other than to say this. It is biologically implausible in the extreme that we would see a huge increase in cancers less than two years after the vaccines rolled out because even after exposure to large doses of ionizing radiation from the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the earliest that cancers started appearing was two years later, and that was just leukemias. Solid cancers like colon and breast cancers, didn’t show up until ten years later. Of course, Dr. Ryan Cole, whose claims about COVID-19 vaccines and cancer I’ve discussed before, makes an appearance blathering about oncogenes and cancer biology that he clearly doesn’t understand while appealing to “nefarious actors” behind this plot, including, of course, Bill Gates.

Unsurprisingly, the film also invokes Event 201, an October 2019 exercise simulating a pandemic, to imply—no, to say outright—that the subsequent coronavirus crisis as evidence that it was all part of a plan. It’s a conspiracy theory that dates back to the days of Plandemic and Plandemic 2, two conspiracy movies claiming that the pandemic was a plot to cause depopulation and impose absolute authoritarian rule. To bolster this, there’s a montage of pro-vaccine messages and songs from podcasters and TV personalities like Stephen Colbert, followed by people claiming that they will “destroy your life” if you don’t take the vaccine and that we are in a “war,” followed by a montage of conspiracy images of glaciers melting, the World Trade Center, Sean Penn with Volodymyr Zelenskyy (gee, pro-Russian propaganda slipped in?), and more.

Then came Steve Kirsch at about the halfway point, and I nearly had to stop watching. Seriously, Kirsch is about as nutty a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist and antivaxxer as there is out there, as evidenced by his claims that “no one wants to know what’s in the vaccines” and that “no mainstream media” reporter has ever asked “what’s in the vial,” which is nonsense so pure that I really, really questioned whether I could make it through the rest of the movie, particularly his claim that “people don’t want to know what’s in the vaccines” either. What follows is a montage of arguments by package insert, with the risible claim that there are still pages in the package inserts intentionally left blank. If that’s true, I couldn’t find them. Kirsch even invokes VAERS and his “promise” to pay any scientist $1 million to come on his show for a debate. Hilariously, he expresses anger that the CDC is ignoring him. Personally, given his history I’d ignore him too if I were a high-ranking CDC official or the chair of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), so much so that he clearly provided video to the filmmakers of a police officer telling him to leave the chair’s house. It never occurred to Peters or Kirsch that his footage makes him look like a stalker. It really does!

It’s at about this point at the 45:00 mark that there’s the montage debunked above of security camera and smartphone videos showing people fainting, the implication being that they had all “died suddenly,” even though most had not. There were images of some people fainting near moving subway trains and falling into the trains or onto the tracks, where, in the latter case it’s possible that the fainting person was killed by the train. Even if there were any fatalities in these images, these could just be cases of tragically bad timing and locations for fainting. The montage goes on and on, with some people appearing to have seizures and some just fainting and falling. For none of them is it shown that they had had a COVID-19 vaccine, and most did not die.

In fact, as this article shows, most of the people shown fainting in the montage collapsed for reasons unrelated to the vaccine; for example some suffered syncope after not having eaten and drunk anything for a long time. Even more deceptive, at least two of the clips date back to before COVID-19 vaccines were even available (for example, Florida Gators basketball star Keyontae Johnson, who fainted in the middle of a game on December 12, 2020, before the vaccines were even available) and one dates back to 2019, before the first cases of the novel coronavirus disease had even been reported in Wuhan, China (Austrian journalist Rosa Lyon, who collapsed on her show). Apparently, the vaccine is so powerful that it can go back in time to kill people—or at least make them faint.

Then there’s this example, which is even worse, as it shows Peters and crew blatantly misrepresenting the cause of a child’s death to promote their ghoulish message:

Unfortunately, it’s long been known that 13-year-olds do sometimes “die suddenly” of no apparent cause. Such deaths are almost always due to an undetected conduction abnormality of the heart. Now antivaxxers are ghoulishly weaponizing every such death they can find, regardless of whether there’s even any plausible link to COVID-19 vaccines or not.

There are also shots of speculative stories about people who died within days of being vaccinated—or even of people who just died, with no reference to whether they had been recently vaccinated or not—followed by a segment at 50:30 of embalmers working on actual cadavers, again, likely without permission from the family to feature their deceased loved ones in a movie. At one point, they claimed that they weren’t getting “any drainage” over a scene of a clot measuring a few inches (at most) in length being pulled out of a vein. Once the clot is out, fluid literally squirted out of the hole in the vein rather belying the claim that the clot was so extensive. Then there’s an image of a beating heart, followed by a picture of the heart stopped and a surgeon (apparently) incising the pulmonary artery to remove a clot. This is an operation called a saddle embolectomy, a seldom-required surgery to remove a pulmonary embolus (a blood clot that goes to the blood vessels of the lung and that can be fatal) that’s so large that it’s blocking the bifurcation of the pulmonary artery to the right and left and compromising the heart’s function by blocking its pulmonary outflow. No mention is made of whether this patient had been vaccinated, nor is anything else said about him.

In fact, the video in that segment looked suspiciously familiar to several docs on Twitter, including Dr. Eric Burnett, who posted this brief video to Tik Tok and Twitter, in which he not only compares the images of clots from Died Suddenly to images of postmortem clots but also shows a clip from the YouTube video of a saddle embolectomy that the filmmakers appear to have misappropriated for their film and misrepresented as a clot caused by the vaccines:

In case you’re curious, I found a YouTube video of a saddle embolectomy that appears to have been used by Peters and company. At first glance the video appeared to me to be at the very least incredibly similar to the video in Died Suddenly. (Unfortunately, the video’s settings don’t allow me to embed it here; so here’s the link.)

It turns out that you can scratch “at the very least incredibly similar” and just say it’s the same video. The Real Truther did us all a solid and made it very clear that the Died Suddenly director cribbed the footage directly from the YouTube video:

The side-by-side running of the videos is just…perfect.

As an aside, it’s also amusing to point out that one of the “experts” in Died Suddenly, Dr. Ryan Cole, was very unhappy at Dr. Burnett’s debunking of his conspiracy theory about the vaccines causing clots and voiced his unhappiness on Steve Kirsch’s Substack. His “rebuttal” just boiled down to an appeal to authority—his own—coupled with, “Trust me, I’m an expert.” Certainly there was no evidence there. Moreover, Dr. Jonathan Laxton even points out a reason why embalmers might have been seeing more postmortem clots than they did normally prepandemic:

Why might there be more postmortem clots? The longer you store bodies, the more extensive the postmortem clotting of their blood. When the funeral industry was overwhelmed by COVID-19 death, bodies were stored longer before embalming and funeral.

I have to mention another segment with someone named Dr. Gene Posca, an internal medicine specialist, who is shown seeing someone named John, who is stated to have been “injured” by two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. His complaint was leg swelling from a deep venous thrombosis, which is described as “extremely rare.” (Hint: DVTs are not rare.) Dr. Posca did thermography on this patient to claim to show “heat” in the neck lymph node chains and in the involved leg, leading Dr. Posca to recommend bilateral Doppler ultrasounds. Here’s a hint for this quack: If you suspect DVT, just order the Doppler ultrasound. The thermography is completely unnecessary, as I wrote about when I described another quack who advocates thermography for “clotting” from COVID-19 vaccines. It also turns out that Dr. Posca is an antivax conspiracy theorist who is based at the Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital in Florida who has testified before that the vaccines are a “dangerous and experimental drug” being imposed by “fascists from D.C.” and that their: “blitzkrieg against our freedom will continue.”

WTF, Cleveland Clinic?

Conspiracies everywhere

By the time I reached the end of this film, I was exhausted, so much so that I think I will take the Thanksgiving Day weekend off from blogging and not post anything new until Monday.. It’s basically a repository of every conspiracy theory out there about COVID-19 vaccines causing clots, miscarriages, and “sudden deaths.” It’s all anecdotes, with no data. For instance, near the end of the movie, there’s a nurse named Michelle Gershon who claims that she is seeing more intrauterine fetal demises than ever before since the vaccines followed by video one of the embalmers saying he had a “run of that” in his funeral home, with five of the six having been vaccinated and the other having had remdesivir. (Cherry picking and confirmation bias, anyone?) Another of these embalmers notes that he has more “fetuses in the refrigerator” than he’s ever seen before. An OB/GYN named Dr. James A. Thorp claims that he’s seeing more “death and destruction” than he’s ever seen before on ultrasound.

This is followed by a highly deceptive graph:

Fetuses "died suddenly"
Hmmm. There’s something…odd…about this graph (captured by screenshot).

Does anyone see the problem with this graph, even if it’s accurate? (And I can’t find any evidence for a phenomenon like this elsewhere.) Look at where the uptick in still births starts. It starts in 2020. Note that COVID-19 vaccines did not get an EUA and start rolling out until December 2020, and they weren’t recommended for pregnant people until well into 2021. This graph is far more consistent with COVID-19 itself causing still births, not the vaccine. Again, this graph just looks made-up. The data that exist show that there is no detectable association between COVID-19 vaccination and still birth. In fact, if anything, COVID-19 vaccines reduce, not increase, the risk of still birth, with a meta-analysis finding that vaccination reduces the risk by 15%, likely due to the decreased risk of the vaccinated catching COVID-19. It also turns out that the story of the “whistleblower” nurse originated in The Epoch Times, an antivax conspiracy site and that Dr. Thorp is full of crap. If you doubt me on this, just look at this one claim by him:

No, fetuses having heart attacks in the uterus is not a thing.

None of this stops another interviewee from describing COVID-19 vaccines as this “evil that is destroying” infants and still another describing the vaccines as a “pure evil in this world.”

The grand finale of the movie features conspiracy theorists calling the vaccine a “bioweapon” being used to depopulate and control the world, because of course it does. This is followed by a stirring call to arms to fight back and a warning that if you don’t resist you are complicit in the atrocities and a counter of how many billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered and more images of political leaders, entertainers, and celebrities urging people to get vaccinated and characterizing the unvaccinated, as Howard Stern once did.

Everything old is new again

The idea that vaccines are causing “depopulation” and killing young people is not new at all. I like to refer again to the antivax movie about Gardasil, Sacrificial Virgins. Oddly enough, though, the unfortunate young women who “died suddenly” and whose deaths the filmmakers blamed on Gardasil presented more convincing anecdotal evidence than anything in Died Suddenly, and their stories were not convincing, with their deaths all occurring weeks after the last of a series of three doses of Gardasil and only related to the vaccine by the filmmakers’ imagination. Similarly, The Greater Good promoted a similar narrative, just for infants and children. There are more examples of antivaxxers blaming vaccines for sudden death of infants, children, and young adults than I can easily recount.

The odd thing is, as these films go Died Suddenly is actually remarkably data-free. I had expected way more graphs and appeals to “excess mortality” than I got. What this movie is turns out to be pretty much just interviews with conspiracy theorists, who use cherry picked anecdotes and selective memory to make their cases. Unfortunately, the moviemaking is pretty slick, and if you don’t recognize the fallacious arguments I can see how it might be persuasive to those predisposed to believe COVID-19 vaccines are harmful.

After subjecting myself to Died Suddenly and the tsunami of firehosed misleading anecdotes and imagery it contains, I don’t know if I have the wherewithal to read Cause Unknown. I do know that this movie is pure disinformation in the way that it portrays COVID-19 vaccines as pure evil.

Note: This post has been periodically updated as I learn new information and/or find more examples of lies in the movie. The latest update was 11/28/2022.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

751 replies on ““Died Suddenly”: Resurrecting the old antivax lie of depopulation”

Just for completion (and thanks for going through this) I want to remind people of Stew Peters’ previous documentary, Watch the Water, in which he claimed that COVID-19 vaccines have a secret ingredient, snake venom, that will turn people into demons and that was also in the water, too.

No, I’m not joking.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/19/watch-water/stew-peters-film-watch-water-ridiculously-claims-c/

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid19-snake-venom/fact-check-covid-19-is-caused-by-a-virus-not-snake-venom-idUSL2N2WJ244

I took a look. She has lots of tables and graphs that she came up with somehow based on death data going back for 20 years! It crams the last three years together so its hard to see the timeline of what happened when during the original outbreak, the start of vaccinations and subsequent events like the Delta and Omicron waves.

She does NOT link to any of the websites that show excess mortality based on projected monthly averages which several commenters here and at SBM have posted.

I also noted that one of her graphs which shows deaths by age groups shows the highest death rate for seniors was during the first winter outbreak when the vaccination campaign was just getting started. Many people like me couldn’t get vaccinated until March or April when that peak had already passed. And the same graph shows another peak the next winter during the Omicron wave. Despite vastly higher case numbers, including me(!), the peak number of deaths was less than the first winter peak.

So her own data show that these vaccines save lives!

She gives a link to the CDC Wonder site but with no choices entered to give a result graph. And of course she links to VAERS.

I took a look

You’re braver than I am. As sloppy as she is with numbers, facts, and honesty, I wouldn’t be suprised to find her website is loaded with all sorts of nasty stuff.

I looked at it twice: was not impressed with layout, spelling, grammar, or content.

Actually, the data shows there is something else going on besides the vax. The increase in deaths began in April 2020 and it was mostly among seniors. There were a lot of things going on at that time–lockdowns, isolation, fear, and a treatment protocol that promoted ventilators.

Maybe something else altogether, like 5G.

There’s no way the vaccine is good for anyone–they never are. If people are claiming a million excess deaths are ‘from COVID19’ then they need to explain why a year after the vax came out deaths were higher than ever.

Maybe something else altogether, like 5G.

If we didn’t already have crap-tons of evidence how amazingly stupid you are I’d swear that was just a throw-away troll line.

Maybe something else altogether, like 5G.

Is there any conspiracy theory you are not a fan of, Ginny?

There was something going on from April 2020. It was a global pandemic of a new disease to which no humans had immunity to. It also infected the lungs causing large numbers of deaths.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?country=~USA

Excess deaths for the US match exactly the COVID-19 waves in the US. The original virus, the alpha wave, in late 2020 and early 2021, the delta wave in September 2021 and the omicron wave at the beginning of 2022. What the excess deaths do not track is COVID-19 vaccinations.

Chris Preston said: “Excess deaths for the US match exactly the COVID-19 waves in the US.”

Yes, it appears the vaccines don’t work. Why else would excess deaths (which you say are from COVID) be higher in 2021 than they were in 2020.

It’s obvious you’re an idiot, but at least a million extra deaths since the beginning of 2020 were caused by Covid. It’s amazing how you can ignore a cause that is staring you in the face.

Yes, it appears the vaccines don’t work. Why else would excess deaths (which you say are from COVID) be higher in 2021 than they were in 2020.

For those following along at home wanting to catch up on the anti-vaccine lies, this one works like this:

In the US COVID-19 vaccination began in mid-December 2020. It wasn’t until July 2021 that 50% of the population was fully vaccinated. By December 2021, only 63% of the population were fully vaccinated. The vast majority of COVID-19 deaths in 2021 were of unvaccinated and not fully vaccinated people.

There were also more than 2 and a half times as many cases of COVID-19 in 2021 than 2020, as the more infective variants arrived. Deaths per case were lower in 2021 than in 2020.

Chris Preston neither the CDC nor the FDA has made the claims you did here about why there were more deaths in 2021, post-vaccines, than there were in 2020, post COVID. Why should we believe your hypotheses when no one in a position of apparent authority has?

Dollars to donuts that Gindo is only here in the first place because she has a G–le alert set for Rappoport.

So you’re claiming the reason for the excess deaths, which were higher in 2021 post-vaccine, is that the vaccines don’t prevent deaths from COVID.

You should contact the CDC with your brilliant insights–unlike you, they have no idea what to say about the excess death problem.

No he says thaa the reason for excess deathsis that people were not vaccinated.

You mean the Covid variants that although more transmissible were far less deadly. So no Covid was not the cause and this has been well documented. Try again

So, we’ve confirmed here that no one at the CDC, FDA, or anywhere else has written anything about the massive increase in deaths in the US, which started in 2020 and escalated in 2021.

Everyone here bloviating about the reasons for it is just fumbling around in the dark–yet acts pompously authoritative about it. LOL.

What are you talking about? The CDC’s own data confirms 2021 had the highest death rate by far in their recorded history that goes back to 1999, and that the increase in deaths in 2020-2021 was massive and unprecedented.

CDC said, “The year 2021 saw the highest death rate since 2003…” It’s deceptive, but sounds better than the truth, which is that it’s the highest death rate (by far) in recorded history.

You must check thee vaccination rate, and number of new COVID cases (compare excess deaths to COVID peaks).

It is truly such a vile piece of Anti-Vax propaganda.

As you said, I wonder whether any of the families of the deceased showcased or of the people fainting gave any consent for their stories and deaths to be used and exploited for this disgusting piece of garbage.

I also want to thank you for the part about post mortem clots. It is something Anti-Vaxxers truly do not understand. They seem to think blood clots are just made up of blood cells… never heard of fibrin apparently…

And the justly famous “calamari clots”!
-btw- calamari are tentacles of squid cut into rings.

“calamari are tentacles of squid” and one of my favorite hors d’oeuvres, if they’re done right.

“Person X collapsed suddenly”
“But they didn’t die and they didn’t even got the vaccine”

See? It’s perfectly logical, they didn’t get the vaccine so they didn’t die.
/sarcasm

(for the math geeks, I’m perfectly aware that A = B and non-A = non-B are not the same thing)

For people claiming to have found the Truth ™, they sure seem to propagate a lot of misinformation.

@ Dorit Reiss

Ah, and this is the same guy with the snake venom / papal crown utter nonsense.
I don’t know what he is smoking, and I don’t want it. Seems to lead to very bad trips.

Abusing a track of my favorite Pink Floyd album (and probably my favorite track of it) for this kind of drivel, is sacrilege.

Are they payed, or did the director just decided to use it without paying?

Welcome my troll
Welcome to the vaccine
Where have you been?
It’s alright we know where you’ve been

You’ve been on the internet
Stuffing your head
Provided with lies and infesting RI
You retweeted a lie to punish us all

And you didn’t like school

And you know you’re such a tool

So welcome to the vaccine
Welcome my troll
Welcome to the vaccine
What did you dream?
It’s alright we told you what to dream

You dreamed of a liar
A true conspirator
He was always a hater
He loved to tweet in his underwear
So welcome to the vaccine

I honestly don’t know. I’d be willing to bet that they must have paid, because I can’t see Pink Floyd or Roger Waters not intervening if they discovered the song had been used without permission and without payment.

Judging from some of Roger Waters’ recent political stances (pro-Putin/anti-Ukraine, tipping over from anti-Zionism into antisemitism), it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s a closet anti-vaxxer and gave them the song for free.

Roger Waters re-recorded a Chilean protest song “The Right To Live In Peace”, adding several stanzas of his own including the following:

You can shoot out the eyes of the children
You were always that fucking insane

But you’ll never snuff out the flame.

And in Jaffa, and in Quito
In Bagdad and Delhi and Maine
In Saskatchawan and in Rio
Enough with this living in chains

Hmm, sounds like Roger wasn’t thrilled with Covid-19 restrictions.

Some musicians I admire have ideas I don’t agree with and some got pretty deep in the rabbit-hole.

Some funny fact about rights. I remember a friend of mine made an album with a drummer, who owned a record-store in The Hague, which I frequented. They decided to us a drawing of some British artist for the cover-art, without his permission. Alas the artist decided to move to The Hague and passed the record-store, which had the album with his artwork on display. He didn’t agree with it, so they had to get new art-work for next pressings, which was done by another friend of mine. For the CD-version of the album, they used the original art-work, so I suppose something has been settled.

Well, perhaps his pro-Putin stance might have something to do with David Gilmour, who has an Ukrainian daughter in law and did a song for Ukraine with an Ugrainian artist under the Pink Floyd monniker.

Waters and/or Floyd may or may not control the rights for use of their songs in media. It could be the record company or some other soul-less corporate entity. Legit music licensing is a minefield for indie filmmakers: it’s not cheap, it’s labor-intensive, and there’s no guarantee you can get permission at the end of the road. If Peters did get licenses, that indicates the production had a fairly significant budget. But, depending on how they plan to distribute the thing, they might just have grabbed what they wanted and hoped it flies under the radar, or that they’re too crazy outre for the rights-holder to mess with. There are places they can get to an audience with this (e.g. maybe Twitter?) that won’t act as copyright cops at all, or the process may be slow enough that they get their desired exposure before they’re forced to take it down.

I don’t have time to look into it today, but I wonder about the $$ angle: who funded the production (Kirsch??), and whether they’re trying to monetize it in any way. It could just be a form of advertising to draw attention to Peters so he can raise more cash or sell more stuff through his other ventures.

The rather sparse ending credits say nothing about proper licensing of music from the various artists they’ve likely stolen from.

Now I know where a person with whom I was having a discussion, got that Sudden Adult Death Syndrome was never seen before the COVID (or as he put it “Covid”) vaccine was given. I found a study within seconds, from 2004 looking at cases from the 1990s, but I doubt that will change his mind. I guess those who buy into that would be akin to the woman who once told me that “Shingles” never existed until there was a vaccine for chicken pox.

I watched it too. Like many other woo-fraught films, they incorporate visual Gish Gallops usually accompanied by ominous music and narration that insinuate dangerous outcomes being revealed. A course in these techniques can be acquired by watching Null’s “film library” at Rumble. All “award winning films” too.

Because Elon has opened the gates of TWIT-ville, I expect that many alties/ anti-vaxxers will recycle their earlier films and produce new efforts to “educate” the masses: many of the websites I watch include short clips and longer interviews so I imagine we’ll soon see Del, RFK jr, Mercola, Adams and other frauds adding content because after all, it’s free ( mostly).

Imagery can be used to incite strong emotional reactions that might bias viewers towards accepting the message ( Death and Destruction from vaccines) implied in the content but never adequately explained or supported by evidence. Sick.

There were more excess deaths in 2021 than in 2020. The vaccines came out in December 2020–the highest month for deaths was Jan 2021, followed closely by Jan 2022. What does that say about the vax?

What does that say about the vax?

Nothing. Hardly any one had been vaccinated by Jan 3 2021 when the alpha wave peaked – only 6 million vaccines given. In contrast, more than 300 million vaccines were given between then and July 2021 when excess deaths were falling. There were more excess deaths in September 2021 than in January 2022. Neither tracks with high vaccination numbers.

You failed again.

The fact that deaths exploded the month the vaccines started and the month after, means the vaccines hadn’t had time to work yet. Then, a year later, when deaths exploded, it had nothing to do with the vaccines, because…vaccines. LOL.

When all else fails, go for some revisionist history and hope nobody notices?

The excess death peak due to the alpha wave started 2 months before the first vaccine was given and peaked less than 3 weeks after the first vaccine was given.

Normal people would look at that and conclude that vaccines had nothing to do with the peak of excess deaths. Anti-vaxxers on the other hand conclude that vaccines can reach back in time and kill people before they were vaccinated.

Or maybe the 5G microchip they implant in the vaccines can do it.

Anti-vaxxers like Ginny get ridiculed, because their ideas as shown here are completely ridiculous.

Chris Preston, if your conclusions are so obvious that you feel justified in presenting them with arrogant incivility, why do we have to hear them from you, instead of from someone at the CDC or FDA who ‘officially’ knows what they’re talking about?

It sys that not very many people had gotten the vaccine during the first month it was out. Vaccines don’t magically prevent infection just because they’ve been announced; they have to be distributed and actually administered to folks to work.

Duh.

Thanks, David. That’s exactly the sort of I referred to. But Ginny of course ignores those numbers.

Hmmm. No. That’s also poor reasoning. No one has said the covid vaccines totally prevent death from covid. Just that they make it more unlikely. You’d still expect more deaths than pre-covid since covid will still be killing people.

That’s right, more deaths than pre-covid. Since covid is killing people. Just less deaths than post covid without a vaccine. Which means more lives saved. Wahey!

You’re getting there Ginny.

You’re getting there Ginny.

She’ll be back with more bullshit. You can lead a conspiracy monger to facts but you can’t make them learn a damn thing.

Numberwang, what is your number blockage? There were more deaths POST-vaccine (2021) than during the COVID panic (2020). Yes, that’s way more deaths than “pre-COVID”–but it’s also more deaths than pre-COVID vaccine.

Starting a mass vaccination campaign does not mean that everyone would be vaccinated immediately.

Given, I had already explained to Ginny up the thread with numbers how that worked and how the vast number of those deaths were in unvaccinated people, it is probably time to give this one a rest.

Ginny is impermeable to facts that don’t fit her theories and prefers to lie instead.

“what is your number blockage?”

I’m commenting about your terrible lack of attention to detail. Since detail doesn’t bother you then it’s obvious that whatever you say is a shoddy analysis. Hence, eminently ignorable when it isn’t shared by any real expert organisations.

Chris Preston said, “Given, I had already explained to Ginny up the thread with numbers how that worked and how the vast number of those deaths were in unvaccinated people, it is probably time to give this one a rest.”

Before you fall totally asleep, why don’t you explain why the claim you just ‘explained’ to me contradicts recent news:

“A recent analysis done by Cynthia Cox of the Kaiser Family Foundation for The Health 202 newsletter of The Washington Post found that approximately 58 percent of the people who died of COVID-19 in the United States in August 2022 had been vaccinated or vaccinated and boosted for COVID. Earlier this year, it was estimated that 42 percent of deaths attributed to COVID were among vaccinated or vaccinated and boosted individuals.” https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/11/most-americans-dying-of-covid-were-vaccinated/

LOL. Goalpost moving as well. My comment was specifically about deaths in 2021, not 2022.

Since someone wants to put words in my mouth but doesn’t seem to have read my comment from Nov 23 and doesn’t think the CDC has anything to say about how well the Covid-19 vaccines protect against death, let’s see what I can find.

A search on Covid-19 mortality vaccine protection turned up this from last March.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7112e1.htm

Receiving 2 or 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a 90% reduction in risk for COVID-19–associated IMV or death. Protection of 3 mRNA vaccine doses during the period of Omicron predominance was 94%.

Another article was published in September
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7139a2.htm?s_cid=mm7139a2_w

In a large cohort of nursing home residents, receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 booster dose during circulation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants was 74% effective at 60 days against severe COVID-19–related outcomes (including hospitalization or death) and 90% against death alone compared with receipt of a single booster dose.

So this was March-July when Omicron was being replaced by BA.4 and .5. And these were the most vulnerable people in our population.

And just last week they published this report on early results for the bivalent boosters.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7148e1.htm

In this study of vaccine effectiveness of the U.S.-authorized bivalent mRNA booster formulations, bivalent boosters provided significant additional protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons who had previously received 2, 3, or 4 monovalent vaccine doses. Due to waning immunity of monovalent doses, the benefit of the bivalent booster increased with time since receipt of the most recent monovalent vaccine dose.

It’s too early to see how much these will help protect against deaths. And i would like to see a comparison with people who got a booster in the last month or two before the bivalent boosters rolled out. But perhaps that is included in these data.

@ David:

What’s great about those graphs is that seasonal effects are clearly visible: numbers are lower when it’s warmer, higher in winter. You see numbers dip each summer.

Terrible news! FDA VRBPAC advisory committee member Almira Oveta Fuller died suddenly and unexpectedly 4 days ago. Her death was NOT related to Covid, according to the Tennessee Tribune.

Dr Fuller was a tireless advocate of approving Covid vaccines and always voted for their approval during FDA meetings.

That said, I am personally NOT into Stew Peters and I never amplify anything from him. He is a questionable individual.

But Igor’s trying to say that he’s not doing that. Can’t you see that Igor wants to belong to the ‘reasonable’ faction of the anti-vax party?

But he’s not the only member of that camp ‘suddenly’ realizing that there are some crazy people out there… .

Nah, he’s engaging in typical “died suddenly” rhetoric while pretending that a far better known ally is too much for him to stomach.

Some things are hard to resist!!!

Regarding Stew Peters: my opinion of him is very low. I even wrote an article touching upon his previous productions, and explaining that he may be a part of the highly unethical influence trick called “inoculation with weakened misinformation”: Vaccine-like Inoculation of Minds with Weakened Forms of Misinformation

Everything checks out: flashy videos with wrong facts, overall stupidity, mess with all conspiracies mixed like a salad, etc.

Fact checkers love fact-checking Stew Peters — this way you can keep reasonable people from better sources of information.

Spreading misinformation can be tempting for some people, especially those who consider them selves to be ‘critical thinkers’. I hope that you find the strength to resist temptation….

I’m sorry if you feel that you image has been tarnished by people like Peters, Kirsh, Cole, Kennedy etc.

Igor is no different than peters and the others. He’s not concerned about his image being tarnished: he’s upset that he’s been identified for what he is.

When I post my own stuff, I try to fact-check everything to the best of my limited ability and to make sure that whatever I write is true to the best of my knowledge. Do I make mistakes? Sure! But they are not intentional.

I have serious doubts about who Stew Peters is and his motives and who pays him.

It is natural that some people, myself included, are occasionally mistaken.

An example of a judgment of mine that was possibly wrong and too optimistic, was an expression of hope that fertility declines in 2022, were temporary. I said this last summer and it is already appearing to be a mistaken judgment — fertility in Sweden, Germany, UK etc is not coming back. Still trying to decide on this one. Might write about it soon.

I’m confused – are you saying that we should excuse your ‘not intentional’, or ‘occasional’ mistakes because your incapable of doing any more in-depth research? I was sure it was just an issue of confirmation bias.

It’s funny to see so many antivaxxers trying to distance themselves from Peters. Some have even gone as far as to claim that it’s a ‘false flag operation’ (not to mention those who are angry with Peters for even admitting the existence of a virus…). They are ignoring the contributions of mainstays in the anti-vax movement (such as Kirsch, Kennedy Cole etc.).

@Igor Chudov Perhaps contraception affects fertility rate ? Try to remember that when you write your rant.

“those who are angry with Peters for even admitting the existence of a virus”

It’s useful to keep in mind the hierarchy of woo. People tend to move down the hierarchy (move the goalposts) as they reach an uncomfortable level of discomfort at each level.

There are no viruses!
Okay, there are viruses, but not this one.
This virus does exist but it’s harmless.
The virus only hurts those who are the brink anyway.
Yes, the virus exists and it’s horrible but vaccines are worse.
The virus is taking a toll but at least we have vaccines, and my freedumb is more important than public health measures.
Welcome to reality.

That’s funny. All the points in my list were numbered but WordPress ate them, editing them out of existence! The points in my comment above were numbered from 1 to 7. RI’s comment software also eats leading blanks and other nameless things.

Yes, that’s why I put a couple of dots on the 3rd and 4th lines of limericks to emulate the traditional indentation. This thing with lists was an unexpected quirk and couldn’t be bothered redoing it using a method similar to your suggestion.

Her death was NOT related to Covid,

OMG!!!! Someone died and it was not covid related? When in the world has that happened before the vaccines? It’s gotta be the shots.

God Igor, you just get more and more asinine with every one of your comments.

Kind of off topic, but I wonder when some anti-masker will compare the mask mandates with the protests over hijab’s in Iran. After all aren’t they exactly the same thing? Being forced to wear something?

Throughout his stock picking career, he utilized pattern recognition to get ahead of his peers and the street before his bullish or bearish thesis became consensus.

In related news, a postdoc in string theory is no longer enough to score an easy gig as a Wall Street quant.

Bodies, not tentacles. I’m reminded of a time long ago staying in Madrid when my girlfriend decided to try to make calamares en su tinta. The kitchen wound up looking like the site of a peculiar axe murder.

Narad, you’re right: tentacles would be much smaller.
What I was trying to get across is that calamari are tube-like structures yielding rings when cut across not what alties are representing- blobs or long string-like conglomerates blocking veins/ arteries
( but I managed to get ‘strings’ in).

I think some of this is a confluence of several nutty conspiracy theories prevalent on the right these days, depopulation so the elites can, what, pick their own fruit and plant their own crops and do the drudge work they are now happy to pay others to do. I mean non of these ever stand up to critical thinking.

Though I do think much of this is tied closely to great replacement nonsense, the right are obsessed by sperm counts in white men and often blame vaccines among other things, such as feminisation of men for a lack of (white) babies. Tucker in not the only one tanning his testicles. Anthony Watts often goes on about this stuff – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/21/spermageddon/ – despite us just passing 8 billion with an expected 10.6 by the end of the centaury.

In particular, Big Pharma hugely increases its profits by killing off most of its customer base.

I’m wondering if the world elite are going to empty their own bins in this utopia they’re creating.

See also “Sea-steaders” who think they will homestead the ocean (international waters). I don’t think they’ve managed more than a week in a shallow bay before the whole thing sank, literally.
They have the practical skills of my elderly, indoor-only, front-declawed cat. (Declawed by a previous human, not me.)

@DB
One of several reasons that argument isn’t the winner skeptics seem to think it is: If the overlords did, for whatever reason, actually have a depopulation agenda, they’d certainly still try to create any profit they could in the process.

@JS
Check out Doug Rushkoff’s piece in the Guardian, “The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves from the apocalypse”, drawn from his new book Survival of the Richest. The tech billionaires aren’t trying to depopulate the globe, but they think it’s going to happen one way or the other, and they’re laying plans for it, including who’s going to do the drudge work. If there’s a lack if critical thinking going on here, it’s more on the part of those billionaires imagining how they’ll prosper post-apocalypse than anyone projecting weirdness into the agendas of the super-rich.

[Of course, the nutty CTs don’t stand up to critical thinking generally, as among other things they’re awfully self-contradictory and inconsistent if scratched even a little. But they often spring from justifiable fears, albeit in unreasonable or displaced ways, e. g. in this case the functional depravity of our oligarchs.]

Not to criticise anyone on RI BUT…
regulars should be aware that some frequent trolls are not all-good-in-the-head whilst others are contrarians seeking sport. I have no idea where to draw that line and won’t name anyone BUT..
I think that it’s often apparent. If someone interacts with one of the former, they will probably get nowhere educating them although lurkers and regulars benefit from their information .
Some people persistently resist reality- no matter how well it is represented and explained.

Regulars here try different approaches and that may actually be useful- like Good Cop/ Bad Cop- something might sink in- although that is probably quite a rarity. One person might carefully and respectfully explain errors and another might be rougher and express themself quite roughly but accurately. Some might vary their responses. Notice that Orac does different things. I have no idea which- if any- works. It is possible that there may be merit in labeling the unreal beliefs as unreal. I don’t think it wrong to call bad ideas “stupid”.

Personally, I don’t interact with anyone I believe has serious problems and/ or is vicious or disrespectful. That’s a choice. ( Also therapists usually get paid) Others may find calling these actions out is correct. Fire away.

I heard some of a podcast my better half was listening to; “Offline with Jon Favreau” (the ex-Obama staffer, not the filmmaker) that’s relevant here. The episode was titled “How To Talk Your Uncle Out of QAnon” and the guest expert was Beth Goldberg of Jigsaw, the “misinformation-tackling” group sponsored by Google. Despite the title, it’s not just about QAnon, but conspiracy theories generally: election denialism and antivax also being noted in the elaborating blurb. Nothing she said hasn’t been mentioned in comments here, if not in Orac’s posts, but she seems to have an empirical base of practical expertise, rather than just theorizing.

It’s on Youtube: https://youtu.be/m5HRQ8Y38sc

Signal moment (21:15 in): Favreau asks, “What are some strategies that DON’T work.” And Goldberg immediately says — like it’s the most important thing to understand — “Facts don’t work.” I shall leave the curious to check out her elaboration and follow up comments on what does work at the link. But her remarks are consistent with what I’ve often suggested here: that people embrace conspiracy theories for psychological reasons that have nothing directly/literally to do with the subject — “the facts” — of the issue at hand…

Facts don’t work for those who’ve full-on embraced conspiracy theories. Facts are, however, useful to inoculate those who might be inclined to believe against conspiracy theories as well as those who’ve started to believe but haven’t gone too far down the rabbit hole yet.

I agree. Ridicule doesn’t work with diehard believers, but mocking the ridiculousness of a conspiracy theory can work to dissuade those susceptible to it who consider themselves very reasonable.

Assertion against the available evidence. I haven’t anyone who actually works with CT leaners who may still be persuadable endorse ridicule as a tactic. On the contrary, virtually all of them emphasize empathy/compassion/etc.

As has might observe, YOU might want to avoid ridicule, because you’re generally a rational ‘normie’, but other people operate on different psychological mechanics.

What can be said for pointing and laughing is that used skillfully it can be a useful tool for mobilizing opposition to conspiracy movements, e. g. if you look at the history of war propaganda, the messages used to rally the troops or the homefront are very different than those directed at the enemy troops.

Vax trolls have been doing ridicule for years–it’s the most rudimentary social engineering trick in the book. It’s working so well that opposition to vaccines is proliferating by the minute. When the best argument you can come up with always involves ridicule, people eventually start to notice. Keep up the good work.

You are confused. The ridicule comes after we realize you are immune to facts.

We’ve thoroughly roasted Ginny with a splendid reality sauce, but all she notices is the dash of ridicule.

Poor turkey.

What the hell is a vax troll? Trolls are loons (see likeness in mirror) who are ostracized and expelled from society and lash out as a result.

Vaccines are the NORM.

So what do you call the armies of people paid to defend and promote vaccines online? Surely you’re not claiming pharma companies don’t utilize one of the cheapest and most effective persuasion tactics around.

Lol, ain’t no one paying me, Ginny. At least not to comment here. (I do get paid for my real job, like most people.)

That’s some IMAX-level projection.

So Julian Frost and Justatech ARE claiming the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t utilize one of the cheapest and most effective means of public persuasion there is.

With a claim that preposterous, I think you need to justify it. Why wouldn’t the industry use it? Conscience, maybe–they have an ethical objection to covert manipulation? Lol.

@Ginny Stoner They are saying that people disagreeing with you are not paid by pharma. Are you paid by trial lawyers ? Very simple way to stop thinking.

Personally, I think most of the trolls are best described as attention seekers. Whether that spills into a psychological disorder, I am not willing to guess. There is a difference between thinking patterns that are pathological and motivated reasoning, but that can be hard to separate with the written word.

As such, I tend to give them as little attention as I am able. When I do respond, it is often a single post pointing out the errors in their claims. I try my hardest to not get into long back and forths with them, as that is what they are looking for.

Being in the antipodes (and the way this website currently works) helps as most of the action happens while I am not looking.

Psychologists who interact with the truly delusional- like Xavier Amador- suggest always including realism/ criticism because the person may be silently questioning their unrealistic belief and you’re supporting their doubt, perhaps helping them change rather than going along with their mistaken beliefs or ignoring the issue.

I’m not saying that trolls are delusional but a few I’ve seen may be approaching that boundary.
I ask do they really believe this crap or are they merely trying to save face after being identified with it ?

The point is that belief is irrelevant to the function of the expression. We assume, falsely, that a statement of a conspiracy theory is a secondary outcome of a belief. But the performance of the expression itself — what it DOES, e. g. the social position it evidences, rather than the truth value of any proposition of fact it states – is the central point. Think of it as extreme trolling absorbed into the subconscious rather than cognitively self-aware prankery.

So, I’d say it’s a related yet different phenomena from delusion — which I would define as pathologically false actual belief — though the border between them may be somewhat fluid.

If the CT afflicted are something other than delusional, that might help explain why asserting “reality” backfires with them in ways it may not with the actually deluded. To echo commenter has, performing a CT is about empowerment (where being delusional is about something else), so that results in a different nature of internal and external defense.

Very creative, how you took a derogatory label and had a long pseudo-intellectual conversation with yourself about “what it means.” It’s a label designed to denigrate anyone who believes that particular theory–that’s it.

If you want some deep puzzle of human nature to figure out, ask how so many people could blindly agree to inject their children with a vaccine that’s only been around a few years, based solely on the recommendation of apparent authority, with no independent discernment whatsoever.

The ‘CT’ label is routinely used by people who don’t know squat about whatever particular ‘CT’ they’re denigrating–literally, almost invariably, don’t even know the basic factual claims on which it’s based.

But some masters of manipulation convinced them that putting others down with the label “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theorist” makes them look smart, so they run with it.

Oh, but I do know a lot about the various CTs under discussion here, individually and collectively, having examined them for over two decades.

I seem to have struck a nerve with Ginny. despite not addressing her specifically, and despite eschewing any Dr. Joel-type attacks for rather blasé analytical prose. Oh, she’s happy to banter with the regulars on the ‘facts’ of vaccines, because that reinforces her constructed persona as ‘speaker of alternative Truth’. But to suggest, as I have, that this construction has no relationship to Truth whatsoever, but an action serving as elaborate metaphor for addressing some hidden psychological distress — that it’s all a facade – that seems to gnaw at her.

I could point and laugh at her reference to “the basic factual claims” on which CTs are based, or her appearing to argue that using the phrase “conspiracy theory” at all is somehow out-of-bounds – as opposed to averring ‘well that might be true of kooks like flat-earthers or moon-landing truthers, but if you look at my data you’ll see I’M rooted in empirical reality.’ But I see these remarks as ‘tells’. After all, I was responding to Denice’s comment about the psychology of the truly delusional, suggesting that conspiracy theory is different – neither category would necessarily apply to Ginny – so her response indicates she does indeed identify herself as a ‘conspiracy theorist’, merely objecting to the pejorative spin she takes the term to evoke.

I wonder if Ginny might intuit at some level that her antivax obsession is an image like the Great and Terrible Oz, and fears there is indeed some other lost spirit pulling the levers behind curtains in her head, behind which she cannot bear to look.

Sadmar, I sense you have a deep dread that your life has been pointless–which is at odds with your profound sense of intellectual superiority. This conflict has led to a lot of desperate pseudo-intellectual ramblings online about why you are better than everyone else.

Conspiracy theory is that if everybody disagrees with you, it must be a conspiracy. Better explanation would be that you are wrong.CTs iindeed make you look stupid.

The famous Sir Paul Nurse –James Dellingpole interview
text

Dellingpole is a UK journalist and climate change denier. IMHO, he also is a terrible novelist from tho one novel I tried to read.

“with a XXXXXX that’s only been around a few years, based solely on the recommendation of apparent authority, with no independent discernment whatsoever”

Covid denial theories and covid vaccine injury theories have only been around for the same amount of time but you appear to have no problem with those apparent authorities, especially since you think that you are one of them. I spy with my little eye……. a lack of independent discernment.

Ryan Cole, the Idaho pathologist who claimed to see huge increases in cancers in his practice due to Covid-19 vaccination, is highly indignant at Dr. Burnett’s skillful takedown of “Died Suddenly”‘s claims about blood clots. Cole has seen, like, a gazillion blood clots in performing mega-billions of autopsies, and he assures us that the stuff shown in “Died Suddenly” is for real, man!!**

Except it isn’t.

I’ve dissected a shit-ton* of organs and long ago learned to recognize the difference between post-mortem clots and clinically significant ones (if there’s doubt, competent histologic examination should remove it). The ones shown in the video are consistent with post-mortem clots. It’s a basic skill that the average second-year pathology resident should have acquired.

*a shit-ton is less than mega-billions, but still more than ample for the purpose.
**this hilarious point-counterpoint is playing out on Steve Kirsch’s Substack, for the morbidly curious.

Why is a dermatopathologist doing mega-billions of autopsies?

I agree that the clots in question are post-mortem. I saw a “shit-ton” of clots when we had a contract with our coroner’s service to do autopsies. We relinquished the contract with gratitude when the coroner’s service was re-organized.

To be precise, Cole says he’s done “countless autopsies”, which is a lot any way you slice it (or breadloaf* it).

Even more intriguingly, Cole claims to have “diagnosed over 500,000 patients through the microscope, in my extensive career”. Seeing that his CV notes that his career as an “independent pathologist” began in 2004, that would mean that he’s signed out approximately 27,778 cases a year over that time. Note that the average general surgical pathologist might see 2,500 to 5,000 cases annually (!). Even if we’re being unduly generous and counting the years Cole apparently spent in residency and fellowship training, that would mean him diagnosing 20,000 cases annually since getting into pathology, or about four times the signout workload of the busiest surgical pathologists.

One wonders if the stress of such mighty responsibilities (in addition to myriad other job duties) might explain Cole’s, er, _novel_findings of extraordinary increases in endometrial and skin cancers since Covid-19 vaccination began. An alternate explanation is that he’s pulling those case numbers out of his lower G.I. tract.

*inside pathology joke.

CDC says, “The year 2021 saw the highest death rate since 2003…”

It’s higher by far than 2003. 2003 wasn’t even a record year for deaths–death rate was 844 per 100k.

The year 2021 saw the highest death rate ever since at least 1999–I’m not sure about before that. That’s according to the CDC’s own data.

Death rate in 2020 was 1027 per 100,000, and in 2021 it was 1050 per 100,000–the highest it’s ever been. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/10/23/a-million-excess-deaths-in-the-us-in-2020-amp-2021

If covid was so deadly why did the vaccine makers need to get immunity from litigation to make the vaccine? Surely if it was that deadly it would be in there best interest to pursue creating one. Why was immunity given to vaccine makers if our government is concerned about the general public? No product produced to the public should ever be given immunity from litigation it’s a license to kill.
If the vaccine is so safe why hasn’t the immunity from litigation been rescinded?

A PREP act declaration was issued for all pandemic countermeasures, not just vaccines. Testing and medications are also covered. The rationale is that without it, manufacturers would hesitate to put products on the market fast enough for the needs of the pandemic – because there’s uncertainty.

But the evidence shows high levels of safety for the vaccines.

What we do need to do is have a better compensation system to accompany the liability protections.

To be a bit cynical, the USA in known to be one of, if not the most, medically litigious country in the world. I don’t know about domestic pharmaceutical companies but foreign ones would likely not want to do any work in the USA under these emergency conditions without that protection.

Unfortunately here in the UK mixed messages circulated on this issue causing all manner of confusion. The NHS material stated that the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine had gone through the same level of safety checks etc which all licensed medicines have to go through.

“Like all vaccines, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine had to meet strict standards of safety and
effectiveness before it was approved for use in the UK. It has gone through the same
extensive clinical trials and safety checks that all licensed medicines have to complete”.

Members of the public realising that indemnities are not usually routinely given for vaccines might be legitimately puzzled as to why, if the same routine standards of safety, efficacy and efficiency are being maintained, an indemnity or any form of special agreement/undertaking would be necessary for the vaccine.

However, the Participant Information Sheet provided to Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine trial participants reinforces Dorit Reiss’s point ie due to the emergency situation where speed was essential, some of the tests normally required for a new vaccine were “modified”, something which explains the need for indemnities and /or specialised paperwork/forms of authorisation.

“Due to the urgent
need for a vaccine against COVID-19, with agreement from the MHRA, some of the tests usually
required for a newly manufactured vaccine have been modified, in order to make the vaccine available
more quickly for assessment in this clinical trial.”

What’s not helpful, irrespective of anyone’s outlook or stance on vaccination, is the mixed messages.

I fully endorse Dorit Reiss’s point in that what appears to be needed the world over is better compensation systems to help the unfortunate few who sadly become adversely affected by vaccines, something that should be in place irrespective of the indemnification status (or otherwise) of any vaccine.

Donna, I’m not sure what the legal situation is in the US but here in the UK an indemnity for a vaccine only means that any legal actions brought against the manufacturer/financial losses/penalties incurred etc etc in respect of their product are covered by the Government not the manufacturer.

You can raise a claim in respect of an indemnified product, it’s just the liability for losses/costs incurred which shifts from the manufacturer to the party issuing the indemnity.

One of the problems we have as commenters is knowing who our audience is: are they sceptics ( as in Dr Novella & Co, not “vaccine sceptics”), anti-vaxxers, the unaffiliated or random lurkers who came across an interesting title by Orac?
Many visitors stop reading after the OP. Large numbers** never comment although occasionally one might say ” long time reader, first time commenter”. Anti-vaxxer/ altie leaders portray Orac as a “paid shill” and “know-nothing” so their followers may check in to attack him. The same message won’t affect different readers the same so we have to choose our battles.

I think it’s important to always supply factual information and its sources. Alties/ anti-vaxxers automatically reject Wikipedia and US/ UK/ EU governmental agencies. They are also very suspicious of most media which are “bought and paid for by pharma”.
But convincing them should not be our prime aim whilst informing allies and people ‘not yet sufficiently informed’ IS. I try to explain how alties function- including their backgrounds, methods and business plans- to illustrate their motives and income sources. This is very important because they often masquerade as humanitarians, charities, investigative reporters, educators, whistle blowers, scientists and all-around saviours. Every single person I write about has some sort of charity or works for one.

It is also informative to read comments on altie sites/ hear phoned in testimonials. Of course, critiques are usually filtered out but
the level of adoration and using them as role models is staggering. Probably only the most enthralled are moved enough to comment but followers often seem quite unrealistic.

** Orac has a large number of readers as shown in legitimate sources that I won’t quote for now

They weren’t just “80 Canadian Doctors”, they were “80 Young Canadian Doctors”.

Except that many on the list were in their 50s and 60s.

https://twitter.com/michaelpbreton/status/1584873092009975808/photo/1

Lying about “young” doctors was justified in one Substack brain fart by claiming that since doctors commonly work into their 60s and beyond, it’s legitimate to refer to ones that age as “young”.

You can’t make up shit this dumb, or invent people dumb enough to believe it.

I have no medical/science training and other than never having any so called flu vax had all other vaccinations and so all my children. I never did oppose any vaccinations even so my eldest son in 1990 ended up in a children hospital and the doctors warned my (then) wife and I we may have to prepare for a funeral. He had just been vaccinated. He pulled through and after that we trusted the medical profession nevertheless and never questioned any vaccinations. In October 2019 my wife attended to her heart specialist to find out the results of the (expensive privately paid) test and well he indicated nothing to worry about. Just that 8 days later I held my wife better attend to a hospital and so did. The doctor gave me the understanding that a mere few hours later and she likely would have been death had I not taken her to hospital due to heart failure. She ended up in ICU and was for 10 days in hospital. I was never interested in medical issues before but now my wife’s life depended upon me investigating it. Then covid claims commence and well I held I should investigate. Over time I gained a lot of knowledge albeit it did not in any shape or form make me to be a specialist in medical/science issues. Then my wife’s specialist advised her (and me –even so I was never a patient and he neither knew my health status) to better get vaccinated. I asked him how the vaccination would affect my wife’s heart failure and order comorbidities and he responded he didn’t know. He did claim to be the head of a Department of a major Hospital and so knew what he was recommending even so he didn’t know how it would affect my wife. My wife never again went back to him. She attended to other specialist and they too were making recommendations because of “hospital policies” but when I asked them to explain how it could affect my wife they too made known not to know this as they merely followed “hospital policy”. My wife gave them the mist also. She last week became 90 and well she is glad that despite my lack of training in medical/science I can use “common sense” and kept her alive. I was informed that one of my grandsons ended up with AUTISM after childhood vaccination and now doing my research discovered how deadly some vaccinations can be. I never had a flu vaccination because I just held I did better without and proved to be so. I do not accept this so called covid vaccine to be anything but a scam as Dr Fauci himself in 2019 made clear to use a scaremongering to get the gene therapy as a vaccine. This doesn’t make me to be some anti-vax conspiracy theorist because of simply using “common sense” to decide to accept or not to accept some alleged vaccine. I didn’t use any mask in 2020, 2021 and 2022 and had no fear to communicate with others and view to be better for it. I read a considerable part of your post and well most seems to be mere “your opinion” rather than showing FACTS. Like many “fact checkers” do to give their “OPINION” while claiming to be checking and presenting FACTS.
Let me give you an example that often is misguided by many. As I understand it Pfizer in its material warns against injecting the so called vax into the bloodstream as it must only be injected in to the muscle area. Yet, other than videos of Taiwan I watched numerous videos where you see medical staff not bothering to aspirate (pulling the plunger to see if blood is drawn) and so they may then wrongly inject into the vein instead of the muscle and then can cause immediate problems to the patient. Meaning it is the gross incompetence of injection that may cause a lot of harm rather than had the injection been into the muscle area. Basically see how a medical staff seeks to inject a person. If the medical staff has the thumb on the plunger before injecting the needle then more than likely the medical staff will not aspirate. When people are jabbed while sitting behind the steering wheel and then collapse before being able to drive to the other side of the carpark surely should underline that there is a lack of proper protocol compliance and that can cause a lot of uncalled harm. So much more to state but this should be plenty for now.

@G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.:

Your age (you mentioned that your wife is 90 so I suppose you are close to her in age) definitely brought you a lot of wisdom!!! Your comment is the best comment in this entire thread. Thank you for your opinion. Stay healthy and keep on learning!

Also thanks for mentioning flu vaccines. Unlike you, I took the flu vaccine once, which made me sick initially, but a few weeks later I had the worst flu of my life. At least I learned my lesson. No more flu vaccines and no more flu for me for years thereafter. I actually miss having a normal flu.

The flu vaccine experience I had was what initially opened my mind to the possibility that “vaccines” need to be treated with suspicion. Promotion of profitable, but utterly useless and harmful flu vaccines would not happen had our vaccination authorities been honest.

Now the CDC presentation for Oct 20 ACIP meeting showed that “hospitalization prevention effectiveness” of flu vaccine was MINUS three percent for over-65, and very close to zero for younger ages! Despite that, crooks like “Ashish Jha” and “Rochelle Walensky” continue pushing their flu vax while illogically scaring people with RSV, for which no vaccine exists, but I guess suckers are not paying close attention.

The flu vaccine experience I had was what initially opened my mind to the possibility that “vaccines” need to be treated with suspicion. Promotion of profitable, but utterly useless and harmful flu vaccines would not happen had our vaccination authorities been honest

No set of lies to low for you eh Igor?

“Your age (you mentioned that your wife is 90 so I suppose you are close to her in age) definitely brought you a lot of wisdom!!!”

And his oldest child was born in 1990, which would have made her 58 years old when she gave birth to him. That is quite remarkable!

I have no medical/science training

something quite apparent from use of the phrase “gene therapy as a vaccine.”
As a virtual sign I saw, perhaps originally hereabouts, said “Those who think that the COVID-19 vaccine will modify their DNA should see it as an opportunity.”

The mRNA vaccines are not “gene therapy.” Getting vaccinated will result in a change in a tiny amount of the recipient’s DNA through a process called somatic hypermutation. That’s a good thing. It is a feature of the adaptive immune system that allows B cells to “learn” and “remember” how make highly specific antibodies without the heritable genome of the recipient having contain the code for each potential antibody. It happens with every new antigen to which the adaptive immune system responds, no matter where that antigen came from. “Common sense” does not make up for a lack of requisite fundamental knowledge.

By the way, SARS-CoV-2 essentially is mRNA and when it infects cells it makes those cells make 10 more subgenomic mRNAs that are required to make the proteins the virus needs to replicated.
Vaccine – one mRNA coding for one protein
SARS-CoV-2 – a total of 11 mRNAs coding for 29 proteins

@Lucas: The link I posted has COVID death rate graphs by vaccination status for the USA, Switzerland and Chile. The one for the USA is for ages 50+, but the other two are for all ages. All three show the same pattern and the death rate in all of the graphs is far higher overall for the unvaccinated.

Here’s the link again, in case you missed it:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “Now the CDC presentation for Oct 20 ACIP meeting showed that “hospitalization prevention effectiveness” of flu vaccine was MINUS three percent for over-65, and very close to zero for younger ages!”

As usual you display your IMMENSE IGNORANCE. The -3 is followed by a 95% Confidence Interval of -54 to 31. Quite simply the “true value” could be anywhere in that range, which includes up to 31, a positive outcome, thus, the -3 is totally statistically insignificant and, thus, meaningless. For the younger ages:

18, 11 is given together with a 95% Confidence Interval of -19 to 33, thus actually more on the positive side.

18-64, 26 is given with a 95% Confidence Interval of -14 to 52, thus again more on the positive side.

So, in essence no one who understands science can make such ludicrous claims as you do.

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

Thank you for looking at the ACIP presentation! There were numerous presentations of various vaccines for that ACIP meeting — and all highlighted huge failings of vaccines, from Covid vax in pregnancy, to flu vax, to the developing “chikungunya” vaccine.

Going back to the flu vaccines, for all ages the adjusted effectiveness was STATISTICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ZERO (and negative for old people).

That’s a huge fail!

Promoting such non–working, unproven treatments like flu vaccine is called medical quackery by definition of medical quackery (quackery is promotion of untested and non-working treatments)

Now you can take a look at Slide 32 and 33 of CDC presentation for the same meeting, titled: COVID-19 in pregnant people and infants ages 0-5
months

Please explain to me why miscarriage rate for Moderna injected pregnant women is 43% higher than for Pfizer injected women, and infant death rate is 93% higher for Moderna injected pregnant women?

The answer is obvious: Moderna is higher dose and we are seeing a dose-response relationship.

I worked out all the P values for two-sample tests, huge statistical significance

Going back to the flu vaccines, for all ages the adjusted effectiveness was STATISTICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ZERO (and negative for old people).

Small sample sizes aside (which contribute to wide CIs), if you claim the effectiveness was indistinguishable from 0 you cannot, with any claim of knowing WTF you’re doing, say they were negative. You clearly have no understanding of statistics (and don’t give the bullshit that you “worked out p-values, you’re clearly not capable of that).

One more comment, slide 34:

No increased risk of
spontaneous abortion (SAB)
after COVID-19 vaccination
during pregnancy.

Your abilities with reading are as crappy as your general honesty igor.

@Igor Chudov You notice the error interval. It is so huge that you should say that we have no data.

But we do have data. Based on 1,175 patients! That’s a lot more than 8 mice for the Covid bivalent trial.

The data shows that flu vaccine effectiveness is statistically indistinguishable from zero, and for over 65, is negative (and also indistinguishable from zero).

The data shows flu vaccine does not work and is therefore a QUACK TREATMENT. People promoting medical quackery and quack treatments are called charlatans.

Why should I trust these quacks and charlatans? Of course I do not trust them. That’s your basic critical thinking right here for you.

Igor:

<

blockquote>The data shows that flu vaccine effectiveness is statistically indistinguishable from zero, and for over 65, is negative (and also indistinguishable from zero).

<

blockquote>

You are showing your lack of understanding once again. If the CI contains zero that is equivalent to a two-sided test where the null hypothesis (with parameter = 0) isn’t rejected. You cannot say, and expect to be taken seriously, that a CI shows non-significance and then say “but it has negative values”.

Take an effing year 1 stat class.

Igor reminds me of someone who commented quite a lot on COVID articles on the CBC website. He like to pretend he was very adept at math. I once suggested that he frequently left the i out of some term in his calculations. His reply was that he didn’t understand why -1 should be included. Ψ

You should give a opy to your link. There is mine:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34670062/
.” Among women with miscarriages, the adjusted odds ratios for Covid-19 vaccination were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.10) for vaccination in the previous 3 weeks and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.95) for vaccination in the previous 5 weeks (Table 1). The results were similar in an analysis that included all available vaccine types (Table S5)”
One paper CDC referred

@ Donna

You write: “If covid was so deadly why did the vaccine makers need to get immunity from litigation to make the vaccine? Surely if it was that deadly it would be in there best interest to pursue creating one. Why was immunity given to vaccine makers if our government is concerned about the general public? No product produced to the public should ever be given immunity from litigation it’s a license to kill.
If the vaccine is so safe why hasn’t the immunity from litigation been rescinded?”
Going back five decades to a lawsuit brought claiming that a polio vaccination caused paralysis, Reyes v. Wyeth laboratories (1974). On average each year around 20,000 cases of permanent paralysis was caused by polio with absolutely no treatment. A number of experts testified that it was a case of natural polio; but the jury decided differently and awarded million of dollars to the plaintiff. Even if one believes the vaccine was responsible, a few such awards would put a vaccine manufacturer out of business and given literally millions of doses of polio vaccine were given preventing 20,000 or more cases, a very few lawsuits would end vaccinations and the result would be 20,000 cases from natural polio vs maybe at most 5 or less from the vaccine. Another example is smallpox vaccine. During a smallpox epidemic 25% or more of population would die. It was found that the smallpox vaccine actually killed between 1 and 2 per million vaccinations and caused around a dozen cases of generalize or progressive vaccinia, extremely unpleasant week or so with lifetime scarring. So, for every one million vaccinations, 250,000 lives were saved vs 1 or 2 deaths and dozen cases of suffering. Given population at time, would have meant around 150 to 200 deaths. Lawsuits would certainly have put the companies out of business. The bottom line lawsuits would result in exponentially more deaths and suffering without vaccinations. No company could stay in business and, nope, raising the costs of the vaccines would have significantly reduced their usage.

However, while lawsuits are not generally allowed against the manufacturing companies, the US government created the vaccine court. Anyone who believes they were harmed by a vaccine can bring a case before the court. In addition, the court pays for the plaintiffs lawyers and witnesses. Though if they win the lawyers just get their hourly reasonable fees rather than percentage of payment, resulting in a number of law firms specializing in such cases. The Vaccine Court has a list of adverse outcomes that if they occur automatically accept from the vaccine even if not the case. However, plaintiffs can still bring a case based on adverse events not on the list. The payments are quite generous.
In addition, one can directly sue the manufacturer if they deviated from the vaccine manufacturing protocol accepted by the FDA; e.g., contamination, improper storage, etc. And after first going through the vaccine court one can still then sue the manufacturer.
So, while direct lawsuits not allowed, compensation for vaccine adverse events does exist. Given that vaccines are given to large segments of population and even the safest best medicines can on rare occasions affect a few individuals, the current program is quite logical, simply save many lives, many from suffering, many hospitalizations, etc with the rare risk of adverse events being compensated for.
Of course for antivaxxers, despite overwhelming evidence from around the world, vaccines don’t do much if anything and cause harm far outweighing the actual diseases. Given that antivaxxers have shown over and over their lack of knowledge of immunology, thus how vaccines work and their lack of knowledge of the history of vaccine-preventable diseases, nothing will sway them.
Just one example. As mentioned smallpox killed 25% or more of a population. The WHO began around 1968 a program to end smallpox since it only has a human reservoir. It went from country to country with its vaccinations and smallpox ended in each country. We are talking about extremely poor nations in Africa and Asia as smallpox vaccination had already ended smallpox in Europe, North and South America. Nothing else changed in these nations; e.g., cleaner water, better nutrition, etc; but smallpox ended. Up to the WHO campaign an estimated 300 million people in the Third World died from smallpox in the 20th Century alone.
References:
Wikipedia. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Wikipedia. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
Robyn Correll, MPH (2021 May 2). What Is the Vaccine Court? Verywell health.

Skeptical Raptor (2022 Nov 3). Vaccine court myths – instead, here are facts about the NVICP

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “f you want some deep puzzle of human nature to figure out, ask how so many people could blindly agree to inject their children with a vaccine that’s only been around a few years, based solely on the recommendation of apparent authority, with no independent discernment whatsoever.”

“No independent discernment???”

First, a while back I did a search of PubMed, National Library of Medicines online database. I found more than several hundred thousand articles on Messenger RNA going back to its discovery in 1960s. I also found more than 70 articles on development of mRNA vaccines going back to 1990s, including one developed for SARS. It was successful in animal, phase 1 and phase 2 trials; but since SARS disappeared a phase 3 clinical trial could not be carried out; but they did give the vaccine to several different animal species known to be susceptible to SARS and then gave them a massive deadly dose and all survived. The current mRNA vaccines went through all phases of clinical trials with minimum of two months follow-up, given that all we know about vaccine adverse events is they will occur in less than two months following vaccination. The clinical trials for Moderna and Pfizer were published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 20 and 31st 2020. Since then there have been clinical trials, cohort studies, adverse events studies conducted by nations around the world.

So, what do you mean by “no independent discernment???” That people like you who don’t understand immunology, virology, etc haven’t been consulted? As usual, delusions of grandeur. You are amusing???

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “Going back to the flu vaccines, for all ages the adjusted effectiveness was STATISTICALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ZERO (and negative for old people).”

I guess you don’t understand that the sample size was far too small to arrive at a valid conclusion. And you ignore that the negative for old people had such a wide confidence interval that it was meaningless.

You write: “Promoting such non–working, unproven treatments like flu vaccine is called medical quackery by definition of medical quackery (quackery is promotion of untested and non-working treatments)”

Actually studies of flu vaccine go back many decades. The effectiveness of the vaccines depended on how close to the actual strains of current flu the vaccine were. Some years effectiveness was quite good. Given your level of ignorance you certainly don’t understand that the vaccines are based on usually southern hemisphere flu, given it occurs usually six months prior to northern hemispheres. And in many instances the northern vaccine is close enough to reduce severe disease percentages, hospitalizations and deaths; but flu vaccine is not one of the most effective vaccines; but reducing risk is still better than nothing.

You write: “Please explain to me why miscarriage rate for Moderna injected pregnant women is 43% higher than for Pfizer injected women, and infant death rate is 93% higher for Moderna injected pregnant women? The answer is obvious: Moderna is higher dose and we are seeing a dose-response relationship.”

The miscarriage for Pfizer was 3.3% and for Moderna was 4.7%; but what you fail to understand, given your immense ignorance, is that:

“Research suggests that between 10% and 20% of women with a medically confirmed pregnancy will end in miscarriage. Eighty percent of these will occur during the first trimester. The further along a pregnancy is, the lower the risk of miscarriage. Since many women who get pregnant do not track their periods, they may already be a few weeks along—possibly more than halfway through the first trimester—by the time the pregnancy is confirmed. Since the majority of miscarriages occur within the first 12 weeks of gestation, the risk of pregnancy loss after 12 weeks drops dramatically, to between 3% and 4%.”
[Krissi Danielsson (2022 Oct 25). Making Sense of Miscarriage Statistics: What Conflicting Research Really Means. verywell family.]

So, we don’t know how far along the women were; but between 10 and 20% will have miscarriages, far higher than either Pfizer or Moderna and even if they were after 12 weeks, both close to between 3 and 4%. You just don’t understand that any small sample such as those in clinical vaccine trials will vary, so that neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna exhibit more than a chance variation.

I could refute with logic and science everything you write; but it would be a waste of time given your lack of understanding of vaccines, vaccine-preventable disease history, statistics, etc. It is obvious what your rigid bias is. And you’ve never answered my simple question as to your education. What is it? If not immunology, microbiology, etc. have you actually read any undergraduate textbooks on the subjects?

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

I understand the thing about Southern hemisphere — but in the end the flu vax does not work and the CDC just confirmed it — and yet they still push it for no reason other than greed, wanting to keep vaccine production continued nonstop, and institutional inertia.

Re: miscarriages. The rates of miscarriage are tricky to calculate and by definition miscarriages occur only in the first 20 weeks. The risk of miscarriage drops quickly as pregnancy progresses. The 3 or 4% numbers in the CDC presentation are miscarriages for ALL pregnancies, even if women were vaxed in third trimester. It is a wrong denominator.

The presentation was compiled by inexperienced people who did not realize the damning nature of Slide 32 and 33.

So Moderna is much more dangerous for pregnant women that Pfizer, due to higher dose. No surprise here to see a dose response relationship.

The presentation was compiled by inexperienced people who did not realize the damning nature of Slide 32 and 33.

Right. People employed by the CDC with access to statisticians and scientists don’t understand the results, but you, some dishonest uneducated schlub, do. You are really pathetic.

@Dangerous Baconsays:
“Any more goalposts you’d like me to shift for you?”

What I’d like to look into is the data on (weekly or monthly) mortality by vaccination status (no base rate bias). I’m most interested in recent data (april 2022 up to now), no doubt it’s there.
I want to mainly see if there’s any significant difference between both statuses.
I’m not really into vaccine related subjects lately, whilst it seems you guys rise and go to bed with it. I haven’t been following the endless debates here, so I might ask a question already asked and answered.
I ask no more then to whip up the data for me (link).

@prl
“Here’s the link again, in case you missed it:”

Thanks for the link, didn’t miss it. I’m not so much interested in these covid death rate graphs, certainly not related to this topic “died suddenly” etc.
‘More in particular I want to be informed on the ‘excess deaths’ phenomenon we keep hearing about. This may or may not be related to vaccination status. Therefore my request for a link to recent data on (weekly or monthly) mortality by vaccination status (no base rate bias). You agree with me that there should be no significant difference between both groups?

Since you admittedly don’t care about “Died Suddenly” and claim you’re “not really into vaccine-related subjects”, why do you want someone else to “whip up” data for you?

Get off your butt and stop being such a lazy antivax troll.

@ Lucas

As the rate of vaccination of senior citizens and/or those with comorbidities goes up then the number of vaccinated who die will also go up. Why? Because the vaccines don’t confer perfect protection and those who are at most risk, who probably would have died without the vaccine, some will die; but some who otherwise would have died will survive. It isn’t as simple as people think and antivaxxers can misuse any statistic.

What’s more, we worked to vaccinate the most vulnerable first. These folks are the closest to death on any given day pandemic or not. These folks love to ignore this fact.

E.g.- the 88 y/o guy with copd and esrd failing dialysis who was likely to die in the next several weeks gets vaccinated. Eight days later, his potassium goes through the roof (again) this time his heart can’t take it. The vaccine had nothing at all to do with it but the “do your own research” crowd on here would probably argue otherwise.

Among non vaccinated there would be more COVID deaths. There is data for you
ttps://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
It was not difficult to find

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “I understand the thing about Southern hemisphere — but in the end the flu vax does not work and the CDC just confirmed it — and yet they still push it for no reason other than greed, wanting to keep vaccine production continued nonstop, and institutional inertia.”

As I wrote and you dishonestly ignore, the effectiveness of the flu vaccine has varied over the years; but even in years where it was less effective, it still reduced some suffering.

You write: “So Moderna is much more dangerous for pregnant women that Pfizer, due to higher dose. No surprise here to see a dose response relationship.”

Bull shit. Once more you dishonestly ignore what I wrote that it was within the known range of small sample variation, etc.

You are a despicable excuse for a human being. Someone who ignore what others write and/or twists it. Someone who despite no real understanding of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, history of vaccine-preventable diseases, continues with his warped sick biased antivax position.

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “Re: miscarriages. The rates of miscarriage are tricky to calculate and by definition miscarriages occur only in the first 20 weeks. The risk of miscarriage drops quickly as pregnancy progresses. The 3 or 4% numbers in the CDC presentation are miscarriages for ALL pregnancies, even if women were vaxed in third trimester. It is a wrong denominator.”

As usual your dishonesty is incredible. As I wrote: “Since the majority of miscarriages occur within the first 12 weeks of gestation, the risk of pregnancy loss after 12 weeks drops dramatically, to between 3% and 4%.” And the slide presentation gives “Timing of first eligible COVID-19 vaccine as:

Peri-conceptional 10%, First trimester 28%, Second Trimeter 40%, Third Trimester 23%

And Pfizer and Moderna had the exact same number of stillbirths 0.2%.

So, risk of miscarriage after 12 weeks is between 3 and 4% and it is highly unlikely given the distribution of trimester subjects that only a very few were in the Third Trimester.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

There is no such thing as a “third trimester miscarriage” by definition

There is no such thing as a “third trimester miscarriage” by definition

Word games igor. Your comment is as stupid as someone saying “No, Fred didn’t die, he passed away.”

@Dangerous Bacon

So I “admittedly don’t care about “Died Suddenly”” because “I’m not really into vaccine related subjects lately”? Makes no sense, why twisting words?
Fyi I do care about what’s also going on here small scale: in my circle of acquaintances many more die than before, most of them at old age (and all vaxxed btw). Just coincidence? May be, may be not.

“Why do you want someone else to “whip up” data for you?” So why not? Since you must be a specialist on the topic, incessantly studying all vaccine related issues. Why don’t you simply help when asked?

“… stop being such a lazy antivax troll.” First, why don’t you quit this overly childish expression? Then tell me, would you change camps (pro- to antivaxx) if data revealed that this mortality has relatively been way higher in the vaccinated?
Well I would get vaxxed to infinity and beyond if data showed that excess mortality is in the unvaccinated. I’m not really antivaxx yet, just like you will not be provaxx as long as you don’t know what you’re really talking about. If you think you do, please be so kind to share the data I asked for – I need recent data.
Would you convert based on just lies or fear or shame for being labelled ‘antivaxxer’? So we need relevant data.

You call me a troll, but first think before you copy the word; ask yourself why would I want to be one? What’s there to gain?
And let’s get serious, aren’t you perhaps the troll? I mean, who wastes so much of his time and energy here if not for some dubious purpose that you don’t tell us? What’s in it for you and is that the reason why you’ve so aggressively been defending (equivalent of promoting) these vaccines from day 1?
I guess the reason – and this goes for your companion boys and girls at this forum too – has to be money related in some way, it always is. If so, it’s beyond me how one can be so amazingly foolish instead not to grab the millions that have been around since march 2020? Do ‘they’ pay you that much?

You call me a troll

You are lucas, since you toss out false concerns and fail to accept the explanations you’ve been offered.

Add to that your lack of knowledge of history (you did claim that the nazis were on the left of the political spectrum despite no evidence of that) and the clear conclusion is that you have no interest in facts, only your foolish assertions about the “undocumented dangers” and ‘coverups about those dangers’ of vaccines.

I guess the reason – and this goes for your companion boys and girls at this forum too – has to be money related in some way, it always is.

Or, you know, it’s that people here understand medicine, science, and statistics, and see through the lies you push. That, and your complete lack of integrity. Those are the actual reasons.

@ Lucas

You write: “What’s in it for you and is that the reason why you’ve so aggressively been defending (equivalent of promoting) these vaccines from day 1?”

Yep, we aggressively promote vaccines because we understand immunology, microbiology, etc, so we understand how our immune systems work and, thus, how vaccines work. And we know the history of vaccine-preventable diseases, which include protecting individuals as well as others. We also defend pasteurized milk, etc. Quite simply what you in your rigid biased ignorance call aggressive is simply anyone who relies on the science.

It is you who continue to post your idiotic dishonest position.

“I need recent data.”

Then look it up yourself, lazy troll.

“I mean, who wastes so much of his time and energy here if not for some dubious purpose that you don’t tell us?”

So why are you spending so much time JAQing off here? What’s your ulterior motive? Can Pharma be paying you that much to cast FUD on vaccines, so that they profit way more off the sick and terminally ill? Makes sense, since the average hospital charge for treating complex Covid-19 cases runs from about $240,000 to over $450,000, much of that spent on prescription drugs and other Pharma products.

http://beckershospitalreview.com/finance/average-charge-for-covid-19-hospitalization-by-state.html

Meantime, reimbursements to Covid-19 vaccine makers are only a tiny fraction of those amounts, and soon to go down much further (Moderna anticipates a $60 Medicare reimbursement for its shot in the near future).

Do the math. Big Pharma needs lots of vaccine-avoidant people who disproportionately get severely ill, boo$tiing Pharma profits. Is that why you’re on the payroll? 😉

@ Igor Chudovv

You write: “There is no such thing as a “third trimester miscarriage” by definition”

From one of several websites:

“Third Trimester Miscarriages
A miscarriage usually refers to the spontaneous loss of a baby developing within the mother’s wombm The main cause for a miscarriage is chromosomal defects in the developing baby, right from fertilizationo The working of the human body is astonishing as it has the ability to differentiate between normal babies and babies with deformities or abnormal growth patternsn Most babies with genetic disorders are expelled by the body itself, as early as the initial weeks of pregnancyc However, in a few cases, the pregnancy progresses and the body expels the baby at a much later gestational age, resulting in a miscarriage in the third trimester. Symptoms of Third Trimester Miscarriage
Third trimester miscarriages are usually referred to as stillbirths or preterm deliveries that result in the loss of the baby due to its inability to survive outside the mother’s body.”

[Pregnancy Baby Care. Symptoms, Causes, and Tips to Avoid Third Trimester Miscarriages]

So, while they may be called stillbirths or preterm deliveries, according to several websites they are also considered miscarriages. Notice the title of the article!

You just keep MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF, SOMETHING YOU ARE AN EXPERT AT! ! !

@ Igor Chudov

Definitions:

Miscarriage: “The spontaneous, premature expulsion of a nonviable embryo or fetus from the uterus’

Stillbirth: “The birth of a dead infant” “The birth of a lifeless thing; also, a still-born child”

So, while the majority of websites use stillbirth for third trimester, a few also use miscarriage and “nonviable” vs “lifeless” just slightly different. Good example of your mentality, rather than actually looking at issues, looking for minor details that don’t really play a role.

It is people like you who are partly responsible for our over one million deaths. Other nations who practiced masking, physical distancing, etc at onset of pandemic and then mass vaccinations experienced far fewer deaths. Had we done the same our deaths would have been probably less than 200,000 as opposed to over a million. While vaccines don’t confer complete protection if everyone is vaccinated then fewer virions will be transmitted and especially vaccinated seniors and/or those with comorbidities would be less at risk. Studies find that those vaccinated transmit fewer virions and also that some of the virions are either dead or damaged. Someday you may have to look in the mirror and wonder how many suffered and died who listened to the likes of you.

@ Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

Thanks for your reply.

“As the rate of vaccination of senior citizens and/or those with comorbidities goes up then the number of vaccinated who die will also go up. Why? Because the vaccines don’t confer perfect protection and those who are at most risk, who probably would have died without the vaccine, some will die; but some who otherwise would have died will survive. It isn’t as simple as people think and antivaxxers can misuse any statistic.”

Agree on what you say about the misuse of statistics. When it is used to suggest something not true, it can be qualified as a lie. Even silence in the face of truth may be qualified as a lie.

Talking about lies, look at what your physicians made your president say:

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”
“This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
“There’s no other way to beat the pandemic then to get the vast majority of Americans vaccinated.”
“Those who have been vaccinated cannot spread it to you.”

Today’s speech is tomorrow’s lie. In order to avoid being victim of such lies we need relevant reliable raw data.

Now that we know the above statements are mostly false, at least these vaccines a. should offer some protection against severe illness and death and b. do not and never will result in large scale severe side effects or death.
I don’t question a. here. Perhaps you can help me find the answer to b. It’s been a while now since the start of the pandemic, so there should be much more data available.

I need recent weekly or monthly numbers on overall mortality by vaccination status (no base rate bias, so f.e. mortality per 100.000 per age group).
The number of overall deaths per 100,000 vaccinated vs 100,000 unvaccinated for all age groups showing roughly the same results in the period from let’s say april this year up to now, is what I would expect if the vaccines hardly do any harm.
But don’t we have a problem if those numbers significantly deviate in the disadvantage of the vaccinated? What other possible reasons, other then that these vaccines sooner or later in one way or the other kill people and may be responsible for the present excess mortality, can we think of then? That question, I think, is relevant when looking into numbers.
Please give me your thoughts given such significant deviation.

“Perhaps you can help me find the answer to b. It’s been a while now since the start of the pandemic, so there should be much more data available.”

lucas, Since we don’t see severe side effects from the vaccine you already have your answer to ‘b’. It isn’t that you don’t have an answer, it’s that you don’t have the answer a liar like you wants.

This is again if it is not 100%,,it is 0%.Add “most” or similar word to the sentence

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“While vaccines don’t confer complete protection if everyone is vaccinated then fewer virions will be transmitted and especially vaccinated seniors and/or those with comorbidities would be less at risk.”

Just a sec. The vaccinated are supposed to become less ill from Covid. What do people do when they’re not feeling really sick, perhaps not even being aware that they have been infected?
They don’t stay in bed or even at home, something they would do if they did feel miserable and / or knew that they’re sick. Is it so true that in the end “seniors and/or those with comorbidities [are] less at risk”?

We all got Covid here five months ago. Always washed hands, wore medical face masks, kept distance, didn’t let anyone in except one triple vaxxed first degree relative. He infected all of us. When asked, he told us he had no idea he was ill.
I shouldn’t forget to mention that he had extensive direct contact with lots of other people too while infected, mostly old and indoors. I guess he must have infected quite a few of them as well. Only when we asked to test him, which turned out positive, he stayed at home.
I think he is no exception by any means, do you?

You forget that tramsmission probability is down, too. Vaccinated people are less proale to infect people.

@ Lucas

You write: “Talking about lies, look at what your physicians made your president say:

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” [Depends on what you mean by COVID. One can become infected by a microbe; but not sick or odds of severe, hospitalization or even death reduced significantly]
“This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” [unvaccinated transmit at much higher rates than vaccinated. In addition, viral mutations occur much more quickly or more varied in unvaccinated]
“There’s no other way to beat the pandemic than to get the vast majority of Americans vaccinated.” [Yep, other nations beat the pandemic prior to development of vaccines by lockdowns, masks, physical distancing, etc, especially lockdowns. Look at China today, mass demonstrations against lockdowns; but a low rate of covid cases]
“Those who have been vaccinated cannot spread it to you.” [vaccinated can spread; but lower amounts and if those around them also vaccinated then probability of getting sick very low]

It is you who are the liar. All of the above are true, though perhaps slightly exaggerated.

I should also mentioned that vaccinated transmit when they have been reinfected by someone else and usually their immune systems clear the virus from, for instance, nasopharyngeal, so they only transmit mainly for a short time

@ldw56old

“lucas, Since we don’t see severe side effects from the vaccine you already have your answer to ‘b’. It isn’t that you don’t have an answer, it’s that you don’t have the answer a liar like you wants.”

And you’re just as sure as your president was? Don’t talk bs, we do see severe side effects from the vaccine and no one except you denies it. Question is the scale; instead of empty words why don’t you show proof of your statement in the numbers I asked for. Statistics don’t lie.
I told you in the past I belong to a (international) group that has promoted these vaccines to its members out of concern; so I prefer to prove them right if possible. But the small-scale serious side effects people in my surrounding told me about as related to the vaccines, were not encouraging at all. You read my detailed description on that. Meanwhile we must have data that should be able to clear the picture.

Furthermore I don’t need your silly accusation. I have never lied here, not even once; basically I prefer not to lie. Like I told you then: no need to, have no specific ties to whatever has to do with vaccines – and don’t need money (have that already) or power (don’t want to); how about you? Why don’t you give us some transparency, what is behind your wall of coarseness; start with why you are at this forum literally always. I cannot imagine that a mathematician (or statistician what were you?) has nothing better to do, unless he has some serious mental problem; so what’s in it for you?

I suggest that you give a citation. I am afraid that you indee lie. Antivaxxer usually do.

@Ldw56old

“You are [a troll] lucas, since you toss out false concerns and fail to accept the explanations you’ve been offered”

Ld56old, you’ve never answered any of my questions asked. Still you claim a lot. Remarkable guy you are.
So If I have concerns – what’s it to you? And no, I still haven’t heard any explanation for the vaccine victims I heard about (second hand info) in my surrounding and the ones I experienced first hand (a couple of acquintances, a neighbour and a reasonably good friend). Not that I asked for an explanation – what’s there to explain?
In an early stage I just said that an extrapolation would mean lots of casualties around the globe.
And that apparently makes you mad and is reason enough to accuse me of having lied about them, which is clearly nonsense. But I gave the subject a rest.

Then there was the report of those statisticians and the research of this German professor that brought to light that after each round of vaccination you see a sharp rise in deaths during 14 days, with a peak after a week, in the corresponding unvaccinated group. No explanation as a statistician from you. Disturbing and an outright fraud if you ask me, but I gave that a rest too.

And now again no substantial input from you when I ask for recent weekly or monthly numbers on overall mortality by vaccination status (no base rate bias, so f.e. mortality per 100.000 per age group). What’s your problem? Is there something to hide here? Is there?

“Add to that your lack of knowledge of history (you did claim that the nazis were on the left of the political spectrum despite no evidence of that)”
Oh yes, I did motivate. Shall I post it again for you?
Don’t fool around with history if you don’t want to pay a high price a next time. In my opinion your generation is brain washed by leftists that took over the education system. True or not, fact is you have no damn clue what the war was really about, nor what were its real roots.

“and the clear conclusion is that you have no interest in facts, only your foolish assertions about the “undocumented dangers” and ‘coverups about those dangers’ of vaccines.”
Bla-bla-bla. Show me statistics instead of empty words.

, I still haven’t heard any explanation for the vaccine victims…

Beause, lucas, there is no evidence
a) they existed (giving your history it’s 50/50 that those people exist and yo made them up)
b) if they exist any issues were caused by the vaccines.

Re your lies about nazis:

Shall I post it again for you?

no — they were lies the first time you posted them, they’d still be lies today. The fact that you have no grasp of history is just another of your deficiencies.

This

and the clear conclusion is that you have no interest in facts, only your foolish assertions about the “undocumented dangers” and ‘coverups about those dangers’ of vaccines

Still stands. You are manufacturing issues and distorting observations to make a claim that isn’t supported: why it isn’t supported has been explained to you numerous times and you repeatedly ignore it. Dont pretend you’re asking honest questions when it’s clear you are not.

Why is this troubling? It’s bothersome that you make no effort to hide your essential dishonesty, but it’s more concerning that you are saying things that, if people “on the fence” were to take as valid points and follow your aversion to vaccines, would put them at increased health risk.

So no, you’re not a good person looking for answers, you’re simply another troll, dishonest to the core, with no clue about a variety of things from history to science and statistics, too lazy to put any work in to learning, but who wants to seem important.

In my opinion your generation is brain washed by leftists that took over the education system.

lucas, your opinion on education (at which you’ve clearly completely failed) is not worth any more than your thoughts on vaccines and those aren’t worth a dried cow pile

@ Lucas

You claim you were infected by relative. Well, how did you know you were infected? How sick did you get???

I guess you are too stupid to realize that at all times we are inundated with microbes. On our skin, in our nasal cavities, in our throats, in our foods, in our eyes, etc. and some are potentially pathogenic; yet, for the most part we don’t even know it or suffer minor discomforts.

Given you have been responded to; yet keep making claims, you are obviously a sick TROLL

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” [Depends on what you mean by COVID. One can become infected by a microbe; but not sick or odds of severe, hospitalization or even death reduced significantly”
Yeah well, in my country quite a bunch of the vaccinated got moderately to seriously ill when infected, some even died of covid. The latter ss an exception, but still. Whatever, let’s give it a rest.

“This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” [unvaccinated transmit at much higher rates than vaccinated. In addition, viral mutations occur much more quickly or more varied in unvaccinated]”
So fact is that both transmit and as such the phrase ‘a pandemic of the unvaccinated’ is what it is: mood-making and a factual lie. And like I explained in another post to you is that perhaps the vaccinated are the real superspreaders because they don’t even know they are infected or simply don’t care and thus get in contact with others instead of staying home (since they don’t feel so sick). I don’t know how strong of an effect this is related to the somewhat ‘higher rates’ you mention, I guess most of the unvaxxed stay home when infected because they do feel sick. Whatever, let’s give it a rest too; not relevant.

“There’s no other way to beat the pandemic than to get the vast majority of Americans vaccinated.” [Yep, other nations beat the pandemic prior to development of vaccines by lockdowns, masks, physical distancing, etc, especially lockdowns. Look at China today, mass demonstrations against lockdowns; but a low rate of covid cases]”
China shows nothing more then that you cannot beat a pandemic just by these measurements. They keep on beating there obviously. And ofcourse people are getting tired of those measurements. Not that I’m against them an sich, but you had better keep in mind that the economical and thus social damage of those lockdowns will result in much higher casualties in the end compared to without them; lockdowns twill turn out to be a wrong decision, I’m afraid. Perhaps you had to be an economist to foresee this but certainly a fool to deny this meanwhile. Again: whatever. Not the point.

“Those who have been vaccinated cannot spread it to you.” [vaccinated can spread; but lower amounts and if those around them also vaccinated then probability of getting sick very low]”
So it was a lie.

“It is you who are the liar. All of the above are true, though perhaps slightly exaggerated. I should also mentioned that vaccinated transmit when they have been reinfected by someone else and usually their immune systems clear the virus from, for instance, nasopharyngeal, so they only transmit mainly for a short time”

If that is what makes you feel good, call me the liar here. Nothing to gain or lose.
I believe you when you say that a reinfected vaccinated only transmit for a short while. But I guess it’s not the whole story; here in my country the vaccinated seem to transmit for many days when (re)infected and got moderately to badly ill. God knows why it’s different where you live. Again: whatever; that was not my point!

As I wrote to you I have this request. I need recent weekly or monthly numbers on overall mortality by vaccination status (no base rate bias, so f.e. mortality per 100.000 per age group). Have you looked into these numbers?
The other questions were:
“…But don’t we have a problem if those numbers significantly deviate in the disadvantage of the vaccinated?
What other possible reasons, other then that these vaccines sooner or later in one way or the other kill people and may be responsible for the present excess mortality, can we think of then?” I can think of only one reason and that is that the ones that took the vaccine were already in a worse physical shape compared to the ones that didn’t.

Please give me your thoughts, I’m not your enemy (that is as long as you are sincere).

I need recent weekly or monthly numbers on overall mortality by vaccination status (no base rate bias, so f.e. mortality per 100.000 per age group). Have you looked into these numbers?

Why are you too lazy to find them yourself?

@ Lucas

You are a dishonest liar. Your country? So what is your country and give websites that give the stats you claim

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

I did give you a link you wanted,check it. And give a citaio if you clam something. Antivaxxers do indeed lie.

Actually … No.

The “typical” post-mortem “chicken fat” clots don’t look anything like the amyloid fibrin clots that are being removed by embalmers. Can’t you see that? They are not yellow-tinged & puffy; they are white & elastic appearing.

Amyloid fibrin clots form when prolonged exposure to the sars-cov2 spike protein causes structural changes to β and γ fibrinogen, complement 3 and prothrombin. They are “misfolded” clots & don’t respond to anticoagulants. This finding wasn’t published until 9 months after the vaccine rollout had begun. The vaccines should have been pulled immediately.

Spike proteins from the mRNA vaccines remain in the body for up to 8 weeks, versus spike proteins from infections that clear the body within days.

There’s no two ways to look at this.The entire spike protein genome is in the vaccines.

@ coschristi

You write: “Spike proteins from the mRNA vaccines remain in the body for up to 8 weeks, versus spike proteins from infections that clear the body within days. There’s no two ways to look at this.The entire spike protein genome is in the vaccines.”

Are you totally delusional. Explain the difference in time in body between vaccine spike protein and that from natural infection. Give a reference and/or URL to article. You don’t understand that mRNA also creates the virus with the Spike protein. And the vaccine spike protein is modified so it can’t actually both attach to receptor and change conformation to enable a hole for viral entry into a cell.

So nice to have you back, one more nutcase for amusement.

You talking about this? ->
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8380922/

We’ve known about this since well before this paper and anticoagulated most patients admitted with covid. Guess what? It worked. Like all things in physiology, you can usually overcome an imbalance by adding more to the other side of the equation.

That 8 week number seems to be something you pulled out of your ass. It’s completely made up.

The “typical” post-mortem “chicken fat” clots don’t look anything like the amyloid fibrin clots that are being removed by embalmers.

Who, exactly, has determined that the embalmers are removing “amyloid fibrin clots?” The paper from which you directly quote, notably failing to note that you are so doing, is talking about microclots, not macro globby goop that some embalmer would notice.

“The “typical” post-mortem “chicken fat” clots don’t look anything like the amyloid fibrin clots that are being removed by embalmers.”

And how would you (or they) know that they’re “amyloid fibrin clots”?

Missing from “Died Suddenly” is any indication that microscopic examination with amyloid staining was performed. You can’t look at something with the naked eye and say “Aha, amyloid.”

Amyloid tends to have a suggestive microscopic appearance with routine H&E stains, but the existence of amyloid needs to be confirmed with special staining and sometimes with fluorescence microscopy, tools these embalmers don’t have.

Many pathologists have initially been led to wrong conclusions at autopsy when examining blood clots, but realized they were dealing with postmortem clots upon microscopic examination. A few embalmers who are pumping god knows what into dead bodies and concluding that what they find in blood vessels is pathological, are not equipped with the technology to realize their errors. Those predisposed to find something they can blame on vaccines are even more unreliable.

@ cochristi

You write: “Amyloid fibrin clots form when prolonged exposure to the sars-cov2 spike protein causes structural changes to β and γ fibrinogen, complement 3 and prothrombin. They are “misfolded” clots & don’t respond to anticoagulants. This finding wasn’t published until 9 months after the vaccine rollout had begun. The vaccines should have been pulled immediately. Spike proteins from the mRNA vaccines remain in the body for up to 8 weeks, versus spike proteins from infections that clear the body within days. There’s no two ways to look at this.The entire spike protein genome is in the vaccines.”

I did a web search and found the amyloid fibrin clots from the natural covid infection. Give a reference to the publication you found. And even if it is “true” it would be more than likely like myocarditis, a few rare cases from the vaccine vs exponentially more from the actual virus.

As for the vaccine spike protein remaining up to 8 weeks vs natural clearing within days. Wow! The same antibodies recognize both, so why would it take them so much longer to clear the vaccine spike protein? In addition, the “entire spike protein genome” is actually not in the vaccines. It is a modified spike protein, that is, the real spike protein has two parts, one that attaches and one that then changes comformation to enable a “hole” to allow the actual virus enter a cell. However, the vaccine spike protein has been modified so the second part doesn’t work. In addition, the mRNA from the vaccine only lasts a few days, so it only creates a limited number of spike proteins whereas as long as the virus keeps invading cells they in turn produce millions of viruses including their spike protein.

And you ignore that the spike protein doesn’t enter cells, so at best antibodies clear it; but certainly can’t do anything close to the harm that an entire virus does when it enters a cell and hijacks it machinery to churn out millions of virions.

So nice to have you back, one more mentally disturbed antivaxxer making absurd claims, sometimes with some minute trace of truth in them but grossly exaggerated or more often than not, totally wrong.

@ Joel,

I’m glad you’re happy to see me.

Re: “Give a reference to the publication you found.”

I have several. Here’s one: https://portlandpress.com/bioscirep/article/41/8/BSR20210611/229418/SARS-CoV-2-spike-protein-S1-induces-fibrin-ogen

Re: “The same antibodies recognize both, so why would it take them so much longer to clear the vaccine spike protein?”

The mRNA degrades after a few days. The spike proteins they generate can last up to 8 weeks. This is covered in a paper titled “Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.” Published:January 24, 2022

But almost every source available will say “a few weeks”.

Re: “In addition, the “entire spike protein genome” is actually not in the vaccines”

Yes it is. Orac even said that earlier this year in a reply to a comment on his article about DNA Damage Repair inhibition, also caused by the spike protein.

Were you to actually read and comprehend the paper “Immune impirinting …” you would note that the spike found at 8 weeks was in germinal centres. If you knew what germinal centres are all about you would know this is expected.

Germinal centres are where the process of affinity maturation of antibodies, produced by B cells, occurs. They are where DNA actually does get changed through the process of somatic hypermutation. Affinity maturation takes a good deal of time (which is why a second dose of vaccine should come a few months, not 3 or 4 weeks after the first dose, for optimal results) and GCs are known to retain “samples” of antigen, which can be intact protein but mostly peptides (*), during affinity maturation. Just how long these samples are retained has apparently not been comprehensively studied. It is known that they are retained for at least a few weeks but there is suspicion that they may be retained for many months. It is no surprise whatever that they would be found 8 weeks after vaccination. RETAINED. Not floating around in circulation.

Exactly the same thing will happen with proteins and peptides that are part of the actual virus. However, it is known that severe COVID-19 can result in destruction of germinal centres.

learn about proteasomes, peptides, MHC, antigen presenting cells

@ Doug,

So what is your understanding of how long the spike protein stays in the body after vaccination?

I have seen various sources state anything from “several weeks” to 90 days.

I don’t think it matters if it is “retained” vs “circulating”. If it’s in contact with your cells; it’s dangerous.

You of course can post a link. Your previous attempt was not very good. Spike protein in lymph nodes is not circulating in the body. Actually lymph nodes will remove foreign antigenes from circulation. An RN does not know that ?

@ Joel,

I just replied but I included a link & now it’s not showing up. I’ll rewrite it if I don’t see it soon.

@ Cochristi

You write: First quoting me: “In addition, the “entire spike protein genome” is actually not in the vaccines”, then your response: “Yes it is. Orac even said that earlier this year in a reply to a comment on his article about DNA Damage Repair inhibition, also caused by the spike protein.”

First, give the title of Orac’s article. I’m not going to go through everyone of his articles this year.

However, as I wrote, the entire spike protein is NOT in the vaccines!

“there is ‘one key difference,’ in that the spikes encoded by the
vaccines “contain 2 amino acid changes that help stabilize the spike in its initial conformation and help prevent the spike from undergoing a conformational change that is required to facilitate membrane fusion.” (Jaramillo, 2021)

Jaramillo (2021 Jul 1). COVID-19 Vaccine-Generated Spike Protein is Safe, Contrary to Viral Claims. FactCheck.org

“Both constructs include the two stabilizing mutations in S2 (K986P and V987P) that were shown to prevent the conformational change of the pre-fusion into the post-fusion structure of S” (Heinz, 2021)

Heinz FX, Stiasny K (2021 Aug 16). Distinguishing features of current COVID-19 vaccines: knowns and unknowns of antigen presentation and modes of action. http://www.nature.com/npjvaccines

You write: First, quoting me: “The same antibodies recognize both, so why would it take them so much longer to clear the vaccine spike protein?” Then your response“ The mRNA degrades after a few days. The spike proteins they generate can last up to 8 weeks”

First, you missed a major point, that is, antibodies recognize both natural s-spike protein and vaccine created in same amount of time, so no difference in dealing with s-spike protein by our immune systems.

“Spike protein was detected in the plasma of 96% of the vaccinees at days 1–2 (median spike concentration of 47 pg/mL) and in 63% at day 7 (median spike concentration of 1.7 pg/mL)”

Röntgen K et al (2022 Mar 17). Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Cell; Vol 185, Issue 6: 1025-1040.

So, notice the difference between 47 pg/mL and 1.7 pg/mL. I hope you understand how infinitely small a picogram is? So, yep, some remain after 7 days; but the article you refer to doesn’t say the spike protein lasts up to 8 weeks; but “spike antigen up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases.” Antigen refers to smaller recognizable segments of something, not the entire thing. In other words, the “whole” s-spike protein had already been broken up.

Collins F (2021 May 18). Human Antibodies Target Many Parts of Coronavirus Spike Protein. NIH Director’s Blog.

Jagtap S (2021 Oct). Evaluation of spike protein antigens for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Journal of virological methods; 296:114222.

One other by Orac should be of interest:

Gorski D (2021 May 24). The “deadly” coronavirus spike protein (according to antivaxxers). Science-Based Medicine.

I have other things to do, so I may get to the Grobelaar article later today?

And nope, when I wrote “So nice to have you back, one more nutcase for amusement.” I was being facetious.

Also, read what Doug wrote above about being in germinal centers, not in blood! ! ! Germinal centers are where antigens are brought to stimulate immune cells.
THANKS DOUG. I MISSED THAT ONE. GUESS AT 76 I’M GETTING OLD???

So Cochristi, you didn’t get anything right. Typical of you

@Joel
I was kind of prepared for the geminal centre thing and Christine actually did me a favor by citing a paper that confirmed what I’d suspected.
In the past couple of months I saw a few comments on COVID articles on the CBC website talking (the comments, that is) about the spike protein being found long after what had previously been claimed – coupled with the claim that the US CDC had removed some line from its site about spike being gone in a short time. I speculated in replies that it was quite conceivable that minute amounts of protein or peptides thereof could be found in germinal centres. Of course none of the people making the claims could cite a credible supporting source and I doubt if a single one had the slightest clue what a germinal centre is. (In unrelated comments one person pointed out that bits of this horrible toxic protein were found in “limp nodes.” In spite of the real harm these antivaxxers do, they are amusing at times.)

Gentlemen: ( Joel PhD, MPH, Dr Yeti, doug, Idw56old, Aarno)

You do an excellent job debunking misinformation with data and your experience as usual but I ‘d like to address the motivated reasoning spectacularly demonstrated here that provoked your responses. Why do people venture into areas outside their knowledge base contradicting actual experts and scientific consensus especially when better educated commenters- and Orac himself- are around?

I follow alt med and anti-vax as well as hi/aids denialism ** and it amazes me how blatantly alties lie and mispresent simple facts and established research- even about life threatening conditions like these. I see similar contortions concerning Covid and treatments, So, I’ve come to divide denialists into three non-exclusive groups based upon their ultimate motivation-
— to deny the SB aetiology of a stigmatised condition in order to save face
— to deny the value of SBM/ PH treatments presenting alternatives in order to earn money
— to deny the expertise of SBM/ PH advocates and to gain attention or fame
Examples might be ( respectively) an anti-vax mother who believes vaccines caused her child’s autism, an alt med provider who sells “informational” products, foods, supplements as substitutes for SBM and a contrarian “who knows it all” writing on Substack.

As Covid persists, all three groups find research or news that they can twist to suit their needs and advance their causes. Some of those I survey fill more than one category. Unfortunately, the general public are not as astute as Orac’s commenters and fall prey to these manipulations of reality. Covid is especially a target because the science is very complex and very new.

** probably because I worked with hiv+ clients and had to study hiv/ aids in detail

This is a bit tangential to your point, but I would like to expressly thank these people for explaining the issues with the clots claim and the spike protein, since that’s a highly specialized area where the lay debunkers among us especially benefit from that.

I also really liked your three-category framework.

@ Dorit:

Thanks.
One thing I’ve noticed in the past two years is that alties/ anti-vaxxers, in their attempts to scare potential followers, is to make Covid vaccines sound as though they were retroviruses – able to integrate into and change the host cell DNA .
Covid viruses and vaccines incorporating spike proteins are not retroviruses.
But what real retroviruses actually do is extremely frightening.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You claim you were infected by [a] relative. Well, how did you know you were infected? How sick did you get???”

Such rash and irrelevant questions. And however none of your business how sick I got: light to moderately, enough to go and test.
And that’s the problem with the vaccinated, apparently often not even knowing – or simply don’t care – they are spreaders. It is not so black and white as you said.

“I guess you are too stupid to realize that at all times we are inundated with microbes.”

Why do you denigrate? What is the relevance whether or not I’m “too stupid”?
Listen Joel, you have to live out your life at some hospital. I cash the money you lose by inflation, perhaps even by your financial transactions. You earn a regular income, I’ve made your annual income in a couple of hours over the last two years. Who is too stupid, Joel?
Why do you and your companions here start to denigrate and curse when you don’t feel like giving an answer, not even to some simple questions?
No need to teach me on microbes, what’s your point?

On our skin, in our nasal cavities, in our throats, in our foods, in our eyes, etc. and some are potentially pathogenic; yet, for the most part we don’t even know it or suffer minor discomforts.

Thanks for the lesson, so what? That triple vaccinated relative was infected, he infected us. No doubt about that.

“Given you have been responded to; yet keep making claims, you are obviously a sick TROLL”

The same sick trick as your companions use when refuse to answer.
The only claim I made was no more then a sidenote; in order to avoid more lies, I reminded you of the bs already told by your authorities. You might consider taking class on how to distinguish head from side issues, Joel.
My question was about the link for recent data. No answer from you.
The other two questions: no answers.

Why do you behave like an empty bag? Iow: what makes you so scared to answer?
This “sick TROLL” is looking for answers on excess mortality. Only cowards that hide something are dancing around like you do. For what reason? To keep your job?
Worst case for you: overall mortality in the vaccinated is way higher than in the unvaccinated and we find that the vaccines do kill, what’s it to you? Lots of you doctors make mistakes by the dozens anyway; only a minority is good at what they do, no matter in the medical field or elsewhere. This explains why most of you are better lawyers then doctors. I know your kind.
But better half turned then completely lost.

“Why do you and your companions here start to denigrate and curse when you don’t feel like giving an answer, not even to some simple questions?”

You’ve been given plenty of answers. The fact that they aren’t what you want them to be (they don’t support your lies) is the issue you have.

Your claimed income gains (which, given your history of failing to tell the truth about every other topic you preach about) are, even on the microscopic chance that they are true, are of no relevance here [they would simply indicate you’re able to con suckers out of money]. Your repeated lies and false assertions are the issue, as they’ve always been.

Listen Joel, you have to live out your life at some hospital. . . . Who is too stupid, Joel?

That’s a keeper.

@ldw56old

“I need recent weekly or monthly numbers on overall mortality by vaccination status (no base rate bias, so f.e. mortality per 100.000 per age group). Have you looked into these numbers?
Why are you too lazy to find them yourself?”

‘Why are you too lazy’ is a conclusion. Why do you draw premature conclusions?
“To answer before listening – that is folly and shame.”

“Why are you [lucas] too lazy to do it?”

Have you done it? If so, present results and your take. If you haven’t — you’ve had plenty of time to post other lines of lies, you should have had time to do your own search.

I will modify it: Are you too lazy or not really interested?

@ Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You are a dishonest liar. Your country? So what is your country and give websites that give the stats you claim YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT”

Dear Joel, can you stop using pleonasms?

Any country with excess mortality will do, be it your country, the UK, Germany. The cause of excess mortality might well be the same wherever this disturbing phenomenon shows up. I found data, however not that recent.

Next I asked you 2 additional questions that need to be answered in order to avoid hasty conclusions. Too much work apparently.

What are you talking about with “the stats I claim”? What stats, where? Or do you mean the stats I mentioned in my post to ldw56old? If so, I posted the links to these stats several times in the past, but that’s a different subject. Fyi: fraud to cover up deaths of the vaccines is what these stats show. Why else would you count deaths whithin 2 weeks after vaccination in the unvaccinated? Cheaters.

Perhaps hard for you to grasp, I much like to see these vaccines to be safe. Unfortunately they’re not as much as claimed. To what extent is statistics, not the words of some stroman.
Like I said I want to know what is going on. What may be the (most likely) cause of this excess mortality. Why do you have a problem with that?

Fyi: fraud to cover up deaths of the vaccines is what these stats show

Amazing: one sentence to show all of
– your lack of understanding of statistics
– your lack of understanding of vaccines
– your willingness to lie

Brilliant, in a traditional troll lying way.

If you do not post a link,it is a claim. I is too difficult to cut and pase a link ?

The idea of tainted blood through Covid vaccination seems to have reached New Zealand. Sadly, this time it’s not the actual patient who is refusing the blood.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/30/new-zealand-parents-refuse-use-of-vaccinated-blood-in-life-saving-surgery-on-baby

“In the interview the parents say their baby has severe pulmonary valve stenonis, and that he needs surgery “almost immediately”, but that they are “extremely concerned with the blood [the doctors] are going to use”.

“We don’t want blood that is tainted by vaccination,” the father said. “That’s the end of the deal – we are fine with anything else these doctors want to do.””

I too, am acutely aware about anti vaxxers propensity to lie, perhaps I should have kept quiet in a face to face discussion recently. Nevertheless whilst partaking in a nice latte on a recent Christmas shopping trip, another customer joined me outside. At first conversation was sparse and polite. Then they started talking about the vax. Short story, he claimed vax kills, I claimed no evidence, he claimed 13 fit and healthy family and friends died shortly after vax, I said don’t believe you, he punched me, latte got spilt, police were called, he got arrested.

Sorry to hear that. Makes you wonder about the cause of death of those vaccinated family members. Perhaps it was trauma delivered from the hands of their violent relative.

At my most recent vaccination there were placard carrying protesters across the street from the clinic. I was tempted to go over to learn more, since I’m curious sort of short alphabetic sequence. But you just never know who you’re dealing with.

I hope you’re OK Vicintheshed. You have one more unfortunate data point pointing to how high tensions are.

he claimed 13 fit and healthy family and friends died shortly after vax, I said I don’t believe you

Nope, unless he had an immediate family in the hundreds (perhaps thousands) there’s no more reason to believe that than there is to believe the tales of woe told by lucas and the other clowns who post here.

Actually, it’s well known that being a relative or friend of an antivaccine activist or people antivaccine activists meet is very dangerous to your health.

It’s amazing how many unlikely tragedies happen to people in that situation.

Actually it was quite profitable, he missed his aim, knocking the1/8 th of left latte, cafe gave me a FULL large latte free of charge.

Another link for you:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/country-singer-jake-flint-dead-wedding-day-211600864.html

Surely the only reason a man in his late thirties might die on his wedding night is prior Covid-19 vaccination.

/sarcasm

*I remember an autopsy case I had involving a man in his thirties with no significant medical history, who was found dead in his bed. I felt it should have been a medical examiner’s case but they pawned it off on us. The cause of death turned out to be a straightforward M.I. in the setting of severe coronary artery disease.

It happens.

http://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914921001570

Perhaps his dead is related to his marrying? Dieing a few hours after being married. If that is no tell-tale sign that marrying is bad for your health and can kill you, I don’t know what is.
Why should it be the vaccine?

@ldw56old

“Fyi: fraud to cover up deaths of the vaccines is what these stats show
Amazing: one sentence to show all of
[a.] – your lack of understanding of statistics
[b.] – your lack of understanding of vaccines
[c.] – your willingness to lie
Brilliant, in a traditional troll lying way.”

Let me help you.

[c.] Willingness to lie – a lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive (Websters)
Seen your presumption of my lack of understanding [a.] statistics and [b.] vaccines, your statement [c.] makes no sense. Due to the lack, the intent isn’t there and thus it’s no lie.

Perhaps it’s you that has a similar understanding of statistics as you do of language. How did you get your supposed degree anyway? If so, your ability to analyse seems to have left you, ldw56; I noticed this more often, seriously.

Think about your phrase “understanding vaccines”. It is so vague that it just makes no sense.
Let me ask you something similar. Do you understand hammers?
A hammer can be understood as a tool to get a nail in a piece of wood. But just as well as a piece of wood and steel connected together.
Now, before you start yelling that you understand hammers, how about your knowledge of the iron atoms or wood molecules of a hammer?
Perhaps you’re still yelling, good for you. Then tell me what’s the smallest particle of an iron atom. Now if you’re smart you’re silent. This silence suggests that you do not understand hammers.

How about you, ldw56? Do you understand vaccines as well as you do hammers?
With your illogical accusations, who is the troll here?

I wonder who does understand ‘vaccines’ anyway.

Sorry lucas, your wordplay doesn’t erase the fact that

you’ve repeatedly lied about the dangers of vaccines
you’ve repeatedly lied about the lack of effectiveness of vaccines
you’ve repeatedly ignored the explanations people have given you about why what you say is pure bullshit
you’re intentionally misrepresenting the message, which is that you have no idea what you’re talking about when you run on with your stories about the problems with vaccines and the health problems they pose

You’ve demonstrated preference for falsehoods concerning vaccines because — i don’t know, you want to seem to be important and worried about people, bucking against some mythical world-wide conspiracy of companies, scientists, statisticians — you prefer to spread bullshit rather than try to learn anything.

Based on your history of spewing your lies about covid, covid vaccines, and other vaccines [as well as your absolutely massive lack of knowledge of history] it’s safer to assume your personal stories are just as much bullshit: it’s probably 99%/1% possibility of more bullshit to fact

@ Lucas

So, the lying troll is back again. You said your country had a high number of serious adverse events to the vaccine, so I simply requested you name your country and give a credible link to the stats, which you refused.

As for who understands vaccines, well, I do and so do many others. To understand vaccines one must understand basic immunology, innate and adaptive immune system, microbiology, epidemiology, and the history of vaccine-preventable diseases, all of which I have devoted more than 40 years to and still keep up with the latest, which includes numerous studies of the current mRNA covid vaccines, including both US and International Data from numerous nations that have done their own studies and have their own adverse events reporting systems; but, according to you, any and all who report positive stats on the current vaccine are liars; but you, in your infinite ignorance and dishonesty know better

Once again, GO TO HELL YOU DESPICABLE TROLL

@Joel A. Harrison

“Go to HELL you friggin troll! ! !”

“dishonest liar, sick troll, too stupid to realize, full of shit, go to hell, friggin troll” – Joel, who the hell do you think you are? How dare you talk to me like that, or anyone else for that matter?
Has someone ever told you you’re a shameless, arrogant asshole? Ask them.

@ Lucas

For someone who can’t even after claiming his country has a high number of adverse reactions to mRNA vaccine then refusing to name his country and a link to the stats, you are both hilarious and stupid.

You write: “Joel, who the hell do you think you are? How dare you talk to me like that, or anyone else for that matter?
Has someone ever told you you’re a shameless, arrogant asshole? ”

Who do I think I am? Someone who has devoted his life to trying to help others, including a regular blood donor, and who basis his help on thorough understanding of vaccines. People like you contribute to antivaccinationist and, thus, to unnecessary suffering, hospitalizations, and death. So, there is a classic defense mechanism in psychology called projection, that is projecting ones own faults onto others, so it is you who is “a shameless, arrogant asshole”; A FULL OF SHIT TROLL.

Lucas, I feel for you.

You should have run when the very first capital letter appeared…………..it only goes seriously downhill from there!

I’ve had it all said of me …and worse!

The irony is, neither side in the pro vax/ anti vax debate are 100% correct in any of their arguments or their science. Vaccines have undoubtedly saved lives and contributed in a positive way to the fight against disease but they are not infallible, they are not 100% safe, and in some cases they have caused serious adverse events in a small number of recipients. Vaccine manufacturers, UNICEF/the WHO, all of whom are the most ardent supporters of vaccination concede that they are not safe for all of the people, all of the time, so why do some posters on here argue otherwise and deny the existence of the vaccine injured? Millions have benefited, but some have not and I cannot understand why it is so abhorrent to some of the posters on here to acknowledge the vaccine injured.

Much has been said re ‘clots’ and wherever the rights and wrongs lie in that particular debate, the UK VDPS is now providing awards to claimants for that ADR following a Covid 19 vaccine. In addition Coroners have issued a number of “Regulation 28 : Report to Prevent Future Deaths” notifications where they have determined that the individual has died of a rare complication associated with Covid 19 vaccine.

Evidence for the fact that vaccines cause injuries on rare occasions in a small number of people exists in just the same way as the science in support of vaccination ( heavily relied on by some posters) does.

Sadly vaccine induced injury exists and not just in the mind of anti vaxxers, unless of course, you consider the legal, medical/scientific experts and Coroners in the UK to be anti vax also.

At the end of the day it should be possible to debate vaccination without it descending into a foul rant.

And once again, Wendy jumps into the fray to stand up for the oppressed. First it was Igor Chudov, now Lucas, who’s an obvious troll to boot.

As noted before, identifying with and defending blatant antivaxers is a bad look for someone who pretends to be a reasonable middle-ground sort of person.

“(vaccines) are not safe for all of the people, all of the time, so why do some posters on here argue otherwise and deny the existence of the vaccine injured?”

Since no posters here make such arguments, this statement is a ludicrous strawman.

Maybe if these extremely rare occurrences weren’t trumpeted as a reason to stop all vaccination…..

Maybe if anti-vaxxers didn’t inflate these rare occurrences to the level of depopulation…..

Maybe if anti-vaxxers stopped lying about scientists saying that vaccines have no side effects….

@Aarno Syvänen

“As I said before, I give your thelink. Check it,”

Aarno, it is convenient to mention for whom your post is ment.

@Aarno Syvänensays:

“Antivaxxers do indeed lie.”

Aarno could you briefly describe what in your opinion is an ‘antivaxxer’ and how to recognize one.
Perhaps also why an ‘antivaxxer’ would want to lie. I usually think in terms of financial benefit; in what way does the usual ‘antivaxxer’ benefit, unlike some ‘provaxxers’?

For what it’s worth and overdrawing it a bit, but the typical ‘provaxxers’ (pro mRNA jab) without financial benefit that I know of, you could even inject petrol – don’t ask, don’t tell.

“could you briefly describe what in your opinion is an ‘antivaxxer’”

I keep my respirator on. Checkout guy I’ve seen for years was hawking his left lung out. I was not skeerd but did feel bad for him.

I like the Tal;king Headads because I’ve got autism. You should to.

For what it’s worth and overdrawing it a bit, but the typical ‘provaxxers’ (pro mRNA jab) without financial benefit that I know of, you could even inject petrol – don’t ask, don’t tell.

Wow, you’re growing in size as an asshole by the minute.

“Perhaps also why an ‘antivaxxer’ would want to lie”

That’s quite easy. To be an anti-vaxxer you have to inhabit a world where all the people who advocate vaccines are stupid or evil. You have to be rock solid in your conviction of your own intelligence over that of everyone you talk to. You have to believe in anecdote and superficial correlation over any official data.

That lack of scientific integrity means that they’ll tweak the truth of anything if it makes it fit their narrative. After all, it’s not really lying if you pick the data that show what you already know to be true. It’s not really lying if you tell everyone about all the vaccine injured children that you know personally, because your sure that they actually do exist, somewhere. If you’re really fanatical, you’re not really lying because anything you say is for the good of the sheep that you are talking to.

And, when you get to the top of the tree. Money. Lots of it.

Perhaps also why an ‘antivaxxer’ would want to lie.

To be an anti-vaxxer, you have to lie about vaccines. The answer you are after defines itself.

Antivaxxr is like a stalinist,no fact can change his opinion. Everyone that disagrees are part of conspiracy (including blog commenters!)
If antivaxxer actually post a link (you never did) it is easy to see that link does not support his claim at all. Because he shoul know the content, this would be a lie.
“Pro vaxxers” actually post data,have younot noticed that ?

@ Lucas

You write: “why an ‘antivaxxer’ would want to lie. I usually think in terms of financial benefit;”

Start with Joseph Mercola who sells alternative medicine and is estimated to be worth $100 million dollars, even donated $1 million dollars to antivax National Vaccine Information Center. Others with good incomes selling alternative medicines and books include Neil Z Miller and Mike Adams. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr, though he inherited a fortune, has a salary more than $400,000 per year for running Children’s Defense Fund. And Andrew Wakefield who lost his medical license lives quite well because he gets large fees to attend antivax meetings, etc.

And others are antivaxxers for a number of reasons, including not understanding infectious disease and how vaccines work, thus victims of antivax website lies, many subscribe to paranoid conspiracy theories and/or simply anti-government, thus, can’t discriminate between positive things governments do, etc. People who focus on their individual rights, ignoring that rights only exist in communities and, thus, one has to balance individual rights with responsibility to community. I doubt you understand that or, more likely, you could care less.

But I realize you aren’t really wanting answers to your questions as you just post comments to annoy, irritate people because you are a DESPICABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING, A TROLL.

@ Wendy Stephen

Every credible website I have visited, government, non-profits, include the rare risks from vaccines. As an extreme example, smallpox killed 25% or more of a population, leaving the rest almost all suffering more than a week of hell on earth, burning inside, mucus membranes, and outside skin, some ending blind or deaf. The vaccine caused 1 to 2 deaths per million doses, so 250,000 deaths vs 1 or 2 per million, plus a dozen or so who suffered progressive or generalized vaccinia, basically suffering same way as those who survived natural infection. However, it is possible that those who died and/or suffered from the vaccine had some genetic predisposition so that they would have had the same result either way.

So, yep, compared to literally 10s of millions of doses of mRNA vaccines for covid, an extremely small number have suffered; e.g., clots, myocarditis. Again, also possible that they had a genetic predisposition so that if exposed to natural virus, same result, especially given exponentially higher number who in fact did suffer the same from natural infection.

What you ignore or fail to understand is that the antivaxxers don’t discuss the above, that is, the rare serious side-effects but claim they are not rare and many also claim the vaccines don’t work or the disease is less serious, that pharmaceutical companies exaggerate in order to make a profit.

You write: “At the end of the day it should be possible to debate vaccination without it descending into a foul rant.”

So, we have experts supporting vaccines who do mention rare side-effects, supporting them because they both protect individual and community, especially those who can’t be vaccinated and/or vaccine didn’t take vs antivaxxers who grossly exaggerate the risk, so how do you believe one could have any type of reasonable debate? I should also point out that many antivaxxers promote unscientifically validated treatments, etc., others subscribe to paranoid conspiracy theories, and many believe that their individual rights, rights that only exist in a community, owe no responsibility to others. And finally, polls have shown that many basically are either anti-government and/or don’t believe in science. So, for the latter who don’t believe in science, how would you debate them?

@Joel Harrison

“What you ignore or fail to understand is that the antivaxxers don’t discuss the above, that is, the rare serious side-effects but claim they are not rare and many also claim the vaccines don’t work or the disease is less serious, that pharmaceutical companies exaggerate in order to make a profit.”

Joel, the rarity of a serious adverse event in association with a vaccine can start off as extremely rare. Some, with the best of checks, clinical trials and studies (for one reason or another), go undetected prior to marketing. Sometimes it is only in the post marketing era that “rare but serious adverse- effects” even start to become apparent.

Pandemrix and the link with narcolepsy/cataplexy in children and young people would be an excellent example of this. What started off as a few reports spread over several nations suddenly gathered momentum until the “rarity” of the event suddenly wasn’t nearly so rare resulting in something of an emergency and the withdrawal of the licence for it’s use in that cohort.

Actually, it was your favourite subject ie the science, not anti vax interpretations which determined the increased risk of narcolepsy/cataplexy and how it was not nearly so rare after all.

Pluserix was the same. In the beginning there were a few cases of mumps meningitis reported with the ‘guesstimated’ rate of one case per 100,000 doses ultimately being determined by scientists here in the UK to be one case in 4,000 doses. That, without the mind set of any anti vaxxer significantly altered how “rare” mumps meningitis (MM) was associated with Pluserix vaccine.

Once again it was the science that determined an increased risk of MM not the anti vaxxers and reported on how it wasn’t as “rare” as previously reported (by the scientists).

The ‘clots’ being reported in association with the Covid vaccine likewise ie what was initially confined to a very small number of people is now the subject of hundreds of excellent reliable papers, with ever growing numbers of people affected and being compensated. Only time will telly (sadly) how “rare” that serious ADR ultimately is in connection with Covid vaccine.

The reality is, that without any involvement/influence from anti vaxxers ADR’s (in some situations) are not as rare as initially stated in the initial science.

One doesn’t have to be an anti vaxxer to suggest that the rarity of some ADR’s aren’t as rare as initially stated.

And as for……

“many also claim the vaccines don’t work or the disease is less serious,”

Do you really, really want me (again) to write up (with references) how the rate of mumps meningitis in association with Urabe vaccine in Japan was greater than that being reported on with naturally occurring mumps?

Didn’t think so.

Which of these “hundreds of excellent reliable papers” supports the claims made in “Died Suddenly”? This recent systematic review, for instance?

“Despite the incidence of thromboembolic events noted after COVID-19 vaccination, the benefits associated with vaccination are many folds higher than the risk. Moreover, the risk of developing thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination is almost similar to the risk of thrombosis in the general population. Therefore, administration of COVID-19 vaccines should not be hampered due to the minimal risk of thromboembolism, mainly associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.”

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9093198/

Well, maybe not that one.

Based on the “excellent reliable” evidence you’ve seen, do you agree with the statement “administration of COVID-19 vaccines should not be hampered due to the minimal risk of thromboembolism”? Or do you think the vaccines should be shunned due to the likelihood of future vindication of embalmer Hirschman et al?

@ Dangerous Bacon

“Based on the “excellent reliable” evidence you’ve seen, do you agree with the statement “administration of COVID-19 vaccines should not be hampered due to the minimal risk of thromboembolism”? Or do you think the vaccines should be shunned due to the likelihood of future vindication of embalmer Hirschman et al?”

I don’t believe that the roll out of Covid vaccines should be hampered “due to the minimal” risk of thromboembolism but I do believe that the true rate of the risk needs to be continuously monitored and conveyed to the consumer.

The point I make is that with the passage of time just how “minimal” that risk may be is in question as more and more evidence of the problem emerges.

One possible reason why the risk might not be as “minimal” as you state lies in the fact that there is no “standard case definition for VITT accepted for use in all countries”. (1)
In 2021 the Brighton Collection previously made the point that “there is currently no standard case definition (CD) for TTS accepted for use by all countries”.(2)

The absence of a standard case definition and the fact that different places are using different definitions/inclusion/exclusion criteria and time frames in the diagnosis of VITT/TTS raises the possibility of underreporting.

If in essence everyone is using different algorithms how can we know what the real risk of ‘clots’ actually is. In an April 2022 Post Authorisation safety study of the Astra Zeneca vaccine the timeframe for the conditions listed below is 1-42 days yet others are using 5 to 30 days (and there are many other variations)!

Thrombosis With Thrombocytopaenia Syndrome (Risk Window: 1 to 42 Days)
Thrombosis Without Thrombocytopaenia (Risk Window: 1 to 42 Days)
Thrombocytopaenia With Associated Bleeding (Risk Window: 1 to 42 Days)
Thrombocytopaenia (Risk Window: 1 to 42 Days) (3)

“Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare but serious adverse
syndrome occurring 5 to 30 days after adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccination”. (4)

And no, I don’t think that covid vaccines should be shunned in anticipation of any embalmer being vindicated in the future but I do think that keeping up to speed with the possibility that the risk of thromboembolism isn’t as minimal as first thought, is essential.

(1)Phenotype Algorithms for the Identification and Characterization
of Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia in Real World Data:
A Multinational Network Cohort Study

Azza Shoaibi1 et al
Published onl;ine june 29022

(2) Brighton Collaboration
May 18, 2021 v 10.16.2

Updated proposed Brighton Collaboration process for developing a standard case definition for study of
newclinical syndrome X, as applied to Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS)
Robert T. Chen MD MA, Scientific Director, Brighton Collaboration

(3) Post-Authorisation Safety Study of AZD1222
AstraZeneca
AZD1222, EMEA/H/C/005675 1.0, 21 April 2022

(4) The clinical and laboratory diagnosis of vaccine-induced immune
thrombotic thrombocytopenia
Anna-Lise Bissola et al 26th july 2022

@Wendy

“Lucas, I feel for you.”
– Thanks for the warm blanket.

“You should have run when the very first capital letter appeared…………..it only goes seriously downhill from there!”
– “The first capital letter” – lol
No need to run, I know this kind.

“I’ve had it all said of me …and worse!”
– The bright side is it has taught you about our species. You might be better prepared when you find yourself in a next snake pit – often the case when in a position of dependence. What to expect in a hospital setting where such folks work? Here you find the answer.
There are some exceptions in this forum. And you cannot deny some actually do take time; time is always valuable. Leads me to the conclusion that some are too suspicious by nature.

“The irony is, neither side in the pro vax/ anti vax debate are 100% correct in any of their arguments or their science. Vaccines have undoubtedly saved lives and contributed in a positive way to the fight against disease but they are not infallible, they are not 100% safe, and in some cases they have caused serious adverse events in a small number of recipients. Vaccine manufacturers, UNICEF/the WHO, all of whom are the most ardent supporters of vaccination concede that they are not safe for all of the people, all of the time, so why do some posters on here argue otherwise and deny the existence of the vaccine injured?”
– The ‘why’ is not always the easiest question to answer.
It’s obvious that many people at any level in society show a diversity of self-destructive behaviour, mostly depending on some provoking factor. The why has to do with a combined shortterm gain and bad mentality. Many such people are eager to hate. They even hate themselves, as strange as that may sound.

“Millions have benefited, but some have not and I cannot understand why it is so abhorrent to some of the posters on here to acknowledge the vaccine injured.”
– They’re not ignorant. So tell me are they liars or is this weird psychological group behaviour? Perhaps a mix of both.

“Much has been said re ‘clots’ and wherever the rights and wrongs lie in that particular debate, the UK VDPS is now providing awards to claimants for that ADR following a Covid 19 vaccine. In addition Coroners have issued a number of “Regulation 28 : Report to Prevent Future Deaths” notifications where they have determined that the individual has died of a rare complication associated with Covid 19 vaccine.”
– Interesting.

“Evidence for the fact that vaccines cause injuries on rare occasions in a small number of people exists in just the same way as the science in support of vaccination ( heavily relied on by some posters) does.”
– I realised these likely injuries after the roll-out. I mentioned them here too, but none of our friends showed interest. Some denied with cursing in capital letter words. Fine with me, cursing is wining, not winning.

Then at the organization I mentioned in a recent post, the vaccines were used in a group of 60.000 healthy people aged 20 – 65. I don’t remember for how long the participants were followed. Non died, 4 were ‘injured’; so 1 in 15.000. The vaccines were then promoted. I should mention that there was a relatively high number of casualties already in the entire group of about 10 mln. and this worried the ‘management’ of course. Nevertheless, it’s the most vulnerable that die and these were not included in the control group. Had that been the case, we had to add quite a few of them to the injured and death list. I’m afraid the decision to promote the vaccines, except to the vulnerable, was perhaps wrong.
In the end it will only be overall mortality that tells us to what extent the vaccines kill; whether or not it can be hard proven, remains to be seen.

“Sadly vaccine induced injury exists and not just in the mind of anti vaxxers, unless of course, you consider the legal, medical/scientific experts and Coroners in the UK to be anti vax also.
At the end of the day it should be possible to debate vaccination without it descending into a foul rant.”
– That’s apparently impossible seen the interests. Perhaps a century later.

Why ? Have you thought a simple explanation ? Vaccines prevenet infectious diseases. This is why WHO and governments like them.
You shoud link to that present trial. This mine
https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
Go to table 5. People over 60 and with comoriitis were not excluded. A lie,is it no ?

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “Lucas, I feel for you. You should have run when the very first capital letter appeared…………..it only goes seriously downhill from there!
I’ve had it all said of me …and worse!”

WOW! Congratulations. You’ve identified with a troll. Either you are really dense, didn’t actually carefully read what he wrote and mine and others responses or he actually does resemble your approach/comments. In any case, you really are making a fool of yourself.

@ Lucas

RETURN OF THE TROLL. As usual, you make claims without any links to valid websites/medical journal articles, etc. And once again, since you claim your country had a high number of serious adverse reactions to mRNA covid vaccines, give the name of your country and link to a credible website/paper???

And you have given absolutely no indication you understand the basics of the immune system, nor how vaccines actually work, same with Wendy Stephen, you two deserve each other.

@ldw56old

“Fixed it for you, you serial liar.”

You do have some issues, ldw56. Why don’t you ask for a dose increase?

I’m fine. I’m just always astonished how someone like you, who has demonstrated you have no understanding of science or statistics, feel comfortable making up lies about the dangers of vaccines. Even more, I’m boggled that you expect people who aren’t as scummy as you to take you seriously.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“The vaccine caused 1 to 2 deaths per million doses, so 250,000 deaths vs 1 or 2 per million, plus a dozen or so who suffered progressive or generalized vaccinia, basically suffering same way as those who survived natural infection.”
Mind sharing your reliable source?
Good for you causes of excess deaths are not being paid attention to.

“However, it is possible that those who died and/or suffered from the vaccine had some genetic predisposition so that they would have had the same result either way.”
Sure, these bastards deserved to die anyway.

@ Lucas

“Based on past experience, it is estimated that 1 to 2 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated could die as a result of life-threatening reactions to the vaccine.” CDC (2017 Jul 12). Side Effects of Smallpox Vaccination
And I could give more sites.

You write: “However, it is possible that those who died and/or suffered from the vaccine had some genetic predisposition so that they would have had the same result either way.” Sure, these bastards deserved to die anyway.

What a stupid thing to say. Nope, they wouldn’t deserve to die; but anyone who understands genetic predispositions and immunology would understand that certain people are at extremely high risk if infected by certain microbes. And given the smallpox vaccine was really just a weakened version of smallpox, that is, a close relative, then if a weakened version would kill them the risk would be quite high from the full strength virus.

You really are one dishonest sick moron

As far as I’m aware, the original smallpox killed seventy odd percent of the children who caught it. But sure, offering such a dangerous vaccine (or the previous inoculation methods) must have been an evil act furthering the global depopulation agenda.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“WOW! Congratulations. You’ve identified with a troll. Either you are really dense, didn’t actually carefully read what he wrote and mine and others responses or he actually does resemble your approach/comments. In any case, you really are making a fool of yourself.”

Game of divide and conquer, Joel?

@ Lucas

When I write: “And you have given absolutely no indication you understand the basics of the immune system, nor how vaccines actually work, same with Wendy Stephen, you two deserve each other.”

You write: “Game of divide and conquer, Joel?”

How is saying two people deserve each other divide and conquer? Just one more example of your asinine trolling, just writing idiotic things to irritate.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“As usual, you make claims without any links to valid websites/medical journal articles, etc. And once again, since you claim your country had a high number of serious adverse reactions to mRNA covid vaccines, give the name of your country and link to a credible website/paper???”

Clearly you did not get the message. It’s called irony.
The name of my country is where our WEF puppet government removes the farmers that feed the world.

“And you have given absolutely no indication you understand the basics of the immune system, nor how vaccines actually work, same with Wendy Stephen, you two deserve each other.”

Got your message, compared to the King of epidemiology we’re the ignorant.

@ Lucas

As usual you write absurdities. Nope I’m not the “king” of epidemiologist; but, yep you are ignorant having not displayed one ounce of knowledge of immunology, thus how vaccines work, ignoring overwhelming world-wide data of almost two years that the vaccines work, etc. But, of course, according to you all the papers from nations around the world are lies and you know better.

@ Joel

“And you have given absolutely no indication you understand the basics of the immune system, nor how vaccines actually work, same with Wendy Stephen, you two deserve each other.”

I can’t and won’t speak for Lucas but it is indeed true that I have limited knowledge of the immune system and the biochemical background to how vaccines work but none of that impacts on one’s ability to read up on papers from reputable journals and sources on the problems a small number of people experience with vaccines. ( are you saying that the authors of many scientiffic papers on vaccine induced ADR’s lack these attributes and qualifications)

Time and time again I have recognised the invaluable contribution vaccines have made to the spread of disease but it still remains the case that a number of very unfortunate individuals have lasting and debilitating injuries because of them. It doesn’t follow that every single ADR complained of has been caused by a vaccine and I agree I’ve witnessed some pretty crazy stuff myself in this regard but neither does it mean that every single person who alleges a vaccine induced injury is wrong, a liar and/ or an anti vaccinationist.

The science isn’t always right. Nothing is entirely safe and vaccines are no different and it follows (irrespective of numbers) that some individuals will not fair well because of them. Why can you not just concede that? Don’t you think that your very divisive, non negotiable, no concession giving approach to vaccination safety and science might, as well as lacking scientific support , is fuelling the anti vax argument?

The 2021 APBI Code of practice in the UK states that “the word “safe” must not be used without qualification” in respect of medicinal products something Astra Zeneca recently fell foul of in this complaint……

https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth3518521-member-of-the-public-v-astrazeneca/

Interesting to know the country here WEF puppet government removes farmers. But you are really deepin it.

“So, yep, compared to literally 10s of millions of doses of mRNA vaccines for covid, an extremely small number have suffered; e.g., clots, myocarditis.”

So, yep, it’s just that sporters collapse by the dosens. And we have an excess deathrate that screams for explanation. And etcetera. Stop lying.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

You write: “why an ‘antivaxxer’ would want to lie. I usually think in terms of financial benefit;”

“Start with Joseph Mercola who sells alternative medicine and is estimated to be worth $100 million dollars, even donated $1 million dollars to antivax National Vaccine Information Center. Others with good incomes selling alternative medicines and books include Neil Z Miller and Mike Adams. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr, though he inherited a fortune, has a salary more than $400,000 per year for running Children’s Defense Fund. And Andrew Wakefield who lost his medical license lives quite well because he gets large fees to attend antivax meetings, etc.”

Quite well true, but this is what I already suggested.
Question to Aarno was in what way the usual antivaxxer would benefit.

“And others are antivaxxers for a number of reasons, including not understanding infectious disease and how vaccines work, thus victims of antivax website lies, many subscribe to paranoid conspiracy theories and/or simply anti-government, thus, can’t discriminate between positive things governments do, etc. People who focus on their individual rights, ignoring that rights only exist in communities and, thus, one has to balance individual rights with responsibility to community. I doubt you understand that or, more likely, you could care less.”

Well I doubt if you understand the word “lie”. A lie is a ‘false statement made with the intention of deceiving’.
Not understanding something does not make one a liar.
Looking at antivaxx websites, true or not, doesn’t make one a liar.
Paranoid conspiracy theories don’t turn a normal human being into a liar.
Not being able to discriminate doesn’t turn one into a liar.
Focussing on individual rights doesn’t turn a person into a liar.
People telling me stories of what happened soon after a relative received the jab are no liars.

My question hasn’t been answered yet. I still don’t see the benefit of the usual antivaxxer.

“But I realize you aren’t really wanting answers to your questions”

Then why did you give this question a try?
I asked you 3 simple questions before. Please answer those questions if you want to be of help.

“ Question to Aarno was in what way the usual antivaxxer would benefit.”

So what do you get from telling lies Lucas? You do it so much and with so much fluidity it must be a life-long endeavor for you.

“People telling me stories of what happened soon after a relative received the jab are no liars”

PEOPLE telling you stories about a RELATIVE? How many people? Why hasn’t the relative told you directly? Are they local relatives or do they conveniently live elsewhere? You’re only one step away from ‘a friend of a friend was told about a relative of a work-mate’.

I fully expect that everything you’ve been told is second hand, third hand or rumour and at least one order of magnitude worse than actually happened.

You don’t want to hear why anti-vaxxers might lie, but what else would you call it when they continue to use absolute number of deaths (vax vs unvaxxed) as a talking point, after having base rate explained to them? The truth doesn’t matter to them, only the message.

So what is your question ?
How a stalinist benefitted when he spreaded stalinism (outside Stalin’
s empire). He thought it is his responsibility to lie for party. This apply to the foot soldiers. Big shot antivaxxers earn a lot.

@ Lucas

You just keep making it obvious that you are a FRIGGIN TROLL WITH KNOW REAL KNOWLEDGE JUST POSTING TO IRRITATE PEOPLE.

One of the definitions of lie: ” Something meant to deceive or mistakenly accepted as true” Notice the second half “mistakenly accepted as true”. The antivaxxers who continue, ignoring any science presented to them, just as you, are liars. Orac, myself and others have explained and sometimes linked to websites, articles, etc. that support what we write and your response is they are the liars. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT

And you still refuse to give your country and link to a credible website that backs your claim of high number of serious adverse events. YOU REALLY ARE ONE SICK SOB

@Joel Harrison

“WOW! Congratulations. You’ve identified with a troll.”

Good try Joel!

To be clear, I identified with the foul list of ‘descriptive titles’ Lucas has been subjected to on here, having had most of them applied to me previously (and worse).

That’s a stand alone issue and has nothing to do with the content of the posts. Subjecting someone to a relentless barrage of childish but insulting names with ever growing ferocity and vitriol is unacceptable, full stop!

But, if faced with a choice in identifying with a troll or someone who goes around stating that Andrew Wakefield isn’t really anti vaccines…………….there’s no competition!

I’m not that stupid and from what I’ve seen, neither is the troll!

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “I’m not that stupid and from what I’ve seen, neither is the troll!”

So, you see Lucas as not stupid; but ignore that he continues to call others liars, that when he requests links, etc. and they are given, he ignores them, or claims that virtually all such websites, articles, etc are lies, and that he wrote about me: “Has someone ever told you you’re a shameless, arrogant asshole?”

And you continued with post after post about your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss from the urabe mumps vaccine; but you came across mainly angry that government accepted was caused by vaccine; but since only 20% handicap, didn’t pay you the 120,000 british pounds. I wonder what you would have done if you had received the money??? I also pointed out that about 5% of kids who got mumps, almost all, suffered partial or even complete unilateral hearing loss, which means your daughter had a high risk from actual mumps. And I discussed that governments should fund better support for all families with handicapped children. Do you think that unilateral loss of hearing less a problem if from natural mumps? No response from you. I’m convinced it is the money that drives you! While I am truly sorry for her loss, I asked you how she is doing. Does she drive? Did she get a good education? Does she have a good job, etc. etc? If I had to accept one handicap, unilateral hearing loss would be mine. I would still have learned to play guitar and piano, still drive a car, still attained my PhD, etc. I would, of course, had to adjust certain behaviors to compensate. In any case, yep, you are stupid, stupid because you obsessed with the urabe mumps vaccine for 10 years, even ignored that there were, though fewer, cases of hearing loss from the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine. And you displayed no compassion for kids who suffered unilateral hearing loss from actual mumps.

You don’t like what I call Lucas; but ignore or are too stupid to understand that he is not posting comments to enter into a dialogue; but just to irritate people, to provoke, to anger. He is a genuine troll and calling him and you stupid are understatements.

And you wrote: “The irony is, neither side in the pro vax/ anti vax debate are 100% correct in any of their arguments or their science. ”

Which I tore to shreds. Maybe provaxxers not 100% correct, but based on real science and understanding; but overwhelming majority of antivaxxers are just plain wrong, displaying mainly total lack of understanding of science and, like you, ignoring when refuted. And Lucas asked for reasons, I gave them and he ignored them, asking the same question again. That is what he does, ask questions, then when answered, continues to ask same question, no answer good enough, all lies according to him. This is what a troll does. And you are just too stupid to understand this.

So, how is your daughter doing???

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You just keep making it obvious that you are a FRIGGIN TROLL WITH KNOW REAL KNOWLEDGE JUST POSTING TO IRRITATE PEOPLE.
One of the definitions of lie: ” Something meant to deceive or mistakenly accepted as true” Notice the second half “mistakenly accepted as true”. The antivaxxers who continue, ignoring any science presented to them, just as you, are liars. Orac, myself and others have explained and sometimes linked to websites, articles, etc. that support what we write and your response is they are the liars.”

Are you shopping definitions now, Joel?
Before posting one that seems to fit your ridiculous views, please analyse before you paste. Again you’re wrong; let me assist you.
The second half “mistakenly accepted as true” does indeed imply that what is accepted may be a lie. It does however explicitly not mean that the one repeating the lie is a liar.

Why don’t you open this link: https://differencebtw.com/lie-vs-mistake/
– “Lie: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.”
– “Lie: Something meant to deceive or mistakenly accepted as true.”
– “Mistake: part of a statement that is not correct”
– “Mistake: an understanding of something that is not correct”

You do not seem good at reading comprehension, Joel; no matter how much you curse.
And you don’t even seem to understand the difference between a lie and a mistake.
Leaves the question unanswered what you do at this forum? Aren’t you more then a simple clown?

Now that we’re talking definitions, be so good to describe what is an ‘antivaxxer’. I’m afraid you will avoid that question as well.
Next of course to the questions already asked but not answered: “Perhaps also why an ‘antivaxxer’ would want to lie. I usually think in terms of financial benefit; in what way does the usual ‘antivaxxer’ benefit, unlike some ‘provaxxers’?”

“Orac, myself and others have explained and sometimes linked to websites, articles, etc. that support what we write and your response is they are the liars. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT”

Unless you show me where I wrote that there are liars behind the “links to websites, articles, etc. that support what [you] write”, you are the liar here. No chance and you know that. Look in a mirror, Joel. There you see one with capital letters.

“And you still refuse to give your country and link to a credible website that backs your claim of high number of serious adverse events.”

Which means you don’t follow the news. And more worrying: that your media hides it from you.
Again: “The name of my country is where our WEF puppet government removes the farmers that feed the world.” Anyone else?
The other part of you remark: irony, told you so already.

Yes, our farmers produce for the world and import a lot of stuff in order to do so. And they harm the environment.
I’m defenitly not a fan of Dutch farmers and give them the middle-finger if they protest. They can do as they please with heavy equipment, without the police bothering them, but environmental activists are removed as soon as they start blocking a road. And if people against black Pete are protesting and some people from the country, who are also in favour of the farmers, start molesting them, the molesters get a free pass and the protest is canceled by the local authorities.
If you protest with tractors, you can do as you please.

@Lucas Why you cannot give us name of the name of the country ? Or link to the source ? Perhaps it it is your media that is lying ?
About your lies: you spoke about present trial, that only healthy under 60 year were include into he trial. Actual shows otherwise.

@ Wendy Stephen

You focus on my name calling which composes less than 5% of any comment. It is your excuse for not carefully reading what I write and/or not understanding. What I write clearly refutes/explains what is wrong in other comments, including sometimes links to credible websites and/or articles. So, yep, very stupid to focus on name calling; but typical of you. And my name calling doesn’t usually start with my first response to someone else’s comment; but when, as with you and Lucas, they ignore what I write and/or twist/distort, etc.

@ldw56old

“”Question to Aarno was in what way the usual antivaxxer would benefit.”
So what do you get from telling lies Lucas? You do it so much and with so much fluidity it must be a life-long endeavor for you.”

Thanks for the fluidity compliment.
What do you get from avoiding answers to questions asked?

Me? You’ve been asked

for references for your assertions about deaths — nothing
for papers supporting your statements — nothing
for information about where you are so your claims about excess deaths where you are can be checked — nothing
repeated about why you choose to lie about covid and the vaccines — nothing other than more lies

If you won/t [since your assertions aren’t based in any fact, that really means “can’t”] support your comments, you deserve all of the disdain and feedback you get.

nothing for information about where you are

The bit about farmers strongly suggests the Netherlands.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, Wendy Stephen

“So, you see Lucas as not stupid; but ignore that he continues to call others liars, that when he requests links, etc. and they are given, he ignores them, or claims that virtually all such websites, articles, etc are lies, and that he wrote about me: “Has someone ever told you you’re a shameless, arrogant asshole?””

Why should you demean yourself by stooping to the practices of hateful, blatant nonsense, Joel?
One evil slippery eel you are. Just not smart.

To all: I asked for just a link on recent overall mortality. No one here has provided me such link. So, anyone?

“Has someone ever told you you’re a shameless, arrogant asshole?”
That was just a question, Joel. That’s why I added: “Ask them.”
So what did you find out?

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, @Wendy Stephen

“You don’t like what I call Lucas; but ignore or are too stupid to understand that he is not posting comments to enter into a dialogue; but just to irritate people, to provoke, to anger.”

No need repeating how stupid everyone else is in order for you to shine, Joel. We know that meanwhile, so give it a rest.
And no, the ‘dialogue’ will follow after we agree on using the same database. Then I might ‘kill’ you and your Orac clowns with the results on vaccine safety. But you know that, hehe.
Irritated for not wanting to hear the truth.

@NumberWang

“People telling me stories of what happened soon after a relative received the jab are no liars”

“PEOPLE telling you stories about a RELATIVE?” – Yes, does that sound strange to you?

“How many people?” – I made a rather detailed list of these people already half a year ago or so. If you haven’t read it or you cannot find it, I will have a look for you.

“Why hasn’t the relative told you directly?” – Because the death don’t talk. And the injured are not the ones I met, saying so. One example of what I mentioned in this previous post concerned a young woman behind the counter (probably Moroccian) in the nearby shopper hall. I asked for 1kg of Nigella seed there. The next time I bought the same, she asked me what I use this for. I told her it is to help avoid getting severely ill from covid as an unvaccinated. Then she said that she wasn’t vaccinated either and told me she didn’t trust the vaccines. When I asked her for motivation, she told me about an uncle losing sight in one eye shortly after vaccination and a grandfather (thought it was her grandfather, please read back for the details) that died according to her due to / shortly after vaccination. I don’t remember whether these relatives live(d) in my country or in Morocco, but that’s not relevant.
I invited the physician in that forum who denied that someone can get blind in an eye due to the vaccine (obviously he had no idea what he was talking about, as this is one of the side effects specifically mentioned by Pfizer), to get in contact with her for verification and ask for her story. He didn’t respond. I said I might ask one of the others I mentioned as well, no answer. Still the offer is there. So Joel or another doctor her, your chance: show us you’re interested to find out about side effects.
One other clear case of vaccine injury that I wrote about is a woman I have known all my life. She’s the one that got the double pulmonary embolism right after vaccination. Firsthand.
These vaccines cannot be safe at all if only half or a quarter of the cases mentioned, were indeed due to the vaccine. Ldw56 as a statistician should be able to verify this would be impossible.

“Are they local relatives or do they conveniently live elsewhere? You’re only one step away from ‘a friend of a friend was told about a relative of a work-mate’.”
Most live in my country. I am aware about the risk of the ‘friend of a friend’. I never said that this is the ultimate proof of the vaccines’ dangers. Overal mortality might tell you.

“I fully expect that everything you’ve been told is second hand, third hand or rumour and at least one order of magnitude worse than actually happened.” The mother of an optician in his shop, the relatives of the woman in the shop, the parent of a dietitian are examples of second hand. What reason would you have to doubt them? Let one of the doctors here get in contact with them and verify. Next to this I saw what I saw in the couple of other cases.

“You don’t want to hear why anti-vaxxers might lie, but what else would you call it when they continue to use absolute number of deaths (vax vs unvaxxed) as a talking point, after having base rate explained to them? The truth doesn’t matter to them, only the message.”
Why would I not want to hear why anti-vaxxers might lie? I basically trust no one, unless. Period.
I’m not interested in people making money with stories; and this goes for provaxxers just as well. This world has become a lie, so I’m completely aware I have to be careful drawing conclusions.
Don’t forget the cases mentioned are just people. No agenda.
Fyi, I am not interested in just absolute numbers, these are meaningless. Please read back what data I asked for.

I’m rather curious as to why you talk about overall mortality (an official data collection) whilst, simultaneously, taking the story of the lady at the checkout at face value?

Was the blindness permanent? How old was the grandfather? How well off was the family? Were there any previous health issues? Did they have the same vaccine and was it Pfizer?

You stress that you know to be careful about drawing conclusions but when are you going to walk the walk?

What reason would you have to doubt them?

It’s safer to doubt you, since the most likely thing is that you made up those stories.

But on the very small chance at least one of the stories you relate comes from an actual event: they should be doubted because there is no evidence linking them to the vaccine. Saying bad things happened after something else does not mean causality.

@Narad

“The bit about farmers strongly suggests the Netherlands.”

Correct. Lots of demonstrations here and it has been going on for a while now. Thousands of tractors jammed up traffic by up to 700 miles during rush hour in protest, last October.
Farmers hanging the flag upside down on their land as a protest, which is funny. With regards to (the thread of) food shortages around the globe, I find this a strange phenomenon even more. Could there be an agenda behind the demonisation of the farmers other then nitrogen emission? Shut down Tata steel here and you can leave the farmers in peace. Never.
Why at the same time we see commercials we should drink less milk because of misused cows and we should eat less meat? So obvious, such nonsense.
Just curious, did the ‘official’ media in your country tell you about this? If not, why not.

@Lucas So it was not removing the farmers, it was originally proposal to reduce cattle. It as not WEF, it was environmentalists Difficult to speak truthfully,is it not ?

ldw56old

“You’ve been asked:
for references for your assertions about deaths — nothing”
for papers supporting your statements — nothing”
for information about where you are so your claims about excess deaths where you are can be checked — nothing
repeated about why you choose to lie about covid and the vaccines — nothing other than more lies”

Why don’t you cut your crab and just give me the data asked for. Let’s first agree on using specific raw data, then we’ll see. You seem afraid of being exposed or something. Hmm.

Sorry dickhead (lucas): you were asked for those things long before you began your tactic of distraction by asking questions you don’t care about. Fill in what you were asked for, with citations: that would at least be a small sign that you’re interested in honest discussion (something you’ve never done before).

@Lucas I did give you the raw data, why do you not check it. or jus goolg for it.

@Renate

“Yes, our farmers produce for the world and import a lot of stuff in order to do so. And they harm the environment.
I’m defenitly not a fan of Dutch farmers and give them the middle-finger if they protest. They can do as they please with heavy equipment, without the police bothering them, but environmental activists are removed as soon as they start blocking a road. And if people against black Pete are protesting and some people from the country, who are also in favour of the farmers, start molesting them, the molesters get a free pass and the protest is canceled by the local authorities.
If you protest with tractors, you can do as you please.”

The Netherlands is even the second largest exporter in the world in this field. That explains in my opinion the WEF’s focus on our farmers (our puppet government did not come up with the idea themselves).
I don’t like the WEF / UN at all – especially because of it’s wish for a return to the old feudal system with a small rich upperclass (they), and a large poor underclass (you). Unrolling their agenda will lead to a decline in well-being, welfare and personal freedom without a doubt. This has become visible meanwhile. Problems are deliberately being created and this will continue.
Advantage of the agenda though, would be the decline in welfare. We spill so much in many aspects. I would like to see that come to an end. No need to fly around the world, no need to take your car for small distances, no need to buy the latest gadgets, etc.
But no need to discuss all that now.

Btw, wouldn’t you protest if your government takes away your means of subsistence?
The Police didn’t do a thing too in Amsterdam after the Moroccians won some soccer play; the group is simply too large.
And about Black Pete, isn’t that a huge issue?

<

blockquote>I don’t like the WEF / UN at all – especially because of it’s wish for a return to the old feudal system with a small rich upperclass (they), and a large poor underclass (you). Unrolling their agenda will lead to a decline in well-being, welfare and personal freedom without a doubt.

There is just no conspiracy too stupid for you to buy into is there? God you’re an idiot.

@NumberWang

“I’m rather curious as to why you talk about overall mortality (an official data collection) whilst, simultaneously, taking the story of the lady at the checkout at face value?”
Question is not relevant.

Your other questions are not relevant either, as no hard conclusion is based on one such story. Feel free however to ask her yourself in case you’re a doctor or investigator.
But combined and with a couple of cases, like the double pulmonary embolism after vaccination (firsthand), definately gives a worrying signal. I’m sure you agree on that.

Actually, all those questions are relevant. If you’re interested in separating genuine serious adverse events from the blizzard of shite, coincidence and conspiracy, that is.

It would appear that you have tucked yourself into the niche labelled JAQ.

@Renate

“our farmers harm the environment.”

Yes, and so do our industries. Or your car. Or you for that matter.

Hello Aarno,

How are you?
Ofcourse many vaccines are useful, not all are necessary and some turned out te be harmful.
Question is in what category the mRNA vaccines should be categorized. All biased sources or sources where the underlying data are questionable aside, the only source that might be useful is one with recent data on weekly or monthly excess mortality by vaccination status (excl. base rate bias). Deaths don’t lie, data is according to reality. No underreporting / overreporting / scam here.
Table 5 you refer to does not provide this data.

“Have you thought a simple explanation?”
Regarding to what specifically do you mean?

Let’s agree on the database first, then see what it shows us, then discuss possible explanations in case the two groups show significant differences. Agree with that?
I would much like not to see differences. I’m very sure provaxxers as well, unless the unvaccinated show a relatively higher number of deaths (wouldn’t they love that?)

Table 5 was answer to your claim that there was a clinical trial purposefully
excluded vulnerable people.1
Link I posted says that next dataset on vaccinated/unvaccinatd was postponed because
a) booster data is needed
b) 2021 population data would be included

Wendy Stephen: “One possible reason why the risk (of thromboembolism) might not be as “minimal” as you state”

I haven’t made any such statement.

Nor am I one of the imaginary posters you’ve conjured up who supposedly deny the existence of any injury due to vaccination.

Do you think that the premise of “Died Suddenly” (huge numbers of unexplained deaths/depopulation due to Covid-19 vaccines) is valid? Have the film’s makers been unfairly criticized and attacked?
Based on current knowledge, if medical guidelines call for Covid-19 vaccination (initial or booster) for a person, would you recommend that they follow that advice?

My answers to the above questions are no, no and yes.

@ Dangerous Bacon

I’ve already answered a couple of your questions so how about you now answer a couple of mine?

That’s reasonable, huh?

(a) Given that there is no standard case definition /algorithm to diagnose VITT/ITT etc etc, and numerous variations are being employed, would you agree that there is huge potential for under reporting and the real tally may be significantly higher than currently acknowledged?

(b) Given the differing post vaccination timeframes being used to diagnose VITT/ITT etc (ie 5-30 days in some instances, 1 -42 days in others) do you think that a number of cases might be being missed due to earlier cut off times in some definitions being followed?

And as for your questions…………. I do not support “Died Suddenly” at all but I do have concerns, (as I think most rational people would) over the large numbers of sudden and unexplained deaths occurring. Scotland alone has 14% excess deaths as of 3rd November 2022 and that’s positively something worthy of investigation/explanation.

I do think that the criticism of “Died Suddenly” is valid.

As to the third question…………….I’ve answered this before (funnily enough for Joel ..several times over in fact)…….If medical guidelines advise initial vaccination and/or boosters for an individual I take no issue with that but I would never personally advise someone on any aspect of vaccination. (And you know my reasons for that).

Nothing you’ve posted indicates a “huge potential” for significant under-reporting of vaccine-associated thromboembolism. Nor do those “hundreds of excellent reliable papers” (as you put it) support such a scenario.

What these tip-of-the-iceberg claims suggest is a belief in the fallacy of future vindication, to which antivaxers are strongly prone. Handwaving about excess deaths (they’ve GOTTA be due to the vaccines!) is typical of the stuff flung out of the FUD-mobile you drive through these discussions, with time taken out for identifying and sympathizing with blatant antivaxers for being unfairly abused.

“I would never personally advise someone on any aspect of vaccination. (And you know my reasons for that).”

Yes. Acknowledging support for vaccines (especially Covid-19 vaccination) risks severely compromising your street cred with fellow antivaxers. Can’t have that. 😉

Sorry you don’t like the answers, but you can hardly pretend I didn’t respond to your (just asking) questions.

Did you ever consider that non-uniformity in case definitions for vaccine-associated thromboembolism might result in the number of cases being overestimated?

A well-known side-effect of contracting antivax syndrome is tunnel vision.

@ldw56old

“blockquote>I don’t like the WEF / UN at all – especially because of it’s wish for a return to the old feudal system with a small rich upperclass (they), and a large poor underclass (you). Unrolling their agenda will lead to a decline in well-being, welfare and personal freedom without a doubt.
There is just no conspiracy too stupid for you to buy into is there? God you’re an idiot.”

Conspiracy? No, policy.
You make ignorance an art.
When will you start learning macroeconomics? I told you to do so in the past. Still you have no clue where we’re heading, especially / to begin with here in Europe.
That makes you a victim and me a winner, apparently that’s what you want.
I’ll get back to the subject after some days of holiday and tell you what has changed for the worse meanwhile. I’ve made some clear predictions here in the past, time to evaluate. So hold your horses until then please.

Conspiracy? No, policy

No, your asinine take on policy. And there’s no more reason to believe anything you say about economics than there is anything you say above covid and the lack of safety of vaccines. As I’ve said, you’ve blatantly lied about so many things the safest (by far) position is to take everything you say as a lie. Same for your bullshit about “winners” and “losers” (although you’ve already lost at “being a decent person”).

@Lucas Conspiracy theory is ha WEF and UN are thing and they have some power.You did not mention EU, interesting

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “The science isn’t always right. Nothing is entirely safe and vaccines are no different and it follows (irrespective of numbers) that some individuals will not fair well because of them. Why can you not just concede that? Don’t you think that your very divisive, non negotiable, no concession giving approach to vaccination safety and science might, as well as lacking scientific support , is fuelling the anti vax argument?”

I have on a number of occasions discussed serious adverse events to vaccines; but also pointed out that they were rare and often the same, at higher levels, occurred from the natural microbe. As I wrote, 1 or 2 per million smallpox vaccines died from the vaccine and I also pointed out that if they died from the vaccine which was made from a related but not dangerous strain, then the chances they would die from smallpox, which killed better than 25% of the population, was high. However, I have also written that in a world of 8 billion people the possibility that a few will have some weird genetic predisposition and/or exposure to some chemical/toxins is possible, so I have always supported programs to compensate said individuals; but I also have supported my entire life programs to support ALL people with disabilities. However, if people start thinking that something quite rare could happen to them, then more and more people will refuse vaccinations and a significantly much higher number will suffer. So, by grossly exaggerating my positions, you once again demonstrate your unscientific biased approach to vaccines. And, yes, the science is almost always right because the science doesn’t claim 100%; but often close and is always open to new findings; but antivaxxers, as I wrote, are not. And, for instance, one can go to CDC, FDA, and other valid websites where one can find the serious adverse events found and validated for vaccines. Just one analogy. Seatbelts reduce deaths and serious injury by about 50%; but there has been a couple of cases where the seatbelt sliced thru someone and killed them and dozens of cases where people had bruised ribs, bruised kidneys, etc. and one can read up on this, so I always wear my seatbelt, comparing literally over the decades millions of lives saved vs a couple of deaths, and many more millions of serious injuries prevented; but a few bruised or damaged kidneys. All one can do is objectively look at the odds and with both seatbelts and vaccines the odds are exponential in favor of using them.

You write: “it is indeed true that I have limited knowledge of the immune system and the biochemical background to how vaccines work but none of that impacts on one’s ability to read up on papers from reputable journals and sources on the problems a small number of people experience with vaccines. ( are you saying that the authors of many scientiffic papers on vaccine induced ADR’s lack these attributes and qualifications)”

First, I would bet you don’t have the ability to understand various nuances of published papers; e.g., research methodology, statistics, often qualifications, that is, why results may not be valid, etc. Second, I don’t rely on a few papers; but if it is something I think important I will search, find, and read literally dozens of articles.

If you want to understand how vaccines are followed up for adverse events, which includes a number of different programs, a good starting point is:

A. Patricia Wodi, MD and Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA (2021 Aug). Vaccination Safety. Pinkbook. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/safety.pdf READ IT. YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING AND I HAVE STUDIED, LEARNED MORE OR LESS ALL THE DISCUSSED PROGRAMS

In fact, you might find of interest the entire CDC Pink Book, actually official title “Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (2021).divided into informative chapters for all current vaccines. You can read online or download complete book for free. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html

@Joel

“However, if people start thinking that something quite rare could happen to them, then more and more people will refuse vaccinations and a significantly much higher number will suffer ”.

It’s got nothing to do with “thinking”, the reality is that something quite rare COULD happen to them (doesn’t mean it definitely will) hence the data released in PIL’s, Product Monographs and Pharmacopoeias under “Adverse Events” by the manufacturers and regulatory authorities.

I’m confident that they are only too aware of the point you make but still publish lists of ADR’s irrespective of severity and rarity so why do you have an issue with this?
Stating the obvious I know, but some unfortunate individual(s) has developed the condition before it’s even included as a rare event in the list of possible ADR’s.

Just because an ADR is “rare” (and bear in mind that something which starts of rare doesn’t always stay that rare throughout it’s time on the market…Pandemrix/narcolepsy/cataplexy) it doesn’t follow or seem at all reasonable that potential vaccinees should be denied knowledge of it to protect vaccine uptake.
Your graphic tutorial on smallpox vaccines and seatbelt usage is much appreciated but merely allows you to avoid discussing the here and now. How about staying on topic ie Covid vaccines/clots etc etc the severity of which, and the rate at which they occur may, due to the absence of a standard case definition, be under estimated.

As a scientist does the absence of diagnostic continuity for VITT etc not concern you?

@ Wendy Stephen

When someone gets a vaccine in US they are first given a Vaccine Information Sheet that explains the disease, etc., the mild and severe adverse events, and who to contact if they believe they suffered an adverse events; e.g., phone number, fax, e-mail. They are required to read the two-sided sheet and sign that they read and understood before getting the vaccine. And, nope, the sheets don’t include: 1 case per 2 million doses, etc.

You can find at: CDC. Safety Information by Vaccine. at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/index.html READ A COUPLE

And the actual Vaccine Information Sheets at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/current-vis.html READ A COUPLE

I walk my dog twice daily about a mile. I could be struck by lightening. A car could run up on the sidewalk. Has happened, either drunk driver or heart attack, etc. A few weeks ago I was almost hit by a bicyclist, breaking law, and bicycling at high speed on sidewalk. A mugger could rob me. And, in US, a crazy person could just shoot people at random, has happened. And I don’t think about such rare events, otherwise I would stop living, so mentioning extremely rare serious adverse events would be counterproductive; however, they can be found at CDC website, Vaccine Safety

@ Wendy Stephen

One more point. As we gain evermore knowledge of the immune system and genetics we will be able to decide who will be at risk from vaccines. Either we can give at later age, space out, or not give at all. This reduces; but doesn’t eliminate all possible extremely rare serious adverse events. And we can practice cocooning, simply if someone can’t be vaccinated or it is delayed we ensure as best as possible that those around the person are vaccinated. We don’t live in a perfect world; but your need to overemphasize extremely rare events, claiming that I ignore them, quite dishonest, indicates that despite your claim to not be antivaccine, that either you are or just aren’t very intelligent. As I wrote, I walk my dog twice daily and extremely rare events could occur; but if I were to focus/think about them, my life would be a nightmare

And I reiterate that I believe with strong evidence that your 10 years of posting comments on your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss due to urabe mumps vaccine was more because you were denied the compensation of 120,000 british pounds. I doubt you would be posting if you had received it. And I’ve asked over and over how your daughter is doing; but no reply. I know people with unilateral hearing loss and though I am sincerely sorry, they do fine and I believe I would to. I could still play guitar and piano, still drive a car, still watch movies and attend concerts, etc. So how is Katie doing? And was it even total hearing loss or could a hearing aid or cochlear implant work?

“We don’t live in a perfect world; but your need to overemphasize extremely rare events, claiming that I ignore them, quite dishonest, indicates that despite your claim to not be antivaccine, that either you are or just aren’t very intelligent.”

Good try again, Joel.

I’m not over emphasizing “extremely rare events” the point I make is that historically it’s been shown with previous vaccines (on some occasions…not all) that what started off as an “extremely rare event” with the passage of time and continued marketing of the product, not to be as rare as previously thought, and that may be the case with Covid vaccines and clots.

“And I reiterate that I believe with strong evidence that your 10 years of posting comments on your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss due to urabe mumps vaccine was more because you were denied the compensation of 120,000 british pounds.”

As I stated before you have no idea how the case concluded, and although I’m grateful for your interest in my daughter and her welfare you must appreciate that as she’s now very much an adult, I won’t be commenting on either.

I suggest you come up with a different explanation for why I keep posting………and once more for the record (although you know this) it’s the vaccine injured person who receives an award not the parent/representative.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “I’m not over emphasizing “extremely rare events” the point I make is that historically it’s been shown with previous vaccines (on some occasions…not all) that what started off as an “extremely rare event” with the passage of time and continued marketing of the product, not to be as rare as previously thought, and that may be the case with Covid vaccines and clots.”

The vaccines have been on the market for two years. I have ALL the up-to-date Information Statement given to patients. Below is for the Janssen COVID vaccine. Notice “about 8 cases for million vaccine doses AND 1 out of 7 fatal, which means approximately 1 death per million doses. Given the hospitalization and deaths from COVID I think quite excellent odds; but given your antivax bias, probably too high. Notice also occurred within 1 to 2 weeks. Also statement lists thrombocytopenia and Guillain-Barre Syndrome within 42 days. And ends with “These may not be all the possible side effects of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. Serious and unexpected effects may occur. The Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials.”

And neither the MODERNA nor Pfizer include clots, etc. You can find them on your own as I’m sure you won’t.

And I gave you link to just how many different ways vaccine safety are being followed up; but below is based on about 2 years. Given your belief that rare events could become more frequent, how long a follow-up would you want before people encouraged to get vaccinated? So, as usual, you are wrong. Long-term follow-ups would have found that rare events are actually more usual; but extremely rare events may still be uncovered.

As for whether your daughter or you would have received the compensation, ridiculous hair-splitting. Unless you are/were an uncaring parent, obviously the money would have been used to benefit your daughter.

And your continuous refusal to simply say how your daughter is doing with her unilateral hearing loss is absurd, unless, of course, she is doing fine and you don’t want to admit that, despite not receiving the compensation, despite unilateral hearing loss, she is doing fine. Given your continuous dishonesty, absurdly claiming what I have written, and 10 years of posting comments on not receiving compensation, etc. not surprising.

As far as I’m concerned you are some combination of DISHONEST and STUPID.

From Janssen (2022 May 5).

FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS
EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE JANSSEN COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19)

Blood Clots with Low Levels of Platelets
Blood clots involving blood vessels in the brain, lungs, abdomen, and legs along with low levels of platelets (blood cells that help your body stop bleeding), have occurred in some people who have received the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. In people who developed these blood clots and low levels of platelets, symptoms began approximately one to two weeks after vaccination. Blood clots with low levels of platelets following the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine have been reported in males and females, across a wide age range of individuals 18 years and older; reporting has been highest in females ages 30 through 49 years (about 8 cases for every 1,000,000 vaccine doses administered), and about 1 out of every 7 cases has been fatal. You should seek medical attention right away if you have any of the following symptoms after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine:
• Shortness of breath,
• Chest pain,
• Leg swelling,
• Persistent abdominal pain,
• Severe or persistent headaches or blurred vision,
• Easy bruising or tiny blood spots under the skin beyond the site of the injection.

Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP)
Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a disorder that can cause easy or excessive bruising and bleeding due to very low levels of platelets. ITP has occurred in some people who have received the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. In most of these people, symptoms began within 42 days following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. The chance of having this occur is very low. If you have ever had a diagnosis of ITP, talk to your vaccination provider before you get the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. You should seek medical attention right away if you develop any of the following symptoms after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine:
• Easy or excessive bruising or tiny blood spots under the skin beyond the site of the injection,
• Unusual or excessive bleeding.

Guillain Barré Syndrome
Guillain Barré syndrome (a neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis) has occurred in some people who have received the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. In most of these people, symptoms began within 42 days following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. The chance of having this occur is very low. You should seek medical attention right away if you develop any of the following symptoms after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine:
• Weakness or tingling sensations, especially in the legs or arms, that’s worsening and spreading to other parts of the body.
• Difficulty walking.
• Difficulty with facial movements, including speaking, chewing, or swallowing.
• Double vision or inability to move eyes.
• Difficulty with bladder control or bowel function.

These may not be all the possible side effects of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. Serious and unexpected effects may occur. The Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials.

@NumberWang

““I’m rather curious as to why you talk about overall mortality (an official data collection) whilst, simultaneously, taking the story of the lady at the checkout at face value?” Question is not relevant. Your other questions are not relevant either, as no hard conclusion is based on one such story. Feel free however to […]
Actually, all those questions are relevant. If you’re interested in separating genuine serious adverse events from the blizzard of shite, coincidence and conspiracy, that is.
It would appear that you have tucked yourself into the niche labelled JAQ.”

I’ve never said I take the story of the lady at the checkout at face value. You fantasize obviously, can you not just read?
A story is just a story. Several similar stories from independent and unrelated sources combined, may however be an indication for some underlying phenomenon. None of you seems to want to understand this.
Your standard procedure here usually is to pick one such incident and find whatever reason the injury or death might have not been due to the vaccine. This is wrong.
Like I said, it is the sudden appearance of a number of such events combined that is relevant.

If you feel like taking a deeper dive into this one case, why not?
You give me all the relevant questions in order for you to determine if these two cases the woman told me about are vaccine related with more certainty. You might ask them yourself through email.

Data about overall mortality is a different story. I will look into that at some point, there’s no hurry. Just having not received input from any of you here is quite remarkable, to say the least.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: As I stated before you have no idea how the case concluded, and although I’m grateful for your interest in my daughter and her welfare you must appreciate that as she’s now very much an adult, I won’t be commenting on either.”

So, I have no idea how the case concluded; yet, going back several years to several blogs you posted comments several times that your application for compensation was denied, though they admitted that the vaccine caused the unilateral hearing loss; but a unilateral hearing loss was considered a 20% disability and they didn’t compensate for low levels of disability. So, one more example of what a stupid dishonest liar you are. And I would bet that if Katie had received the compensation you wouldn’t be posting comments, at least not nearly as many.

And I have known people who had children with various disabilities, polio in wheel chair, Down Syndrome, etc. and the parents proudly talked about what their kids had achieved and I even knew someone whose child with polio retrained to walk and bragged about that. As I wrote, my guess is that Katie is doing fine and you don’t want to admit it because then your obsession with the compensation would just be sick. And I’m talking both achievements as kids and as adults.

And while I’m sorry about Katie’s unilateral hearing loss, I feel even more sorry for her having such a sick stupid dishonest mother. While my parents and grandparents weren’t well educated they were roll models for honesty and decency.

So, once more you prove what a STUPID DISHONEST PERSON YOU ARE.

@ Lucas

You write: “Data about overall mortality is a different story. I will look into that at some point, there’s no hurry. Just having not received input from any of you here is quite remarkable, to say the least.”

Bull Shit. Several people have included links to various data sets. Just one more example of what a sick dishonest troll you are. So, below is just one more excellent article on excess mortality, which I know you won’t read.

“What is ‘excess mortality?

Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions.1 In this case, we’re interested in how the number of deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic compares to the deaths we would have expected had the pandemic not occurred — a crucial quantity that cannot be known but can be estimated in several ways.
Excess mortality is a more comprehensive measure of the total impact of the pandemic on deaths than the confirmed COVID-19 death count alone. It captures not only the confirmed deaths, but also COVID-19 deaths that were not correctly diagnosed and reported2 as well as deaths from other causes that are attributable to the overall crisis conditions”
Reference: Charlie Giattino, Hannah Ritchie, Max Roser, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Joe Hasell (2022 Nov 12). Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). Our World in Data.

The above is an excellent article that goes into depth how such estimates are made. And it is just one of dozens of articles I found and downloaded. The deaths from other causes include people with various diseases who during high point of pandemic were not admitted to hospitals and clinics because of infectious disease precautions as well as shortage of personnel, included people with cancer, heart disease needing surgery, etc. and people dying at home from, say, a heart attack; but not checked for covid infection. Quite simply, even with a heart condition, without a severe infection, people can live longer, some times much longer, etc. etc. etc.

So, as usual, you are just a dishonest lying troll.

@ldw56old

“”Conspiracy? No, policy”
No, your asinine take on policy. And there’s no more reason to believe anything you say about economics than there is anything you say above covid and the lack of safety of vaccines. As I’ve said, you’ve blatantly lied about so many things the safest (by far) position is to take everything you say as a lie. Same for your bullshit about “winners” and “losers” (although you’ve already lost at “being a decent person”).”

My asininine take on policy? Stupido.
Even you must have heard about the current high inflation from under your rock. In Economics inflation is equivalent to a tax by your government. Which means there was some policy causing it. When you are confronted with mega inflation during a couple of years, you will be surprised by how much and how fast your purchasing power has shrunk. It just melts like snow for sunshine.
Investors hedge themselves against inflation by buying assets, like gold, real estate, shares, bonds. The rich do this usually, often through an asset manager.
Your problem is probaly that you’re not rich. Which means – presumed that you would know how to invest in what assets at a given moment – that you don’t have much left for investments anyway. Which means that in times of inflation you do not compensate for it. No need to further explain (I hope, otherwise say so) that the current mega inflation pushes you as a probable middle class, lower at the wealth ladder, direction the poor. This is the game being played now, in case you haven’t noticed.

Look ldw56, I don’t care if use a silly enigrating word like ‘conspiracy’. Call it what you want, but it is real. And you are the looser.

Other than you not knowing anything about my financial situation [but begin completely ignorant on a topic never stops you from spouting a false statement] if you are really an economist [doubtful, since you’ve never demonstrated the intellect needed for a graduate program, or even a rigid undergraduate program] implying that the inflation here in the US is at a record level and is a product of government policies would indicate you’re a shitty economist. Just as you’re a shitty source for things vaccine and covid related. You seem as stupid as the people who keep pitching crypto-currencies.

@Dangerous Bacon

Yes, I did consider the possiblity that the rate of VITT might be overestimated due to the various definitions being relied on, but realistically how likely do you think that is with approx 2 weeks less of a cut- off date (in some instances nearly 3 weeks) in the window of opportunity/timeframe for making a VITT diagnosis in some versions?

If we take the Astra Zeneca timeframe (manufacturer of one of the Covid vaccines and presumably recipients of trial data and feedback) of 1-42 days for their product and (for example) a hospital using the 5-30 day window, or in some instances 4-20 days, the potential is for under reporting, not over reporting. The possibility exists that 2 weeks worth of potential VITT cases may be being overlooked due to a shortened time frame. Doesn’t seem at all likely, when the manufacturer of a vaccine provides a timeframe for a potential ADR to occur that it would result in an over estimation of cases unless that timeframe was for some reason extended, which I’m not seeing.

In the circumstances don’t you think it’s more likely than not, that anything short of the manufacturers recommended time frame for VITT is going to result in the problem being underestimated rather than over estimated.

“…realistically how likely do you think (overestimation of risk) is with approx 2 weeks less of a cut- off date (in some instances nearly 3 weeks) in the window of opportunity/timeframe for making a VITT diagnosis in some versions?”

It seems logical that dragging out the time frame for assigning correlation to a vaccine risks increasing the number of false positives.

Then again, I don’t have a well-worn antivax hammer and think everything looks like a nail. Nor do I automatically accept a manufacturer’s CYA statement as gospel.

@Dangerous Bacon

“Nor do I automatically accept a manufacturer’s CYA statement as gospel.”

Really?

Really, Really??

Why would someone who is an ardent supporter of vaccines say that they don’t automatically accept a manufacturers CYA statement as gospel? If I said that, there would have been a steady, deafening, trampling of feet (Joel at the front with his capitals) to label me an anti vaxxer for even daring to doubt the veracity of the manufacturers! What happened to trust the science ie the manufacturers on the back of trials/studies/ research and data gathering supply, (in an open and transparent fashion), information and guidance re possible ADR’s and you say you don’t automatically accept it as gospel.

I’ve got to ask………..why not?

This is highly reminiscent of your previous bizarre insistence that parents were being denied informed consent if they weren’t given a vaccine manufacturer’s handout.

Antivaxers do love those things if they can be selectively cited to seemingly back antivax claims.

Don’t pretend you’re unfamiliar with argument-by-package-insert.

https://vaxopedia.org/2019/01/29/show-me-the-vaccine-insert/

“Nor do I automatically accept a manufacturer’s CYA statement as gospel.”

Could you please answer the question ie why not? My previous question to you also remains unanswered.

Ps. I didn’t mention package insert, it’s you who are re introducing the topic even when I am not, just as Joel did with the VDPU and compensation………….what’s that all about?

You lambast me for raising the subject(s), then when I don’t you introduce them yourselves so that you can lambast me again, even when it’s off topic!

Joel is evidently living rent-free in your head, and vice versa.

You two should get a room.

“Could you please answer the question ie why not? My previous question to you also remains unanswered”

Well my partner’s package insert mentioned Stephens-Johnson syndrome. However, it said it was very rare. The doctor warned us what to look out for and what to do.

Her skin is still intact so……

There are legal reasons to make CYA statements as cautious as possible. I have underwear with warning that it is dangerous to put it to near to a fire.

“I have underwear with warning that it is dangerous to put it to near to a fire”.

As do I, but I’m presuming you recognise that the warning is there for a purpose and your protection and you don’t disregard it (or worse put it to the test) on the basis that it’s only included to allow the manufacturer to lawfully market their product!

It’s there for a purpose and the purpose is to warn of a potential hazard.

@Joel

Just to be clear, I didn’t raise anything to do with my daughter, the VDPS, compensation etc on this particular thread………………..that was you! I wonder why YOU have to keep on raising it even when I do not. Is it so that you can generate some legitmacy (in your thinking) for attacking my skills as a parent when I refuse to debate the subject with you? Is it to go off topic and deflect? Why would you criticise someone over and over for posting on a subject in the past and then entice them to do so when they aren’t?? Then you complain when I wont oblige you. Something really not right about that.

@ Wendy Stephen

I brought up the past as it is clear that your position on vaccines is based on it and your dishonest approach to just about anything. Just to summarize:
1. You were wrong about Spike protein (see my comment) and didn’t admit it
2. You were wrong about rare adverse events needing more follow-up in case not rare. I pointed out we have 2 years follow-up and the rare events occurred in less than two months and asked you if that was adequate. No response.
3. You wrote: “As I stated before you have no idea how the case concluded,” An absolute lie! ! !
4. And when I asked about Katie, your response, just as it was years ago, is that she is an adult, so you won’t discuss her. What an absolutely STUPID response, especially since she was interviewed by several newspapers and discussed her condition, interviewed as an adult; but they were from several years ago and maybe she was able, for instance, to get a cochlear implant?

In any case, as usual, your comment is stupidly dishonest.

@ Wendy Stephen

As of 2021, apparently Katie is graduate with MA, works as actress, stage manager and theater/musical reviewer. Could be another Katie Stephen???
Apparently she is doing well.

@ Wendy Stephen

As I wrote, I found recent articles about Katie Stephen, including a number of plays she worked in, either as actress or stage manager and that she has an MA. If I had a child with an MA and successful as an actress and stage manager I would be extremely proud of her. If she also had a handicap which she successfully overcame, I would be even more proud of her. Also, from photos in articles, she is a very attractive young lady. I spoke on phone with several friends and they would also have been quite proud, one does have a son who is a professional stage manager. If nothing else you are an extremely weird person who refused to publicly be proud of your daughter’s accomplishments.

@Joel
If this is an example of your research skills which you go on about at great length then everyone on here should be wary as my daughter does NOT (Yup, capitals) have an MA……………you have the wrong person!!!
Either your skills as a researcher aren’t what you make them out to be or your drive to present me in a very negative light at all costs on here has robbed you of all decency.
Either way for someone who repeatedly calls others dishonest and/or idiots, it’s a bit of an irony. This is high on the sale of ‘best laughs ever’ ………………. only surpassed by the one where you said Wakefield wasn’t really antivax!

Ps Just for the record, even though she doesn’t have an MA and isn’t the person you describe, I’m still incredibly proud of her, as I am of all my family.

Good try Joel!

@ Wendy Stephen

You really are FULL OF SHIT. I made it clear that I found several articles on a Katie Stephen. How the hell could I know which one was your daughter? Since you have given no information on her, what type of research skills would have helped? I search the web, only tool available and by the way, I was only wrong about the MA. Here is another article I found from August 28, 2012:

“Katie Stephen, a 21 year old actress, who is deaf
in one ear due to the MMR vaccine jab when she
was a child, on the beach in Kirkcaldy, Scotland,
on Tuesday 28th August 2012”

So, you could have simply written, yep, my daughter is a successful actress; but there must be some other Katie Stephen that has an MA. By the way, the Katie Stephen with the MA is also in the theater.

GO TO HELL YOU LOW LIFE SACK OF SHIT

“How the hell could I know which one was your daughter?”

You couldn’t, but most people would have clarified that before they lambasted me on my parenting skills etc for fear it wasn’t the right person but you are so driven to present me in a bad light that you plunged head long in there! That’s no one’s fault but your own.

“So, you could have simply written, yep, my daughter is a successful actress; but there must be some other Katie Stephen that has an MA. By the way, the Katie Stephen with the MA is also in the theatre”.

And therein lies your problem, my daughter is not a successful actress, she is not a performer or stage manager and she does not have an MA!!! You have confused two different individuals with the same name.

So no, I could not say my “daughter is a successful actress” because she isn’t and it would have been a lie.

Now, who is full of shit?

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “where you said Wakefield wasn’t really antivax!”

You disgusting low life sack of shit. I wrote that Wakefield may not have been antivax in the beginning since he was in partnership to develop a monovalent measles vaccine, so his position may just have been to harm the MMR vaccine. One more example of how you twist and lie. YOU ARE ONE REALLY SICK INDIVIDUAL.

And then I wrote once his monovalent vaccine failed and he lost his job and license he has become clearly antivax.

@ Wendy Stephen

As you wrote: “Joel, the rarity of a serious adverse event in association with a vaccine can start off as extremely rare. Some, with the best of checks, clinical trials and studies (for one reason or another), go undetected prior to marketing. Sometimes it is only in the post marketing era that “rare but serious adverse- effects” even start to become apparent.”

And I explained just how thorough vaccine safety studies are done, including continuing post post post marketing. In addition, anyone who understands the immune system will understand how vaccines work and why serious adverse events will occur almost always within two months; however, as I wrote, in a world of eight billion people the possibility of some genetic predisposition and/or exposure to toxins could cause an extremely rare serious adverse condition; but it would be insane to warn people of something that might occur once per 10 million doses; but the main point is that it is exactly one of the major positions of antivaxxers that regardless of how well-done both studies and post-marketing studies are that vaccines cause serious adverse events, sometimes in the distant future. So, your position makes it clear YOU ARE AN ANTIVAXXER.

@Joel

“….as I wrote, in a world of eight billion people the possibility of some genetic predisposition and/or exposure to toxins could cause an extremely rare serious adverse condition;”

I agree that some underlying and often undetected predispositions might make an individual more vulnerable to serious ADR’s but it is also possible, as it was with the Urabe containing vaccines, that the product itself is defective ie Urabe was insufficiently attenuated and ergo more reactogenic than it should have been.

@ Wendy Stephen

Yep, the Urabe wasn’t as attenuated as it should have been; but the requirements and oversight and adverse events monitoring of vaccines around the world have improved, so, once again, you bring up the past to muddy the waters, to give ammunition to your fellow antivaxxers. And yet, the Urabe caused very few unilateral hearing losses, very few, compared to from the natural mumps, so it still fwas or the vast majority of kids improvement. And I won’t go into whether UK should have switched to Jeryl-Lynn sooner as, again, this was 30 years ago. I suggest you write articles emphasizing that the first heart transplants were failures. Maybe you can persuade some people to forgo one. Bad analogy; but still . . .

And, as usual, you fail to address/admit that you were wrong about long term serious adverse events, especially ignoring all the programs doing long-term follow-ups, and that you were wrong about the S-Spike protein, etc.

Bottom line, you are a dishonest despicable excuse for a human being. An antivaxxer who lies about being one.

@ Wendy Stephen

Once more, you write: “I agree that some underlying and often undetected predispositions might make an individual more vulnerable to serious ADR’s but it is also possible, as it was with the Urabe containing vaccines, that the product itself is defective ie Urabe was insufficiently attenuated and ergo more reactogenic than it should have been.”

Not defective. As I wrote and in your immense stupid dishonesty you ignore, highly likely that the rare cases of unilateral hearing loss from the Urabe was because of a genetic predisposition. Yep, if more attenuated probably would not have occurred; but still also highly likely a genetic predisposition. The world isn’t black and white, thus a combination of factors, and as I also wrote if your daughter had been exposed to actual mumps I would bet she would have suffered unilateral hearing loss.

Imagine a scenario. Mumps is raging now, no vaccine, then newspaper article explains two new vaccines, Urabe and Jeryl Lynn. The article also explains that ca 1 in 500,000 Urabe vaccinated suffer unilateral hearing loss and only 1 in 10 million from Jeryl Lynn. The article also explains that from natural mumps 5% suffer some unilateral hearing loss. Well, I would want to get the Jeryl Lynn for my child or grandchild. But the article also says there is a production problem and a delay in getting out the Jeryl Lynn. This is in the middle of a major mumps epidemic. So, Jeryl Lynn compared to natural mumps, given approximately 10 million kids, 500,000 vs 1. Urabe 500,000 vs 20. Given the extremely small risk from Urabe and an ongoing pandemic, I would make sure kid got the Urabe vaccine. And if he/she developed unilateral hearing loss, of course I would be upset; but would focus on two things: 1. doing everything possible to make sure kid advanced a much as possible despite having a disability, as your daughter did and 2. get government to fund more programs to help kids with disabilities, either from vaccines or natural disease.

So, one can argue to hell freezes over why UK didn’t get Jeryl Lynn sooner; but the risk from natural mumps was exponentially higher and very very very few suffered unilateral hearing loss from the urabe. But, as a rabid stupid dishonest antivaxxer you continue to bring up something from 30 years ago and refuse to discuss how well your daughter has done. Something else in your immense ignorance you don’t understand is that a significant portion of population have some type of disability; e.g., autoimmune disease, allergies, muscle/skeletal problems or just plain different IQs; but even someone with a lower IQ can achieve much if they work at, not as much as higher IQ; but how much someone with any deficit achieves depends on them. You should be proud of your daughter’s accomplishments.

So, I repeat, it was a combination of not attenuated enough and a genetic predisposition that led to your daughter’s extremely rare unilateral hearing loss; but for the overwhelming majority of kids, the Urabe vaccine did its job. Again, you want to see the world in black and white. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID

@ Wendy Stephen
As you wrote: “If this is an example of your research skills which you go on about at great length then everyone on here should be wary as my daughter does NOT (Yup, capitals) have an MA……………you have the wrong person!!!
Either your skills as a researcher aren’t what you make them out to be or your drive to present me in a very negative light at all costs on here has robbed you of all decency.
Either way for someone who repeatedly calls others dishonest and/or idiots, it’s a bit of an irony. This is high on the sale of ‘best laughs ever’ ………………. only surpassed by the one where you said Wakefield wasn’t really antivax!

I wrote: “As of 2021, apparently Katie is graduate with MA, works as actress, stage manager and theater/musical reviewer. Could be another Katie Stephen???”
I guess you are just too stupid to notice I wrote “Could be another Katie Stephen???” As I already wrote, please explain how I could have known that articles on Katie Stephen listed both as actresses and one article also said earned an MA? So, I made clear wasn’t certain if it was your daughter. You could simply have responded that, yep, she is an actress; but doesn’t have an MA, so must be two actresses with same name; but one has MA. Not even close to indicating problems with my research skills.

As for Wakefield, you made the same claim quite a while ago and I responded in depth, including references to his attempt at a univalent measles vaccine.
Just several examples of just how dishonest and stupid you are. I don’t need to paint you in a negative light as you do it yourself. As for decency, you lie about what I have written or twist it or just make things up. You ignore when I point out your errors; e.g., Spike Protein, Follow-up on serious adverse events, etc.
YOU ARE ONE EXTREMELY STUPID DISHONEST LIAR. And this is an extremely accurate description.

@NumberWang

“Could you please answer the question ie why not? My previous question to you also remains unanswered”

Well my partner’s package insert mentioned Stephens-Johnson syndrome. However, it said it was very rare.”

Good try to deflect. The issue is, why would, Dangerous Bacon, so very obviously an ardent supporter of vaccines etc say “Nor do I automatically accept a manufacturer’s CYA statement as gospel.”

Do they not trust the manufacturers data produced in conjunction with their vaccines?

Are they questioning the veracity of it?

Do they know something we don’t?

Are they so very driven to argue absolute vaccine safety/promote vaccination that they’d go as far as to take issue with specific parts of a vaccine manufacturer’s recommendations /data when it doesn’t suit their arguments or acknowledges that sometimes on rare occasions, (sometimes very rare occasions, others not so) that their product can potentially cause ADR’s.

Why so driven to berate those on here who question the absolute veracity of data, science, research etc and relay their hesitancy/ doubt when clearly they are not without hesitancy themselves?

Any poster on here who even suggested that they could not automatically accept data from a vaccine manufacturer would be immediately and relentlessly branded an anti vaxxer for failing to invest whole heartedly in vaccine safety.

And so, my question to DB remains unanswered………why would DB as someone who is passionate about vaccination and argues for vaccine safety etc not automatically accept data from a manufacturer as gospel?

What makes DB doubt any aspect of it?

I wrote an extended reply to you this morning but the comment posting app gobbled it. I’ll give you the short version.

I looked up the information sheets for a flu vaccine which I received in September and the Pfizer Covid-19 booster which I got in October. The flu sheet had lots of information on adverse events that had previously been reported in various years. But it barely mentioned adverse effects except for studies on pregnant animals. The Pfizer sheet grouped adverse effects into a whole series of categories from common to very uncommon.

But even the information provided in these sheets is not data in the same sense as the data published and reported in scientific studies like the ones done for licensure and follow-up observational studies to look at effects in the much larger population after mass immunization is started.

And DB’s comment about argument by package insert seems very pertinent.

I will conditionally accept that these documents are prepared honestly and represent a good faith effort to meet a legal requirement. If you wish to pick one, link to it and tell us what you make of it, please do so.

But your comment about accepting them as gospel seems ill-posed since you don’t specify what that means. And it seems like a set-up for a gotcha question.

@ Wendy Stephen

As usual you ignore what I wrote that showed just how stupid and dishonest you are, so you now write: “Why so driven to berate those on here who question the absolute veracity of data, science, research etc and relay their hesitancy/ doubt when clearly they are not without hesitancy themselves? Any poster on here who even suggested that they could not automatically accept data from a vaccine manufacturer would be immediately and relentlessly branded an anti vaxxer for failing to invest whole heartedly in vaccine safety.”

Your so-called questioning isn’t really questioning, it is rhetorical, that is, not open for investigation; but clearly stating something, one can’t trust . . . And, nope, if someone suggests that, for instance, original claims based on research missed some rare problems and linked to the studies, they would not be branded antivaxxer, especially if they also highly recommended all the other vaccines, excepting the one until further research is done. You have continued for over a decade to hammer Urabe mumps vaccine; but have seldom if ever written that since then safety requirements for vaccine approval and follow-up have improved immensely and seldom if ever said you highly recommend parents get their kids the Jeryl Lynn. I guess if you focused on cars you could hammer the Ford Pinto that 40 years ago had an explosive gas tank and never mention the massive increases in car safety since then, including Fords.

And when I asked you which vaccines you have received over the past decades and when, you refuse to answer. If you aren’t an antivaxxer why refuse to name vaccines you have received. Maybe you did once; but I certainly don’t remember such

You just keep proving that any negative opinion of you is totally accurate.

Aaah, nice to be back dear friends.
Antwerp was nice, Ghent the surprise.
Naming no names, but highly recommended for grumpy haters.

@Aarno Syvänen

“So it was not removing the farmers, it was originally proposal to reduce cattle. It as not WEF, it was environmentalists Difficult to speak truthfully,is it not?”

Aarno, what power do environmentalists have to remove one farmer, let alone a couple of thousands of them?
And the thought didn’t come from our government.
So reducing nitrogen pollution is why these farmers have to quit? I have a better idea Aarno: why not target a sector like aviation? Why not shut down Tata steel here (IJmuiden)? Problem solved and my country can continue to feed the world.
But hey, who cares about how the people get fed that our farmers export to? Who cares about shortages, whether that’s cheese or gas?
Politics Aarno. It stinks so much more then cow shit.

@Chris Preston

“”Perhaps also why an ‘antivaxxer’ would want to lie.”
To be an anti-vaxxer, you have to lie about vaccines. The answer you are after defines itself.”

You mean a sincere anti-vaxxer is a contradictio in terminis?
The answer I am after seems to differ from yours. Are these vaccines a threat to public health vs how to defend a biased point of view.

@ Lucas

No, the vaccines are NOT a threat to public health. Just the opposite. You ignore the overwhelming evidence of how effective vaccines have been in saving lives, preventing suffering, preventing hospitalizations, etc. going back to the first vaccine, the smallpox vaccine.

So, the moronic TROLL is back.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “why would DB as someone who is passionate about vaccination and argues for vaccine safety etc not automatically accept data from a manufacturer as gospel?”

From the CDC VIS Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Some VISs contain recommendations that are at odds with the manufacturer’s package insert. Why?
A: VISs are based on the ACIP’s recommendations, which occasionally differ from those made by the manufacturer. These differences may involve adverse events. Package inserts generally tend to include all adverse events that were temporally associated with a vaccine during clinical trials, whereas ACIP tends to recognize only those believed to be causally linked to the vaccine.

So, the manufacturer’s package inserts, etc. include associations that were not shown by further research to be causally linked to the vaccine.

In addition, you continue to ignore that once a vaccine is approved and use begun there are several programs in US and many other nations that follow adverse events for years and one can also go to National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed and search for various vaccines adverse events. I just searched using “Moderna covid vaccine adverse events” and got 258 results. And I would bet one or two, especially case, case series, or even small studies might claim to have found some specific adverse event; but, as opposed to people like you, I learned a long time ago not to rely on one or two studies, except if large well-done placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. On the other hand if 256 found no verified particular serious adverse events and two weak studies did, you, of course, would latch on to the latter because your unscientific rigid rabid anti vaccine position would be your criteria.

So, squirrelelite is absolutely right

Very interesting. I questioned Dangerous Bacon as to why they had said …….

“Nor do I automatically accept a manufacturer’s CYA statement as gospel.”

No response. I pose the question again and this time ………………

“Joel is evidently living rent-free in your head, and vice versa.
You two should get a room.”

Meanwhile, NumberWang comments as does Squirrelelite but Dangerous Bacon who made the comment and would know the answer/could provide an explanation can merely make an off topic and very unsavoury comment while continuing to ignore the question.

(No sacks of shit or capitals yet though!!)

Thanks, Joel!
No one has to answer Wendy’s questions. And they can judge from the other content of her comments whether they think it is worth their time to undertake further discussion.

I gave her an opening to start such a substantive interchange, but she bypassed it.

C’est la vie!

CYA statement is abou ligitation, “May underestinate” is there to avoid accusations of false advertisement.Like somebody telling you that you should not put underear near to fire.

@ Wendy Stephen

I repeat what you wrote: “why would DB as someone who is passionate about vaccination and argues for vaccine safety etc not automatically accept data from a manufacturer as gospel?”

And I responded to it. So, one more example of your stupid dishonest self.

You write: ““Joel is evidently living rent-free in your head, and vice versa.
You two should get a room.”

If, in your infinite stupidity you notice that two people who base their responses on real science are in agreement, you are right; but it isn’t that we agree with each other as individuals; but both agree with the same REAL SCIENCE.

Just one more moronic statement by you.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “while continuing to ignore the question.”

Wow, what a hypocrite? When I have responded, directly addressed, comments by you, you either ignore or twist what I said; but almost never actually address what I write in a logical, scientific manner, so when someone else on a rare occasion does something similar, you attack.

YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

You wrote a while ago that you don’t like me making you look negative; but I don’t. I just describe/explain your comments which, in themselves, show what a negative stupid dishonest person you are.

Joel, just in case you missed it, I posted to Dangerous Bacon (not Joel Harrison)
“Could you please answer the question ie why not?”

However, it is interesting that you continue to reply and Dangerous Bacon doesn’t. You did not make the statement, and ergo cannot answer the question in their stead.

And even more concerning you are now saying to me……………….

“You write: ““Joel is evidently living rent-free in your head, and vice versa.
You two should get a room.”

Actually it was Dangerous Bacon and not me who posted that on 6th December and as it was said in response to my post, I think you’ll find that for some very bizarre, perverse reason (which I cannot begin to understand) Dangerous Bacon wants you and I to get a room!

Who’s suffering from infinite stupidity now?

Moronic statement ….you say that of me??

And as for this………. “YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF”.

And this……….. “I just describe/explain your comments which, in themselves, show what a negative stupid dishonest person you are.

I fear the sacks of shit aren’t far off!

@ Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“Bull Shit. Several people have included links to various data sets. Just one more example of what a sick dishonest troll you are.”
Still waiting for the data. No link to what I asked for; how hard can it be?
It’s not in the ONS data either: “There will be a delay in publishing the next edition of the deaths by vaccination status”.

“So, below is just one more excellent article on excess mortality, which I know you won’t read.”
Just another useless remark, Joel. Time to grow up.

““What is ‘excess mortality?
Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions.”
Not specifically during a crisis. Can be afterwards as well.

“1 In this case, we’re interested in how the number of deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic compares to the deaths we would have expected had the pandemic not occurred — a crucial quantity that cannot be known but can be estimated in several ways.”
Yes, of course.

“Excess mortality is a more comprehensive measure of the total impact of the pandemic on deaths than the confirmed COVID-19 death count alone. It captures not only the confirmed deaths, but also COVID-19 deaths that were not correctly diagnosed and reported2 as well as deaths from other causes that are attributable to the overall crisis conditions”
“As well as deaths from other causes that are attributable to the overall crisis conditions” – correct. Vaccines included.

“The above is an excellent article that goes into depth how such estimates are made. And it is just one of dozens of articles I found and downloaded. The deaths from other causes include people with various diseases who during high point of pandemic were not admitted to hospitals and clinics because of infectious disease precautions as well as shortage of personnel, included people with cancer, heart disease needing surgery, etc. and people dying at home from, say, a heart attack; but not checked for covid infection. Quite simply, even with a heart condition, without a severe infection, people can live longer, some times much longer, etc. etc. etc.”
All fine. There will be several causes for excess mortality. These factors have been there during the last two and a half years, but were – except due to covid – not really visible. Furthermore, many had already died a premature death due to these factors. These absorb future mortality. Nevertheless we see the opposite of the expected under-mortality.
Anyway, there’s so much to look into. The more so in case of a significant relative difference in mortality between the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. I’ll wait.

“So, as usual, you are just a dishonest lying troll.”
Play at 33 or 45 RPM?
Btw, I asked you to quit your pleonasms; a doctor should at least master his mother tongue.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“No, the vaccines are NOT a threat to public health. Just the opposite. You ignore the overwhelming evidence of how effective vaccines have been in saving lives, preventing suffering, preventing hospitalizations, etc. going back to the first vaccine, the smallpox vaccine.”

Your opinion is of no importance. It all depends on statistics. Statistics depend on a certain database. The database depends on accuracy and reliability of input.
Both are questionable.

Furthermore I have repeatedly told you to think before you write. Here you state that the vaccines are not a threat because of its effectiveness. That is nonsense, Joel.

Actually death statistics depends on death certificates, which are legal documents.

@ Wendy Stephen

Wow! You got one thing right. It was Dangerous Bacon who first wrote: “Joel is evidently living rent-free in your head, and vice versa.
You two should get a room.” But typical of your moronic gross exaggerations to write: “Who’s suffering from infinite stupidity now?”

So, I missed one simple quote and in your sick mind represents “infinite stupidity.” Applies much more to you who gets so many things wrong over and over again.

As for your getting one thing right, there is an old saying: Even a broken clock gets the time right twice daily.”

If I remember correctly you worked as an assistant nurse in psychiatry? Years ago I read that doctors and other health care workers who chose psychiatry often because they themselves suffered from psychiatric problems. Not all; but more than from other branches of medicine. I wonder if this applies to you. In any case, I am so glad you retired. I would hate to think that someone who is so anti-science, thus, ignoring/contradicting how to treat patients, would be working with them.

So, just to satisfy you: YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. And this is not cussing; but an accurate description of you and what you write in comments

@Joel Harrison

“So, I missed one simple quote and in your sick mind represents “infinite stupidity.” Applies much more to you who gets so many things wrong over and over again”.

Not for the first time this week you lunged headlong into a retort on the back of an error in your judgement. The issue isn’t making a mistake (we’ve all made mistakes) it’s more to do with your frenzied attempt to discredit me on the back of nonsense resulting in seriously flawed posts. Besides, you didn’t miss the quote, you failed to observe who had posted it and then turned the contents into something it wasn’t, to provide an inaccurate retort to me (while ascribing the quote to me).

Come on Joel, do you really think that I would suggest you and I get a room?? Didn’t alarm bells go off in your head at that point?

I’m only now recovering from the post several days later!

@ Lucas

It isn’t worth responding to you. You twist what people write and lie outright. As I wrote, there are literally hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals on the effectiveness of the mRNA covid vaccines and I understand mRNA and the immune system. If one doesn’t understand these, then one doesn’t understand how and why vaccines work.

You really are nothing more than an obnoxious TROLL

@ Lucas

CDC Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19 links to several datasets at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

CDC (2022 Jul 15). New COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Data Showcase Protection Gained by 3rd and 4th Doses

Canada @ https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00076-eng.htm

PubMed typed in: “bnt162b2 mrna covid-19 vaccine efficacy” results 428 papers

"moderna covid vaccine efficacy" results 314 papers

'pfizer covid vaccine efficacy" results 566 papers

World Health Organization (2021 Mar). Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2022 Nov 18). COVID-19 vaccine efficacy summary.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“It isn’t worth responding to you.”
Especially so when you don’t have any substantial comment left to refute. Synonym for ‘you are right Lucas’.

“You twist what people write and lie outright. As I wrote, there are literally hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals on the effectiveness of the mRNA covid vaccines and I understand mRNA and the immune system. If one doesn’t understand these, then one doesn’t understand how and why vaccines work.”
Yes Joel, we know you understand it all.
And again this twisted reasoning of yours. I repeat what you implied: the vaccines are not a threat because of its effectiveness. Right, Joel.
And hey, I know what mRNA does as well: biology lessons. I just happen to not know all about the subject. And so don’t you.
I asked ldw56 if he understands a hammer. Do you, Joel? Better quit your arrogance.

“You really are nothing more than an obnoxious TROLL”
33 or 45 RPM?

I asked ldw56 if he understands a hammer.

Yes, you’re very good at meaningless questions. Honesty and understanding complicated things — you fail miserably at both.

I know what mRNA does

Ha! About a day ago I challenged another antivaxxer, well known in these parts, to demonstrate that she knows something about mRNA vaccines and how they compare with other types. She didn’t even try, but made a bunch of claims about some vaccines that proved her profound ignorance. Would YOU like to try to write a little about mRNA? Where it normally comes from, where it goes, what happens when it gets where it’s going – that sort of stuff. Dazzle us! Make us believe you “know what mRNA does.”

the vaccines are not a threat because of its effectiveness.
What does this mean ?

@ Lucas

First, you questioned vaccine effectiveness, that is, is there data? So, I gave a number of websites that give effectiveness data, so you basically ignore and write: “the vaccines are not a threat because of its effectiveness” and to show not a threat, that is risk of serious adverse events I listed a number of websites just above Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
December 9, 2022 at 5:58 pm. So, absolute proof you are a dishonest TROLL

@ Wendy Stephen

I wrote: Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
says:
December 5, 2022 at 9:35 am
@ Wendy Stephen
As of 2021, apparently Katie is graduate with MA, works as actress, stage manager and theater/musical reviewer. Could be another Katie Stephen???
Apparently she is doing well.
Your response was: Wendy Stephen
says:
December 6, 2022 at 6:11 am
@Joel
If this is an example of your research skills which you go on about at great length then everyone on here should be wary as my daughter does NOT (Yup, capitals) have an MA……………you have the wrong person!!!
Either your skills as a researcher aren’t what you make them out to be or your drive to present me in a very negative light at all costs on here has robbed you of all decency.
My response was:
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
says:
December 6, 2022 at 12:24 pm
@ Wendy Stephen
You really are FULL OF SHIT. I made it clear that I found several articles on a Katie Stephen. How the hell could I know which one was your daughter? Since you have given no information on her, what type of research skills would have helped? I search the web, only tool available and by the way, I was only wrong about the MA. Here is another article I found from August 28, 2012:
“Katie Stephen, a 21 year old actress, who is deaf
in one ear due to the MMR vaccine jab when she
was a child, on the beach in Kirkcaldy, Scotland,
on Tuesday 28th August 2012”
So, as usual, you attacked me, my research skills because I couldn’t know which of two Katie Stephen was your daughter and you even, in your immense stupidity, missed that I also wrote “Could be another Katie Stephen???”
So, I clearly admitted I wasn’t sure; but just to give some examples of my research skills look above at two of my comments which include quite a few references to data on mRNA vaccine efficacy and safety. My research skills mean I know how to find appropriate websites, scientifically valid articles, etc.
Just one more example of what a stupid dishonest person you are. I have EXCELLENT research skills. I could link to papers I’ve written with up to 150 valid references.
YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF


@Joel Harrison

“So, as usual, you attacked me, my research skills because I couldn’t know which of two Katie Stephen was your daughter and you even, in your immense stupidity, missed that I also wrote “Could be another Katie Stephen???”

No Joel, (yet another good try) I responded to you not because you couldn’t know which of two Katie Stephen was my daughter but because you launched into a rant against me and my parenting skills despite not knowing for sure and seeking clarification first. I told you directly that you could not have known which was the right person. There’s no shame in that.

You made numerous assumptions and wrote a post based on a fixed false belief attempting to influence others to buy into your view of things and you were wrong. The worst bit is that you knew that it was possibly not the right person but you risked it anyway and launched into a rant based on false information. You made no attempt to determine whether or not you had the right person before placing an erroneous statement in the public domain.

How many of your other posts are similarly flawed but as yet go undetected?

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “The worst bit is that you knew that it was possibly not the right person but you risked it anyway and launched into a rant based on false information. You made no attempt to determine whether or not you had the right person before placing an erroneous statement in the public domain.
How many of your other posts are similarly flawed but as yet go undetected?”

First, calling it a “rant” for simply writing I found a Katie Stephen listed as an actress with an MA is INSANE. And how in hell could I have determined if she was the right person? You just keep making ever more stupid statements.

As for how many of my other posts are similarly flawed, I gave an example of my research skills above. On topics related to science, especially vaccines and public health, my research skills are excellent. I just noticed that one of the two comments I posted that gave list of websites, articles, etc on vaccine safety somehow didn’t get posted, so I am going to submit it again.

On the other hand, I have torn to shreds almost everything you have written and when someone finds an error in one of my comments, I double check and if they are right, I immediately admit it. I have absolutely NO problem admitting when I am wrong. My self image is based on doing my best to base my positions on solid science and logic and since even science, though seldom, makes errors and I accept I am a mortal being, my self-image is actually strengthened when I admit mistakes. Plus, my dad taught me that a real man is someone who admits his mistakes

So, one more example of your immense stupidity to make a big deal of my including an MA with your daughter’s name. And you ignore that even if only an actress I made clear that my comment was positive about her.

As for you parenting skills, quite simply my parents were roll models for honesty and decency. I see no indication in your stupid dishonest antivax position that indicates you are similar. And, yes, you are an antivaxxer. When I asked you a while back if someone you knew with small kids asked about getting them vaccinated, would you encourage it? Or maybe i just asked would you encourage people to vaccinate their kids? Basically the same. You replied you would basically neither encourage or discourage, you would say nothing. Well, someone who understands even the most basics of public health, understands why it is important to vaccinate kids, both to protect them and to protect others, simply herd immunity. A kid may not get sick from being infected; but could infect someone who is vulnerable, for instance, if shopping with parent. And I asked you which vaccines you have had and you refused to answer. And your 10 year RANT (appropriate use of word) on the mumps vaccine clearly indicates pathology.

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF, THE ONE THING YOU ARE AN EXPERT AT

@ Lucas and Wendy

After I posted list of websites and papers on mRNA vaccine efficacy, Lucas wrote: “the vaccines are not a threat because of its effectiveness”. So I submitted another comment with a few examples of websites and papers on safety; but somehow didn’t get posted, so here it is again (NOTE that i could have listed many more; but I realize that you two will ignore anyway and my 76 year old arthritic hands don’t want to waste such effort). One more point, so far it appears that mRNA vaccines may be among the safest ever produced:

COVID-19 Vaccine & Safety Studies

PubMed
Search terms:

covid vaccine AND safety
4,478 results

covid vaccine AND adverse events
1,659 results

Kantarcioglu B et al. (2021 Jan).An Update on the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 and the Reportedly Rare Thrombotic Events Following Vaccination. Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis

Li Z et al. (2022 Sep 13). Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in immunology

Cari L et al (2021 Aug). Blood clots and bleeding events following BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: An analysis of European data
COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Analysis. Journal of autoimmunity

CDC (2022 Jul 6). Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Government of Canada. COVID-19: Vaccine safety and side effects. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vaccines/safety-side-effects.html

Sweden. Public Health Agency of Sweden. Vaccination Against COVID-19.
Available at: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/communicable-disease-control/covid-19/vaccination-against-covid-19/

@Aarno, @Joel

Joel wrote in his December 9, 2022 at 10:46 am post:

“No, the vaccines are NOT a threat to public health. Just the opposite. You ignore the overwhelming evidence of how effective vaccines have been in saving lives, preventing suffering, preventing hospitalizations, etc. going back to the first vaccine, the smallpox vaccine.”

What kind of proof is this? Joel tries to underpin his statement that ‘vaccines are not a threat’ with ‘evidence of how effective vaccines have been’. Like I wrote, this is basically nonsense.
In my reply I obviously forget to duplicate the word ‘not’. So again: “the vaccines are not [not] a threat because of its effectiveness.”
One has nothing to do with the other. Iow: a vaccine may be effective related to not catching Covid or not getting severely ill, that does not imply that therefore it is safe. At the same time it might kill or injure because of blood clots or what not.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD

“First, you questioned vaccine effectiveness, that is, is there data?”
Am I getting demented here or is it you? Where did I question vaccine effectiveness?

“So, I gave a number of websites that give effectiveness data”
Thanks for your effort, but that wasn’t necessary. As far as I know vaccines can be reasonably effective for about a couple of months. No further questions your honor.

“so you basically ignore and write: “the vaccines are not [not] a threat because of its effectiveness””
I commented on that again. Like I explained this is basically nonsense. Please note the added [not], I forgot to duplicate the word in my original reply.

“and to show not a threat, that is risk of serious adverse events I listed a number of websites just above”
I commented on this before. It all depends on statistics. Statistics depend on a certain database. The database depends on accuracy and reliability of input.
Both are questionable.
So Joel, if you want to give proof, let’s go back to those databases. Proof to me their accuracy and reliability of input. THAT is where you can be of help to me.

Aarno made a wise remark when he said: “Actually death statistics depends on death certificates, which are legal documents.” Very true and since death statistics are about the only reliable / accurate statistics we have, I would like to look into all cause mortality divided in the vaccinated and unvaccinated (per 100,000 for a specific age group) in order to get at least some understanding of how safe or unsafe these vaccines really are. Perhaps this may be of help in explaining the disturbing excess death phenomenon.

@ Lucas

Really are one dishonest troll. You ignore that I not only posted a list of websites and papers on the efficacy of mRNA vaccines; but also posted a comment with a number of websites and articles on safety of the vaccine. And this was just a small sample of what I could have posted.

YOU ARE ONE SICK SOB

After a rough day between clinic and a nursing home, it’s always fun to come read what Dr Joel has to say to cranks. I’ve been laughing for a good ten minutes. I do worry for his blood pressure, though…

@ Ginny Stoner

BULL SHIT. You either didn’t check out all the CDC websites or looked at them and was too stupid to understand them or, given your bias and insane approach, ignored.

Nothing in my paper is BS, Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH–as usual, you think false and defamatory claims are an appropriate substitute for civil discourse.

The CDC data shows that each week, hundreds of “COVID19 deaths” occur in the vaccinated, among other things. Your inability to even acknowledge indisputable facts seems delusional.

Nothing in my paper [sic ] is BS, Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

I suppose that’s a mild improvement over “our paper.”

as usual, you think false and defamatory claims are an appropriate substitute for civil discourse.

You literally cannot be defamed in this context, Gindo.

You still do not get it. Vaccines are not 100% perfect, so there are some breaktrough cases.

@ Lucas

You write: “a vaccine may be effective related to not catching Covid or not getting severely ill, that does not imply that therefore it is safe. At the same time it might kill or injure because of blood clots or what not.”

Guess you missed my posted comment just above yours at: December 10, 2022 at 9:35 am which gives a list of websites and papers on the safety of the mRNA vaccines. I could have made a much longer list. So, just proof that you are a DISHONEST TROLL.

I sometimes wonder what makes someone a troll. Obviously you are NOT posting in order to enter into a legitimate dialogue. Real antivaxxers, ignorant of science, post because they believe they’re untenable positions. Not you. I can only guess; but I would bet you are an unhappy individual, someone who failed at something. So, your only satisfaction rests not on contributing anything; but just angering, provoking people. I have spend my life believing in community, especially public health. In fact, at 76, in a few minutes I will be heading to the blood bank to donate, something I have been doing for almost 50 years. When younger I volunteered a few times at soup kitchens. And though I was exempt from the draft, I was active in protests against the war in Vietnam. I also participated in demonstrations supporting Civil Rights. And in 2003 participated in demonstrations against invading Iraq. At outbreak of pandemic I phoned several food banks offering to help. If you don’t know what a food bank is, it is a place that receives food donations, sorts them and distributes to needy families. When I told them my age, they politely declined. And I worked in public health. Unfortunately, despite what I have done, I always feel guilty that I could have done much much more, so now all I can do is donate blood once per month for however long I live.

And I post comments on websites refuting antivaxxers because I understand immunology, microbiology, and epidemiology, thus I know how vaccines work. And because if people listen to them, either they could suffer and/or transmit the virus to other vulnerable people. And as the lists above show, I have kept up with research on COVID-19 and the vaccines. I have even learned how the SARS-Cov-2 virus does something unusual. Eukaryotic (human) ribosomes usually make one protein per mRNA, while prokaryotic (bacterial) can make many. Well, the virus someone manages to make almost 40 proteins from one mRNA. I could give URL to websites that explain; but I know you won’t read them. And over 40 years I have read the histories of vaccine-preventable diseases and all the suffering caused by the diseases prior to the vaccines.

So, as I pointed out, above in my comments are both lists of websites and articles on the effectiveness of the mRNA COVID vaccines and their safety.

So, I repeat, YOU ARE JUST ONE DISHONEST TROLL

@Joel:

Eukaryotic (human) ribosomes …

I would be very interested in a reference to your source. I still don’t have a clear idea about mechanism of ending translation of any particular mRNA, so any source which discusses that would be most welcome.

Clearly with many viruses there is a need for multiple copies of some of the proteins. SARS-CoV-2 needs many copies of the spike protein since there are lots of spikes and each is a trimer. There is only one gene for the S protein so either multiple mRNAs for it need to be transcribed (also an issue with “how?”) or a single mRNA must be translated many, many times just for a single virion. Then there is the matter of how many new virus particles (many of which will be defective) will be first-generation progeny of each infecting virion.

@ Doug

Actually COVID-19 creates in one eukaryotic ribosome 27 proteins by two different mechanisms. You can find a fascinating lecture: Britt Glaunsinger: “Coronavirus Biology” (9/22/2021) at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcy5Sj74rj0&list=PLQP_CKXP8TdSECKwryY1hZ0VYnj2F2GVm&index=3

It is part of an entire series about the SARS virus which you might find of interest at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQP_CKXP8TdSECKwryY1hZ0VYnj2F2GVm

Of course it is from over a year ago so we know much more; but several in the series are quite good.

ENJOY

p.s. you can click below to see the transcript and cut and paste if you want to keep as text.

@ Lucas

You write: “So Joel, if you want to give proof, let’s go back to those databases. Proof to me their accuracy and reliability of input. THAT is where you can be of help to me.”

BS. Nothing I write will influence you. I gave a list, some explain exactly how they collected and verified data. And I also gave CDC website that explains the various programs we have in US:

A. Patricia Wodi, MD and Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA. Vaccine Safety in Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases 14th Edition. Also called the Pink Book. Easy to find on the web.

So, you just continue as a SICK DESPICABLE DISHONEST TROLL.

@ Lucas

You claim you didn’t question if data existed to verify mRNA covid vaccine effectiveness. You lie. Then you questioned safety, so I gave a list. You then question how valid they are: “Proof to me their accuracy and reliability of input.”

And if I devoted time and effort into finding papers/articles that explain how a particular data set was developed, including error rate estimates, confidence intervals, etc. you would then question if the authors were pharmshills, etc. In other word, your comments would just continue in the negative.

Why? Because you are a sick dishonest troll. An ASSHOLE. And I’m sure you take being called an ASSHOLE as a compliment, since that is exactly what you are intentionally doing with your comments.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, you acknowledge that ‘safe and effective’ re COVID19 vaccines includes hundreds of ‘COVID19 deaths’ among the vaccinated every week, correct?

That’s according to the CDC data I just posted on above.

@ Ginny Stoner

As simple analogy. 50% of people who die in traffic accidents are wearing seatbelts. Yep, vaccines do not confer 100% protection; but if one looks at the overwhelming data, the risk of serious illness, hospitalization, and deaths is much lower for those vaccinated; but as more and more people get vaccinated, then since vaccines don’t confer 100% protection, obviously some of those with several comorbidities, or senior citizens will die; but they would have died from the natural virus either way. However, many with several comorbidities or senior citizens who would have died from natural covid who got vaccinated will survive.

YOU JUST CONTINUE TO MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You claim you didn’t question if data existed to verify mRNA covid vaccine effectiveness. You lie.”
– So you were not able to track any such post of mine. You are one heck of a dishonest man, Joel.

“Then you questioned safety, so I gave a list.”
– All I asked for is recent raw data. Even that is too hard for (all of) you.
The only action that came from you is provide me with reports I haven’t asked for and so for obvious reasons.
So you don’t have the data I asked for, despite all your claims?
You’re a scam.

“You then question how valid they are: “Proof to me their accuracy and reliability of input.”
Exactly! It all depends on the input. The input of those reports is highly questionable. Which means all words based on it are spilled, basically meaningless.

“And if I devoted time and effort into finding papers/articles that explain how a particular data set was developed, including error rate estimates, confidence intervals, etc. you would then question if the authors were pharmshills, etc. In other word, your comments would just continue in the negative.”
– You could have devoted time and effort in just answering my simple question for recent raw data on overall mortality by vaccination status (IR). I would have taken it over from there.
Asked data should be freely available.
If all cause mortality incidence rates would have been higher among the unvaccinated, it would have literally been shouted from the rooftops; by physicians, politicians and the media. This is not the case. A contrario, all cause mortality incidence rates probably will be much higher among the vaccinated. That’s worrying.

“Why? Because you are a sick dishonest troll. An ASSHOLE. And I’m sure you take being called an ASSHOLE as a compliment, since that is exactly what you are intentionally doing with your comments.”
– Joel, if my assumption is correct you’ve got blood on your hands.

“US excess all-cause mortality exceeded COVID-19 mortality at 145/100 000 and exceeded peer countries in all periods, as did excess all-cause mortality in the least-vaccinated states (Table 2). However, the 10 most-vaccinated states had excess all-cause mortality comparable with or less than that of several peer countries over Delta and Omicron combined (eg, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Finland). While excess all-cause mortality in the top 10 states significantly exceeded that of many comparators during Omicron, excess all-cause mortality was significantly less than COVID-19 mortality for the top 10 states during this wave (29 vs 47 per 100 000, P < .001).”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2798990

@Lucas

– So you were not able to track any such post of mine. You are one heck of a dishonest man, Joel.

Here, here to that!

In one week alone Joel has attempted to influence posters on here into believing that my daughter is a successful actress, stage manager etc,etc with an MA and ergo is not significantly adversely affected by her vaccine induced disability all on the back of his flawed research and failure to clarify he had the correct person before joining the dots and relaying his comments.

He continues to post material on her claim at the VDPS and the outcome even though he is ignorant of both!

But for my intervention(s) he would have convinced everyone as to the veracity of his claims………………probably his intention all along!

Then he addressed a rather off putting suggestion as having been made by me when in fact it was clearly Dangerous Bacon and proceeded to make an issue of it in a post.

His hope is always that either through long impressive sounding tutorials, often off topic and intended to deflect or rude insulting name calling he is beyond reproach and no one will challenge him on his mistakes, flawed research or insinuations. He reproaches others for dwelling on the past but is guilty of that himself over and over. He demands references/evidence but often avoids providing them himself by telling the poster (usually with some reference to laziness), to do the research themselves. He sets his own standard “tests” for determining whether or not someone is an anti vaxxer irrespective of what the true definition is and labels them as such.

He advocates for science and argues vaccine safety but struggles to acknowledge that vaccine science recognises the potential for adverse events (even the pharmaceutical industry/WHO/UNICEF etc etc acknowledge that).

He disrespects the vaccine injured by either arguing against causation altogether or switching the focus on to the very fortunate majority who have successfully undergone vaccination………..as if that matters to the injured or makes it in any way less significant!

He seeks to lessen the impact of a vaccine induced disability by harping back to the historical impact of naturally occurring diseases on the population………….again, as if that matters to the unfortunate few who suffer a lasting vaccine induced injury!

He frequently questions why he’s posting……. suggesting other posters aren’t worth his time/effort, but continues to do so anyway!

He attempts to discredit posters who are not entirely in agreement with him as rabid antivaxxers, assholes, sacks of shit, morons, idiots, and trolls (the place is over run with trolls) all of which is indicative of a certain mindset and does nothing to support his stance on vaccination.

“A contrario, all cause mortality incidence rates probably will be much higher among the vaccinated. That’s worrying.”

I’ve posted a link to an article elsewhere on this page which addresses this issue. As Table 2 shows, between June 27,2021 and March 22, 2022, the 10 U.S. states with the highest vaccination rates (73 percent) had lower rates of excess all-cause mortality than the ten U.S. states with the lowest vaccinations rates (52 percent) (65.1 per 100 000 vs. 193.3 per 100 000). Those same states (see Table 1) also had lower covid mortality rates over the same period (74.7 per 100 000 vs.146 per 100 000).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2798990

<

blockquote> The input of those reports is highly questionable.

Only in your simple little conspiratorial uneducated mind.

Joel, if my assumption is correct you’ve got blood on your hands.

Since there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that any assumption made by you about vaccines is correct, Joel’s hands are clean.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You write: “So Joel, if you want to give proof, let’s go back to those databases. Proof to me their accuracy and reliability of input. THAT is where you can be of help to me.”
BS. Nothing I write will influence you.”
– You’re like a car salesman that keeps on pushing forward how great his product is, but except for the option to buy, leaves me no option to make a test drive.
Still, the only reason for a visit was the test drive.

“I gave a list, some explain exactly how they collected and verified data. And I also gave CDC website that explains the various programs we have in US:”
– Again: no. You want others to give me an outcome, while it was clear from the beginning I’m not interested in this plan.

“A. Patricia Wodi, MD and Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA. Vaccine Safety in Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases 14th Edition. Also called the Pink Book. Easy to find on the web.”
– Yes, I am aware I don’t have the skill to do my own search on the web.
But fine, what do we read in the Pink Book? “Vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.”
Now, isn’t that lovely? All problems solved.
I do admire your credulity though. Just a lawyer’s mindset is more healthy.

“So, you just continue as a SICK DESPICABLE DISHONEST TROLL.”
– Yes yes, we are all aware.

@ Lucas

You write: “what do we read in the Pink Book? “Vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.”
Now, isn’t that lovely? All problems solved”

But that isn’t the only source of reports on adverse events. We have several and other nations, the EU, and WHO also have other sources and data set.

Just one more example of what a COMPLETE ASSHOLE YOUR ARE

@ Lucas

You write: “what do we read in the Pink Book? “Vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.”
Now, isn’t that lovely? All problems solved.”

From the CDC Pink Book:
“fundamental to preventing safety problems is the assurance that all vaccines are made using good manufacturing practices and undergo lot testing for purity and potency. Manufacturers must submit samples of each vaccine lot and results of their own tests for purity and potency to the FDA before releasing vaccine lots for public use. Several monitoring systems are used in the United States to detect and study adverse events following immunization. CDC and the FDA use four main systems to monitor the safety of vaccines in use: the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), the Post-licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring System (PRISM), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project.”

Notice, four main systems to monitor vaccine safety, only starting with clinical trials.

YOU REALLY ARE A FRIGGIN DISHONEST ASSHOLE

@ Lucas

The Pink Book isn’t the only source for data; but, as usual, you don’t care. Just continuing your roll as a ASSHOLE TROLL

I could also give data from several other nations; but you would reject it as well.

FRIGGIN ASSHOLE

By the way, I am watching for the 3rd time PBS documentary “The Polio Crusade.” Before the vaccine, during polio season my mother would not let me go to movies nor the municipal swimming pool. I was in the first cohort that got the vaccine in 1955. I knew in my elementary school kids with steel braces and met others in wheel chairs and in late 1980s met a man who had been in an iron lung since early 1950. I always loved reading and our public library had books on polio written for younger kids, so I read them; but on nearby shelves in section on infectious diseases were books on smallpox, so I read them. So, I became interested in infectious diseases in 1950s, as a pre teenager. However, for reasons I won’t get into, I didn’t major in them; but continued in my spare time to read on them, especially vaccine-preventable vaccines, etc. And also audited courses in microbiology and immunology. Even read a text on molecular biology where I especially became interested in mRNA. In any case, I’ve been interested and studied, attended seminars, read books and untold articles on vaccines, vaccine-preventable diseases, etc. for over 60 years.

What I hate most about ASSHOLES like you and anti-vaxxers, who aren’t just trying to anger people; but unfortunately based on scientific ignorance continue, is that they put people at risk. And the current COVID-19 virus could mutate becoming potentially both more virulent and more transmissible. However, even such mutations would be partially recognized by those vaccinated, so the risk of severe disease, hospitalizations, and death will be less, though not zero, LESS and in the real world I look at probabilities, not absolutes

SO KEEPING MAKING AN ASS OF YOURSELF

@Ginny Stoner

“I looked into the CDC’s vaxed-versus-unvaxed data, and here’s what I found. There isn’t any data for all-cause deaths, as far as I can tell–only ‘COVID19 deaths.’ https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/12/8/vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-cdc-numbers-suggest-hmm

Thanks.
Data on Covid19 deaths vaccinated versus unvaccinated, is not what I’m after. If indeed that data for all cause deaths isn’t there, for what reason it isn’t?

In “Closing thoughts” Virginia Stoner says this: “I could do some calculations, try to adjust for the falsely inflated number of unvaxed deaths, see if the difference between vaxed and unvaxed is “statistically significant” in recent months, but that’s boring.”
This may be boring, but this ‘difference’ does make the difference. A shame she didn’t go down that rabbit hole.
One of the reasons I ask for recent data is that you would expect them to be less ‘falsely inflated’.

So the data wasn’t what you were after, but you think I should have spent several more hours doing more in-depth analyses of it, and it would have made the difference between a paper that apparent wasn’t worth reading, and one that mattered. You fit right in this cartoon world.

Virginia Stoner says this: “I could do some calculations, try to adjust for the falsely inflated number of unvaxed deaths, see if the difference between vaxed and unvaxed is “statistically significant” in recent months, but that’s boring.”

A far more believable but for Gin-gin would be “but that is something I don’t know how to do.”

@ Everybody ABOUT GINNY STONER

Ginny is in a league of her own when it comes to antivaccinationists. When challenged, she refers to papers on her own website. Quite simply, she claims she is right because she is right. Circular reasoning. And many of the papers on her website are based on VAERS. Orac has written several excellent papers explaining limitations of VAERS and I and others have written numerous comments as well. Simply VAERS is a suspects list. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is, if someone received a vaccine and suffered anything within a period of time afterwards they might think it caused by the vaccine. A simple example. About 250 Americans on average have heart attacks every single day, so if someone gets the flu shot and has a heart attack, say, two days later was it caused by the flu? Well, the CDC investigates. It looks at average daily heart attacks following beginning of flu vaccinations, comparing to previous period of time and, perhaps, previous years. It gets hold of patients records. What if found that had 95% occlusion of main heart arteries and was scheduled for bypass surgery?

Ginny writes: “The CDC data shows that each week, hundreds of “COVID19 deaths” occur in the vaccinated, among other things. Your inability to even acknowledge indisputable facts seems delusional.”

Just to give a concrete example. A good friend is a kidney transplant patient. He is, of course, on powerful immunosuppressant drugs. He got the first Moderna shot and several weeks later had an antibody titer. Nothing. He got the second shot, couple of weeks later, extremely low. Finally, he got a booster, antibody titer around 1/5 of mine. I got all the Moderna mRNA shots, including boosters. No one knows exactly what level of antibodies will protect someone, depends on specific disease, etc.; but, hopefully, if he is infected, the low level of antibodies will still reduce his risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and worse. I pray he won’t be infected. So, as more and more people at high risk are vaccinated, then more vaccinated will become ill, etc. from COVID. Not because of the vaccine; but because of their either suppressed immune systems due to immunosuppressant drugs because of transplants, weakened immune systems because of some autoimmune diseases, and weakened immune systems because of old age and/or combordities. Despite Ginny’s rabid unscientific “delusional” antivax position, we don’t live in a perfect world, a world of black and white. Fortunately, at least some of the people with aforementioned conditions who would have died from COVID are still being saved by vaccines; but, sadly, not all.

So, as I wrote, Ginny is in a league of her own, illogical, unscientific, and CIRCULAR REASONING.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, you’ve never mentioned a single limitation of VAERS that I don’t already thoroughly discuss on my site, usually in multiple places. I guess the reason you think I “don’t understand” it is because you’ve never read most of it.

The issue is that, for whatever reason, you love degrading anyone who challenges the vaccine paradigm, which you consider dogma rather than science.

I read some of it. It reminds me of these papers an old college acquaintance used to write who was later diagnosed with schizophrenia.

@ Lucas

Your comment to Ginny is just one more example that YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. Ginny is a unique example of an antivax nutcase

I will try not to call you an ASSHOLE because I’m rather certain you accept that as a compliment.

@ Doug

If you are still watching, there is actually a better explanation of how the SARS-Cov-2 manages to get a eukaryotic ribosome to produce more than one, actually way more, proteins by the same Britt Glaunsinger. You can find it at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_bOhZd6ieM

I am absolutely fascinated by just how complex non-living viruses can be, fascinating and frightening at the same time.

If you watch either, let me know what you think

Thanks, Joel. The lecture didn’t tell me much I didn’t already know, but it is very good with lots of well-presented information.

It’s also a bit dated, mostly in the final section about immunity. This is hardly surprising. If she were doing it now there would be a lot more to say, probably enough for another full one-hour lecture. I suspect she’d at least mention Paxlovid, especially after talking about the cleavage of the big protein. Paxlovid is a protease inhibitor that nterferes with the enzyme that does the cleaving.As far as I know Paxlovid is still effective and SARS-CoV-2 has not evolved resistance. There was a lot of concern early on that such resistance would evolve very quickly since that has been the case with a lot of antivirals (leading to the use of “cocktails” to vastly reduce the probability that a variant would get past two or three).

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“And the current COVID-19 virus could mutate becoming potentially both more virulent and more transmissible.”
– Isn’t this exactly what physicians like Geert vanden Bossche predict, but what one of the Orac authors dismissed as fear mongering?

In your opinion as a professional, how real is this perspective?

It is also specialists like Vanden Bossche that are deeply concerned that when (not if) this happens it will be the vaccinated – not the unvaccinated – that will be the victim. Have you read his argumentation and why do you not agree?

@ Lucas

I don’t agree because I know how the adaptive immune system works and, thus, how vaccines work. One can find online some people who probably know better but for some biased sick reason ignore what they have learned. I rely on my own knowledge and that of the overwhelming majority of experts, not a few disturbed outliers.

And, yep, the risk of a much more serious pandemic is quite possible.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“Your comment to Ginny is just one more example that YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.”
– For what reason?

@ Lucas

Even recognizing anything the Ginny, given that she is a total nuts cases, just additional example of your sick mind.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“And many of the papers on her website are based on VAERS. Orac has written several excellent papers explaining limitations of VAERS and I and others have written numerous comments as well. Simply VAERS is a suspects list.”

And thus we base our scientific reports on it.
Remember what I told you about databases? Now you acknowledge it yourself.

@ Lucas

Yep, VAERS has limitations if one accepts all reports are valid; but CDC monitors VAERS and any reports of serious adverse events it researches, including obtaining medical records, etc. Just typical of your stupid dishonest approach, all or none and, as I have written, VAERS is just one of four programs CDC and FDA have for monitoring vaccine adverse events and many other nations have their own programs as well as the European Union and WHO.

You just continue to twist, exaggerate, take out of context, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are just a despicable TROLL.

@ Lucas

What you in your biased immense ignorance don’t understand is that VAERs actually is a valuable dataset. Studies find that ca. 25% of serious adverse events are reported to VAERS; but only around 1% of mild adverse events. Through the CDC research of the reported serious adverse events the CDC finds, together with other programs, the risk of rare albeit serious adverse events. Again, it isn’t an all or none moronic approach that suits your mentality

Given that the current SARS virus has mutated to deadly strains three times in 20 years and that there exists flu strains that currently aren’t highly transmissible, e.g., H7N9, the likelihood is high that there will be from either or both a highly virulent highly transmissible strain that will cause a world-wide pandemic with a really high number of deaths and hospitalizations. It may or may not occur in my life-time; but assuming you and Ginny much younger than me, odds are high will happen. And if you both really are anti-vaxxers and if a vaccine exists for the aforementioned or one previously confers some protection, then either you two directly or friends and loved ones will suffer and die. I wonder if either of you will feel guilty for having talked them out of getting vaccinated?

@ Lucas

I’ll try to make it clear just how valuable VAERS is. VAERS is a list of suspects. Imagine police bring in 20 people for questioning about a crime. Maybe one is the culprit, maybe none. If one used Ginny’s approach all would be guilty. Of course, that would really be nuts, though I wouldn’t put it past her. So, VAERS is a list of suspected adverse events caused by a vaccine. As I wrote, only about 1% of mild adverse events are reported; but up to 25% of serious adverse events. Then the CDC investigates, finding some of the serious adverse events weren’t caused by the vaccine and some were. As with police, if there isn’t even a list of suspects, what then? So VAERs is a valuable list of suspects, nothing more, nothing less

And in the paper I suggested, the following explains the types of questions asked by CDC/FDA to determine if a reported serious adverse event was or was not caused by the vaccine:

To assess causality of an adverse event following immunization,
a great deal of information is generally needed. An adverse
health event can be causally attributed to a vaccine more
readily if:
• The health problem occurs during a plausible time period
following vaccination.
• The adverse event corresponds to adverse events previously
associated with the vaccine.
• The event is consistent with a specific clinical syndrome
where association with vaccination has strong biologic
plausibility (e.g., anaphylaxis) or where the syndrome is
known to occur following the natural disease.
• A laboratory result confirms the association (e.g., isolation
of vaccine-strain varicella virus from skin lesions of a patient
with rash).
• The event recurs with re-administration of the vaccine in
the same patient
• A controlled clinical trial or epidemiologic study shows
greater risk of a specific adverse event among vaccinated
versus unvaccinated groups.
• A finding linking an adverse event to a vaccine has been
confirmed by other studies
A. Patricia Wodi, MD and Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA. Vaccination Safety in Pink Book

And as I’ve explained many times, no one denies that rare serious adverse events could be caused by a vaccine; but for every rare event literally 10s of thousands of hospitalizations and lives are saved. We don’t live in a perfect world; but the odds of being protected vs harmed by a vaccine are exponentially in favor of the vaccines.

And there is a website that lists a number of antivaxxers who died from COVID. Check it out:

SORRYANTIVAXXER.COM

@ Lucas

You write: “It is also specialists like Vanden Bossche that are deeply concerned that when (not if) this happens it will be the vaccinated – not the unvaccinated – that will be the victim. Have you read his argumentation and why do you not agree?”

First, Vanden Bossche is NOT a medical doctor; but a veterinarian. Second, every text in immunology I have and have read makes clear that there is a higher risk of mutations in non-vaccinated people. Simply vaccinated clear the virus sooner, so in non-vaccinated more time for more mutations. Third, he ignores that without the vaccine many more would already have died. And fourth, even mutated versions will still be partly recognized by the antibodies from the vaccines, so will reduce probability of severe illness, hospitalizations, and death.

There is actually an excellent article that tears Vanden Bossche:

Alex Kasprak (2021 Mar 26). Geert Vanden Bossche Stokes Fear of COVID-19 Vaccine To Promote His Own Flawed ‘Solution’. SNOPES.

As usual you ignore all the science which you don’t understand and find somewhere someone who confirms you ignorance. The web allows for the most insane posts. Feel free to believe in QAnon, etc. Suits you.

Supposedly Vanden Bossche was working on a vaccine that would work in such a way that immune escape would be impossible. Of course there is not the slightest evidence that he actually done any lab work on this or published anything on it other than in non-scientific media. If he actually could deliver on his claims he would become fabulously rich and would be already since the issue is very far from unique to SARS-CoV-2. As far as I can tell he is not longer connected with any organization that even has lab facilities.

I’ve heard this baloney in the past about flu vaccines, too. I tried to look into it once or twice but there are no studies that ever found anything resembling this pattern.

I’ve often wondered if what was going on with some of these banana-heads is their conflation of antibiotic resistance and vaccines. Something akin to vaccinated individuals being incubators for resistance like people who get a plethora of antibiotics grow resistant strains…

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1

COVID-19 vaccines dampen genomic diversity of SARS-CoV-2: Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance

“COVID-19 vaccines are fundamentally restricting the evolutionary and antigenic escape pathways accessible to SARS-CoV-2”

Preprint but interesting. I’ll take it over: “This rando youtuber or blog says the vaccines make covid badder!!”

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“To assess causality of an adverse event following immunization, a great deal of information is generally needed. An adverse health event can be causally attributed to a vaccine more readily if:
• The health problem occurs during a plausible time period following vaccination.
• The adverse event corresponds to adverse events previously associated with the vaccine.
• The event is consistent with a specific clinical syndrome where association with vaccination has strong biologic plausibility (e.g., anaphylaxis) or where the syndrome is known to occur following the natural disease.
A. Patricia Wodi, MD and Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA. Vaccination Safety in Pink Book”
– The adverse events that I described about a year ago clearly showed the above causality. A shame no one here showed any interest, even denied it. Typical.

“And as I’ve explained many times, no one denies that rare serious adverse events could be caused by a vaccine; but for every rare event literally 10s of thousands of hospitalizations and lives are saved. We don’t live in a perfect world; but the odds of being protected vs harmed by a vaccine are exponentially in favor of the vaccines.”
– What we might consider is a neutral third party doing an extended ‘market research’ on vaccine safety. With a representative reflection of the population and the right questions, partly based on the above from the Pink Book, you can do this. That will bring to light if these events are indeed rare, which I seriously doubt.
The proof that you come up with, always shows flaws at further investigation. Is often even a case of a butcher inspecting his own meat, that I don’t particularly favor. Forget that Joel, if you’re looking for truth, reliability, certainty. Which you seem clearly not.

“And there is a website that lists a number of antivaxxers who died from COVID. Check it out: SORRYANTIVAXXER.COM”
– This is unilateral, mood-making.

@ Lucas

Not worth refuting your Bull Shit. Anyone following this particular exchange will already understand what a low life despicable person you are.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“First, Vanden Bossche is NOT a medical doctor; but a veterinarian.”
– True, he is not. He is a virologist and vaccine expert.

“Second, every text in immunology I have and have read makes clear that there is a higher risk of mutations in non-vaccinated people. Simply vaccinated clear the virus sooner, so in non-vaccinated more time for more mutations.”
– I can imagine that vaccination promotes natural selection.

“Third, he ignores that without the vaccine many more would already have died.”
– Just because of covid. But that’s probably half the story, as being discussed.

“And fourth, even mutated versions will still be partly recognized by the antibodies from the vaccines, so will reduce probability of severe illness, hospitalizations, and death.”
– I don’t like the word ‘partly’ when it is about immune escape. The surviving and spread virus will likely be the mutant, which I can imagine is potentially dangerous.

“Isn’t this exactly what physicians like Geert vanden Bossche predict, but what one of the Orac authors dismissed as fear mongering?”
– So you are exactly the same fear mongerer as GvdB is: “the risk of a much more serious pandemic is quite possible”.
On an economic and social level I hope you are aware what dangers this may imply.

“There is actually an excellent article that tears Vanden Bossche:
Alex Kasprak (2021 Mar 26). Geert Vanden Bossche Stokes Fear of COVID-19 Vaccine To Promote His Own Flawed ‘Solution’. SNOPES.”
– I read: “While there is no doubt that current vaccines will become less effective over time due to genetic drift, this is not something that vaccine science is unaware of or unprepared for. One benefit of several current COVID-19 vaccines, most notably the mRNA vaccines, is that they can be easily modified to induce the development of antibodies programmed specifically to deal with whatever new variants crop up.”
Is Kasprak not selling false hope? As if we are that fast at development ánd rollout when an outbreak occurs.

“As usual you ignore all the science which you don’t understand and find somewhere someone who confirms you ignorance. The web allows for the most insane posts. Feel free to believe in QAnon, etc. Suits you.”
– Based on the many false assumptions up until now, I can only conclude that there are lots of scientists that miss the understanding. And isn’t it a disgrace that after many years of study and practice there is still no mutual agreement? There must be a lot within your species that should have chosen another job.

You must have a high vaccination rate to have selective pressure caused by vaccination.

@ Lucas

Not worth refuting your twisted distorted BS. Anyone following this particular exchange will already understand what a low life despicable troll you are.

Aarno Syvänen

“How you proved the causality?”

According to the Pink Book an adverse health event can be causally attributed to a vaccine more readily if:
• The health problem occurs during a plausible time period following vaccination.
• The adverse event corresponds to adverse events previously associated with the vaccine.
• The event is consistent with a specific clinical syndrome where association with vaccination has strong biologic plausibility (e.g., anaphylaxis) or where the syndrome is known to occur following the natural disease.
• etc.

All of the cases met the first two conditions. Some the third one as well.
I just don’t want to use the word ‘proof’.

@ Lucas

Dishonest as usual. You list only three of the criteria to determine causality and ignore that one can always single out one or two of the criteria. You just continue with your dishonest asinine Trolldom.

@doug

“Supposedly Vanden Bossche was working on a vaccine that would work in such a way that immune escape would be impossible. Of course there is not the slightest evidence that he actually done any lab work on this or published anything on it other than in non-scientific media. If he actually could deliver on his claims he would become fabulously rich and would be already since the issue is very far from unique to SARS-CoV-2. As far as I can tell he is not longer connected with any organization that even has lab facilities.”

I’m not backing up Vanden Bossche in any way and I don’t really care what he does for a living right now. But I don’t use it against him either if he’s no longer connected to any organization. It may be of help to avoid bias.
At least he has some track record. And I find it hard to believe that scientists become fruitcake overnight.

@Lucas:

If Vanden Bossche actually had even the promising beginnings of what he claimed to be developing he would be absolutely nutso to fail to do everything in his power to assure that he could continue the development. The available evidence, such as lack of publications in the primary scientific literature and abandoned patent applications says he’s failed so far and apparently essentially given up. My point with regard to his lack of association with some credible research operation is that without such association he is unlikely to be able to do critical work to investigate his ideas.

There is a lack of biological plausibility to the “vaccine” he claimed to be developing, if the limited information available on it is accurate. It appears to be something to “activate” the innate immune system. While that may indeed be possible (and I see some compelling reasons to be very careful if it is), the innate immune system lacks the critical feature that is necessary for what is normally regarded as a vaccine to work (can YOU identify that feature?). His invention might be useful as a therapeutic agent. As anyone who has paid any attention and has any understanding of the relevant matters knows, timing of use of therapeutic agents in viral infections in general and in COVID-19 in particular is critical. The evidence for the utility of remdesivir, for example, in treating COVID-19 went from kind of promising to looking pretty dismal back to looking and in fact being useful – largely as experiments were done with timing of administration. Timing of true vaccines is much less critical, so benefit can be put in place before-the-fact.

Apparently you are ignorant of how many highly credible scientists have gone off the rails or fallen off their rockers in rather short periods. Orac has written about such things many times.

And now it’s about two years after he published his first article telling everyone to stop vaccinating and give him time and resources to develop his Natural Killer cell vaccine and he still hasn’t done any research. He could have shopped around the world and found some country that would fund the development.

In contrast, Dr Peter Hotez of Houston had a vaccine under development that only needing tweaking to use it for SARS-CoV-2. But he was debited funding under Operation Warp Speed because they wanted two different companies developing candidates for each type of vaccine (mRNA, viral vector, protein sub-unit, etc.) and there was no second source for his type of vaccine. So he went to India for funding, they did vaccine trials there and it has received authorization.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/10/corbevax-texas-coronavirus-vaccine/

At this point, Vanden Bossche is just another anti-vax whiner.

@ Lucas

You write about Vanden Bosch: “I find it hard to believe that scientists become fruitcake overnight”

Who gives a shit what you believe. Whether it was overnight or took longer, his present position is WRONG! ! !

I realize that it is highly likely that you been a despicable excuse for a human being for a long time that you base your opinion on others on your SICK self; but you are not any type of criterion for anything

@ Lucas

It is also possible than Vanden Bossche hasn’t “become fruitcake” but like some others, he is greedy and needed to undermine other vaccines in order to sell his if he ever succeeded in developing it. Andrew Wakefield, at first, focused on problems with MMR while he was producing a univalent measles vaccine, which when he applied for licensing wasn’t approved. Joseph Mercola and some other antivaxxer sell alternative and complementary medicines, mainly worthless; but wouldn’t sell if people got vaccinated.

@Joel Harrison
“Andrew Wakefield, at first, focused on problems with MMR while he was producing a univalent measles vaccine, which when he applied for licensing wasn’t approved”.

Could you please provide your source for this ie that Andrew Wakefield applied for a licence which wasn’t approved. Thanks.

Absolutely correct! He applied for a patent, not a licence which is entirely different.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“– So you are exactly the same fear mongerer as GvdB is: “the risk of a much more serious pandemic is quite possible”.
On an economic and social level I hope you are aware what dangers this may imply.”

What I did not mean to say is that I agree with such labeling, just because we don’t like to hear what will get us out of our comfort zones.
I haven’t heard any official speak out such possible outcome yet. And they never will.
But when you say “much more serious” and “quite possible”, you mean that perhaps 10% or 20% of the population might die?
If such risk is indeed real, would it not be wise to buy a house or caravan in a rural area with some supply, where you can live off grid for a while? Not just to avoid contact with the infected, but simply because you may not have a functioning society for a while.

In your estimation, how real is the development of a vaccine that is mutation proof? Vaccines that target and bind, say, the receptor binding domain region of the spike protein might lose effectiveness if the virus evolves within that region. With each mutation it risks becoming unrecognizable to the current vaccines. Not really the way forward.

Smallpox killed 30%, and people did not started to live in caravans. But thre as a vaccine.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“It is also possible than Vanden Bossche hasn’t “become fruitcake” but like some others, he is greedy and needed to undermine other vaccines in order to sell his if he ever succeeded in developing it. Andrew Wakefield, at first, focused on problems with MMR while he was producing a univalent measles vaccine, which when he applied for licensing wasn’t approved. Joseph Mercola and some other antivaxxer sell alternative and complementary medicines, mainly worthless; but wouldn’t sell if people got vaccinated.”

Yes, who knows.
That’s why I literally trust no one. Which include vaccine sellers.
Like walking in a minefield.

@ Lucas

If you do a search of National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed you will find that Geert Vanden Bossche hasn’t published a single article since 1995. What does that tell you? I know what it tells me, that at one time he was an active researcher; but hasn’t been for over 25 years. And he hasn’t even published an article on his current attempted COVID vaccine! ! !

And two other articles explaining the gross flaws in his thinking:

Edward Nirenberg (2021 Mar 15). Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche’s Claims — Deplatform Disease

Vincent Iannelli (2021 Mar 16). Who is Geert Vanden Bossche? – VAXOPEDIA.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You write about Vanden Bosch: “I find it hard to believe that scientists become fruitcake overnight”
Who gives a shit what you believe.”
– I do.

“Whether it was overnight or took longer, his present position is WRONG! ! !”
– I hear you say so.
I didn’t say he is right either, did I? I simply don’t know.

“I realize that it is highly likely that you been a despicable excuse for a human being for a long time that you base your opinion on others on your SICK self; but you are not any type of criterion for anything”
– Amazing to hear you say I base my opinion on others. You’re not good at judging people.
Not for anything? I wouldn’t be too sure of that. I guess I’ve been a criterion for getting extremely rich. If you would only have taken seriously my prediction of war and a slow dive into chaos you might have bought some oil contracts as an example. More importantly, I think I know what will happen in the future; this is so much more important then vaccines.

“I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows …”

It violated conservation of mass, but if I believe it who are you to naysay it?
/s

Actually I don’t believe that. It’s a nice expression of hope for the future in the face of hard times, but it’s definitely not science.

And Lucas, your beliefs are not evidence that can persuade us. Your comments are conspicuously short of that. Which is partly why I almost always ignore them.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“Dishonest as usual. You list only three of the criteria to determine causality and ignore that one can always single out one or two of the criteria. You just continue with your dishonest asinine Trolldom.”

Not dishonest. I didn’t interpret the list as an exhaustive overview. Should I?

@ Lucas

You write: “Not dishonest. I didn’t interpret the list as an exhaustive overview. Should I?”
You wrote: “All of the cases met the first two conditions. Some the third one as well.”

Implying that meeting some of the conditions was enough. Just more examples of your DISHONESTY. It would be like saying a criminal suspect met two of the conditions, race and gender, as if that means anything.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“If you do a search of National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed you will find that Geert Vanden Bossche hasn’t published a single article since 1995. What does that tell you? I know what it tells me, that at one time he was an active researcher; but hasn’t been for over 25 years. And he hasn’t even published an article on his current attempted COVID vaccine! ! !”
– Yes, I saw this.
I don’t know for what reason, I don’t know the man, except that he doesn’t live far away from where I am frequently. Perhaps the man became financially independent at some point and hasn’t sought any attention since (like me). I just don’t know, but he certainly seems a passionate person, not one that would just take a rest. And then all of a sudden he sees a major threat in the world (like he says he does) that triggered him to action. Tell me.
Question is what’s in it for him.

“And two other articles explaining the gross flaws in his thinking: Edward Nirenberg (2021 Mar 15). Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche’s Claims — Deplatform Disease
Vincent Iannelli (2021 Mar 16). Who is Geert Vanden Bossche? – VAXOPEDIA.”
– I will look into it, as long as it is not some ‘factcheck’ crap.
Interesting to know too is who Edward Nirenberg and Vincent Iannelli are in the first place and what motivates them to write about GvdB.

long as it is not some ‘factcheck

Yes lucas, we know your aversion to facts is absolute: no facts must enter your mind to damage the cesspool of lies and misinformation that makes it up.

@ Everyone, not Lucas because he will ignore or twist

I especially encourage you to check out Racaniello’s videos listed below

Vincent R. Racaniello and Vincent Iannelli

Vincent R. Racaniello is a Higgins Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. He is a co-author of a textbook on virology, Principles of Virology

Understanding that the World Wide Web is a primary scientific tool, Racaniello is one of the co-creators of BioCrowd, a social network designed to bring together scientists of all disciplines. Racaniello’s virology blog,[and podcasts This Week in Virology;This Week in Parasitism[with colleagues Dickson Despommier and Daniel O. Griffin; This Week in Microbiologywith Michelle Swanson, Michael Schmidt, Petra Levin and Elio Schaechter; This Week in Evolution with Nels Elde; Immune with Stephanie Langel, Brianne Barker and Cynthia Leifer;[ and This Week in Neuroscience also unify science with technology. His blog, podcasts, specialized pages on Influenza 101[and Virology 101 aim to bring microbiology to non-scientists. Continuing to bring virology to those outside of the field, Racaniello established a library containing podcasts of lectures he has recently given at Columbia University. He has also begun teaching virology via livestream on YouTube.
Racaniello is listed as inventor on at least 12 patents. A search of National Library of Medicine’s online database PubMed found 35 articles by him.

Note. I have bookmarked and watched on YouTube:

Virology Lectures 2021- Vincent Racaniello (25 videos)
virology blog: About viruses and viral diseases by Vincent Racaniello
TWiV This Week in Virology. Watch it and check out the Archive

Vincent Iannelli, M.D., is a board certified pediatrician and Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Vaxopedia was created in late 2016 to help parents get educated about vaccines. [About.Vaxopedia: an A to Z guide to vaccines.]

@squirrelelite

“And Lucas, your beliefs are not evidence that can persuade us. Your comments are conspicuously short of that. Which is partly why I almost always ignore them.”
– Which is fine.
But wait, I’m not here at all to bring you evidence that should persuade you. It’s the other way around. As an example, when I noticed this number game on deaths being reported as unvaccinated, while within 14 days after having received the jab, I did ask for an explanation on the graphs shown and conclusion drawn. You were the only one who at least attempted this – however unfortunately no explanation.

I really have no problem with anyone wanting to believe what he or she wants. And if you prefer to be dictated by researchers who use unreliable databases, what’s it to me? I simply want to find out whether or not these vaccines are ‘safe’. That’s why I asked for this recent raw data on mortality. Apparently that’s a tough question too.

Actually I prefer to address my comments to the unidentified third party readers who lurk here and might persuaded. As you point out, you are not here to inform and possibly persuade us. You are just here to state your opinions.

Explanation is that is takes about 14 days before vaccine is effective, buildning a immune response takes time.

@squirrelelite

“At this point, Vanden Bossche is just another anti-vax whiner.”
– So what? I don’t care if he’s a guy in women’s clothes either.
You make it ad hominem, while you should focus on his statements only. Sorry to say Squir., but i find this childish behaviour.

@Aarno Syvänen

“Smallpox killed 30%, and people did not started to live in caravans. But thre as a vaccine.”
– So say you had a wife and 4,67 kids. You were willing to sacrifice 2 members? Some father you are.
The world isn’t the same. If now a virus would kill 30%, big chance you will die; but not necessarily due to the virus.

@ Lucas

The TROLL is back. You just continue with unscientific, illogical comments, not meant to enter into a dialogue; but just to annoy people.

@doug

“Apparently you are ignorant of how many highly credible scientists have gone off the rails or fallen off their rockers in rather short periods. Orac has written about such things many times.”
– Of course I’m not ignorant. I see no different than diverging opinions among those scientists with similar background. I already defined this as a disgrace to science.
How can this be? Are your universities not good enough, is the matter too complex for you / do you lack intelligence, is it greed, is it political preference, what is your problem?
Your insanity takes lives.

Of course you see no different [sic] than diverging opinions because you knowledge is so limited that you are unable to reasonably assess claims. Diverging opinions in science are very abundant. Scientists who were formerly credibly becoming fruitcakes who spout complete nonsense are much less abundant, but still exist in such numbers that terms like “Nobel disease” have been coined. The late Luc Montagnier is a prime example. Kary Mullis is a sort of “maybe” case since it isn’t entirely clear that LSD wasn’t the root of his transition to gâteau aux fruits.

How can this be? Are your universities not good enough, is the matter too complex for you / do you lack intelligence, is it greed, is it political preference, what is your problem?
Your insanity takes lives.

That’s quite the minirant. If there is a point in there it is occult. Are you saying that once-credible scientists adopt wild, unsupported and unsupportable ideas because of things like greed or political preference?

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You write: “Not dishonest. I didn’t interpret the list as an exhaustive overview. Should I?”
You wrote: “All of the cases met the first two conditions. Some the third one as well.”
Implying that meeting some of the conditions was enough. Just more examples of your DISHONESTY. It would be like saying a criminal suspect met two of the conditions, race and gender, as if that means anything.”

This is perhaps interesting.
The Pink Book gives no indication of how many conditions have to be met. So, was I wrong?

I personally would be very much alarmed when at day 1 someone gets vaccinated and at day 3 gets a blood clot, a syndrome he has never experienced before (to his knowledge). Not you; seen your comparison of the criminal, this is by far not enough proof that the vaccine caused it. Okay, I get that.
That it corresponds to the same event previously associated with the vaccine (the second condition) is no proof either. Like you said, next to race we only have the gender of the criminal and that still tells you nothing.

Fine, but you got to realise that with this approach you will miss the diagnosis of many real vaccine related cases. You just conclude that the patient is dead, no underlying cause known. Nor determined; or are you telling me that you do a laboratory search in all such cases? No way, Joel.

And that is how the databases you rely on so heavily is what they are: a scam, they cover up. In reality there were a (vast) number of cases where the vaccine was the cause. You missed them because not all of the conditions were met and here you said it yourself.

Isn’t this the reality, Joel?

@ldw56old

“Of course I’m not ignorant.
And yet you say you never lie: that is one of the most bald faced lies you’ve told.”

Finally. He does have a sense of humor!

And you, lucas, have no integrity, honesty, or understanding of statistics or science, yet you lie about statistics and science all the time.

You have failed whatever schooling you might have tried and abandoned, as well as the basics of being a decent person.

@doug

“Of course you see no different [sic] than diverging opinions because you knowledge is so limited that you are unable to reasonably assess claims.”
– Or the problem is that you’re too young to understand the dark side of commerce. It’s lies everywhere, Doug. You will find that out.

“That’s quite the minirant.”
It is, just that the “you” didn’t indicate you personally, but you as a group of scientists with the same background.

“If there is a point in there it is occult.”
This I find an interesting remark. Could you explain?

@doug

“Are you saying that once-credible scientists adopt wild, unsupported and unsupportable ideas because of things like greed or political preference?”

Greed is what Joel already suggested in his post of December 13, 2022 at 2:20 pm. I would not exclude that possibility, Doug. Appearances can be deceiving, you never really know what drives a person.
Political preference seems unlikely to you? See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34276142/ or just search ‘vaccines politicised’.

Do you know that Ronald Reagan signed NVICP into law ? Vaccines are indeed politicised.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“Real antivaxxers, ignorant of science, post because they believe they’re untenable positions. Not you. I can only guess; but I would bet you are an unhappy individual, someone who failed at something.”
– We all fail at something.
The only reason for not being happy at times may be that during the last 10 years I had to altogether spent 1 full year in hospitals due to some severe medical mistakes. However this didn’t concern me, I just felt the responsibility to take care. So yes, I lost a lot of valuable time due to idiots. But it is over now, nice and not so nice. But I’m still not unhappy, I guess.

“So, your only satisfaction rests not on contributing anything; but just angering, provoking people.”
– I hate lies and stupidity. Perhaps puncturing balloons is a contribution?

“I have spend my life believing in community, especially public health. In fact, at 76, in a few minutes I will be heading to the blood bank to donate, something I have been doing for almost 50 years. When younger I volunteered a few times at soup kitchens. And though I was exempt from the draft, I was active in protests against the war in Vietnam. I also participated in demonstrations supporting Civil Rights. And in 2003 participated in demonstrations against invading Iraq. At outbreak of pandemic I phoned several food banks offering to help. If you don’t know what a food bank is, it is a place that receives food donations, sorts them and distributes to needy families. When I told them my age, they politely declined. And I worked in public health. Unfortunately, despite what I have done, I always feel guilty that I could have done much much more, so now all I can do is donate blood once per month for however long I live.”
– I got to know physicians from the other side, while taking care of said person in hospitals. Many are fine, but really, what amazing scumbags you find there. The younger the bigger the scum; often completely inhumane. And arrogance fills the gap to catastrophe.

And tell me, do you still believe in community?
I never have; I believe in individuals. About 1/3 or so seems fine, the residue is selfish when you get to know it.
I have a less positive picture of society than you do. Whether it’s politics, commerce or religion, I see unsavory agenda’s. Society is heavily divided, many feel lost.

Apparently just like you, I try and add a bit to society. Like I initiated facade gardens in a suburb, mostly for children from most diverse countries; I purchased pieces of land for nature destination. I guess I have an attitude to help if necessary. In the very distant past I tried to protect our environment with initiatives of waste separation and reuse, instead of just burning it for profit. That didn’t work out, of course not.
You see Joel, two perfect people on the planet.

“And I post comments on websites refuting antivaxxers because I understand immunology, microbiology, and epidemiology, thus I know how vaccines work. And because if people listen to them, either they could suffer and/or transmit the virus to other vulnerable people.
– Why take risks with children to save the vulnerable? And then, each and everyone will get infected sooner or later anyway. Perhaps the speed of transmission is somewhat different.

@ Lucas

Bull Shit. Sooner or later we will have another pandemic and odds are it will be more deadly and more transmissible. And people like you will have persuaded some to not get vaccinated and the unvaccinated will be the majority of those being hospitalized and even dying.

And I will bet that you and others like you, basically lacking a conscience, will not care or admit they were wrong.

@doug

“problem is that you’re too young – Bwahahahaha!”

That was ment as an escape for ‘too naive’.

@squirrelelite

“Actually I prefer to address my comments to the unidentified third party readers who lurk here and might persuaded.”
– Nothing wrong with that. I hope for your readers they don’t take just yes for an answer.

“As you point out, you are not here to inform and possibly persuade us. You are just here to state your opinions.”
– Stating opinions you do on YT where you have an audience and even earn a penny. It is the response – or absence of it – that gives information. As an example you might watch what Joel’s reply will be on my post of December 14, 2022 at 5:04 pm on those databases that he claims as reliable.
I’m curious as to how he will defend – and i might actually learn. And suppose no comment follows at all, might that not well be an indication of my assumption that they are in fact a scam? And if so, how would you claim the vaccine’s safety?
In general, what would be your conclusion if a question asked, is replied with lots of words without substance?
You see Squirrelelite, it is not just about stating opinions here.

And don’t forget I originally came here for that link on mortality. Simple question but no answer yet. Suppose that info isn’t available, what might that be an indication of?

It’s been pointed out multiple times that the U.S. states with the highest vaccination rates have lower all-cause mortality than the states with the lowest vaccination rates.

@Lucas

Hi Lucas, saw this and just wondered if you might find answers to some of your outstanding questions here.

December 14th 2022

The WHO estimates of excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic
• William Msemburi,
• Ariel Karlinsky,
• Victoria Knutson,
• Serge Aleshin-Guendel,
• Somnath Chatterji &
• Jon Wakefield

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05522-2#MOESM1

@ldw56old

“You have failed whatever schooling you might have tried and abandoned.”
– You keep repeating that. We’ll see.

We’ll see

We already have in your comments showing absolute dishonesty about history, no understanding of statistics, and repeated lies about vaccines.

@MedicalYeti

“After a rough day between clinic and a nursing home, it’s always fun to come read what Dr Joel has to say to cranks. I’ve been laughing for a good ten minutes.”
– Americans and their sense of humor…

“I do worry for his blood pressure, though…”
– No worries, he takes it out with lots of cursing in capital letters.

@ Wendy Stephen

I explained that Wakefield may not have always been antivax since he applied for a license for a monovalent measles vaccine.

You wrote: “He applied for a patent, not a licence which is entirely different”

Explain how that changes that he was promoting a vaccine, thus, at the time wasn’t anti vaccine? Just typical of you. You attack; but miss the entire point, that is, that whether he applied for a patent or a license, both indicate he was promoting a vaccine. STUPID STUPID STUPID

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “Hi Lucas, saw this and just wondered if you might find answers to some of your outstanding questions here.
December 14th 2022 The WHO estimates of excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic

So, I downloaded and carefully read the article. Had to actually search web for some of the statistics because, despite studying stats 40 years ago, new statistics are always being developed. So, when I read an article, I really read it. I doubt you did.

In any case, the article states: “Excess mortality quantifies the increase in mortality from all causes, including direct COVID-19 deaths, indirect COVID-19 deaths (for example, health-system overload) and strictly non-COVID-19 deaths (for example, those resulting from other health shocks such as violent
conflict or disasters). These estimates from the WHO cannot quantify the relative importance of each of these factors . . . In 2021, the rise in infections
outpaced the roll-out of vaccines in many such locations and this either led to or was worsened by the emergence of more infectious, higher
fatality, SARS-CoV-2 strains such as the Delta variant. We can speculate about how vaccine hesitancy, premature relaxation of containment
measures and a global COVID-19 ‘fatigue’ contributed to how the pandemic developed but this is an important area for further study.”

So, while they do a good job of estimating the excess mortality, they do not attempt to explain, give reasons, and the only mention of vaccines is pure speculation; but not blaming vaccines for excess mortality; but actually vaccine hesitancy may actually have contributed to it.

So, as I wrote, I doubt if you actually carefully read the article and find it repulsive that you seem to support Lucas who if you actually read some of his comments carefully, doesn’t really make any sense and he keeps asking for data; but when supplied then claims fraudulent. Thus, no matter how carefully one replies, he rejects in one way or another. You really are a perfect match.

@Aarno Syvänen

“Ginny Stoner missed this one: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm
COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk — Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021″

I asked for recent data, which is not provided. Thanks anyway Aarno.
Btw, here is the finding:

“During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site.”
– Isn’t this weird? You leave deaths due to Covid-19 out of the equation and what you see is that mortality is higher under the unvaccinated. How could that possibly be?
Could it be the effect of this scam that deaths within 14 days after vaccination – if you die of the vaccine it is in this period – are counted in the unvaccinated?

And still waiting for the data I asked for.

As I explained in my paper, the data you are looking for (recent all-cause deaths for vaxed/unvaxed) not only does not exist now (at least for the US), but hopefully never will, because privacy and medical freedom is highly valued here. There is no database of either the unvaccinated or vaccinated, and there is no certification of unvaccinated status to facilitate such data gathering.

There should be ongoing research studies (with informed consent) but I don’t know of any. It’s creepy enough that the state is poking its noses into medical records of the dead.

Also, mortality data from all sources is not in “real time”–it takes time to process, transmit and assess this data. All the CDC’s mortality data from January 2021 is still provisional and subject to change–and it generally does change a lot especially in the most recent 6 months, when it’s so unreliable it can be misleading, IMO.

But what do I know, right?

@doug

“A far more believable but for Gin-gin would be “but that is something I don’t know how to do.””
Likely so.

@ Aarno Syvänen

As I’ve written, Lucas requests data. Give it to him and he either ignores or always finds some “speculative” fault with it. Bottom line, he is a disgusting troll not interested in anything more than irritating/angering people.

Sometimes I find it difficult to accept the reality that such people exist; but they do.

@oncejolly
“It’s been pointed out multiple times that the U.S. states with the highest vaccination rates have lower all-cause mortality than the states with the lowest vaccination rates.”

Thank you and it is certainly interesting to see the result. It suggests that the vaccines are safe, which we all hope for.
But it doesn’t match my request.

Firstly this is a state to state comparison. We must be careful comparing apples with pears.
Secondly I guess you refer to your previous post. That table 2 relates to the period between June 27,2021 and March 22, 2022. I need recent data, from April this year up to about now. That’s when excess mortality has been high. And that’s when mortality due to Covid-19 is relatively low.

I can certainly be wrong, but I expect overall mortality (IR) to be higher in the vaccinated. But somehow the data seems not there?

Interesting for you might be this link Aarno posted: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm
What you read in there is:
“During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site.”
– Isn’t this weird? You leave deaths due to Covid-19 out of the equation and what you see is that mortality is higher under the unvaccinated. How could that possibly be?
I asked Aarno if this could be the effect of this scam that deaths within 14 days after vaccination – if you die of the vaccine it is in this period – are counted in the unvaccinated.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“As I’ve written, Lucas requests data. Give it to him and he either ignores or always finds some “speculative” fault with it. Bottom line, he is a disgusting troll not interested in anything more than irritating/angering people.
Sometimes I find it difficult to accept the reality that such people exist; but they do.”

You seem to cling to your own perfect world, no matter a lie or not. Just like you religiously seemed to have believed in community. No one is allowed to ask you critical questions, Joel.
That rigidity may prevent you from truth-finding in changing circumstances. Partly you’re not a scientist, I’m sorry to say so. Think about it.

It has always been my job to find faults, be it speculative or not. Instead of being irritated by this, you should be more then happy that someone critical – not stupid – is willing to put some of his energy and time in this. Or is there any progression in staring to the ceiling with you?

Here (see my post of December 14, 2022 at 5:04 pm) is just another example of you avoiding to answer, probably because it might upset your mindset about vaccine safety. Isn’t that equal to dishonesty?

@Aarno Syvänen

@Aarno Syvänen “Smallpox killed 30%, and people did not started to live in caravans. But thre as a vaccine.” – So say you had a wife and 4,67 kids. You were willing to sacrifice 2 members? Some father you are. The world isn’t the same. If now a virus would kill 30%, big chance you […]

“People did not love children before modern times ? Not true.”
– Of course that’s not true. But had they have the possibility of leaving the death scene, I’m sure they had.
Many of us live in crowded cities, but now that we have the option to buy at least a caravan in some rural area and stock it with all we need, then if necessary we can live off grid for a while. If indeed “the risk of a much more serious pandemic is quite possible”, why wait until that serious pandemic knocks at the door. Just a thought. All the rich have that btw.
Not that I’m Joel or Geert vanden Bossche saying the same thing, but I have this escape and used it to protect that relative I mentioned during these covid waves. No one to tell you to stay at home there, which of course was a very unhealthy thing anyway.

“You should consider how many unvaccinated get blood clots”
– Sure and if you have such data, feel free to share them.

@Ginny Stoner

“As I explained in my paper, the data you are looking for (recent all-cause deaths for vaxed/unvaxed) not only does not exist now (at least for the US), but hopefully never will, because privacy and medical freedom is highly valued here. There is no database of either the unvaccinated or vaccinated, and there is no certification of unvaccinated status to facilitate such data gathering.”
– I must admit I haven’t given it a thorough search yet. I expected the ‘in the knows’ here to immediately point me to it. However Joel claimed this several times, I haven’t seen the data yet indeed. I would have appreciated using the same database for a following discussion.

“There should be ongoing research studies (with informed consent) but I don’t know of any. It’s creepy enough that the state is poking its noses into medical records of the dead.”
– The state is not just interested in our medical records, in what we buy too, in our web surfing, religion, carbon footprint, political preference, possessions, you name it. That’s why we have those huge datacenters that each use as much energy as a small town (save the climate?). Don’t tell me that the data I asked for isn’t there because of your privacy. It’s there.

“Also, mortality data from all sources is not in “real time”–it takes time to process, transmit and assess this data. All the CDC’s mortality data from January 2021 is still provisional and subject to change–and it generally does change a lot especially in the most recent 6 months, when it’s so unreliable it can be misleading, IMO.”
– I’m patient. But would it be a big deal to couple some sets of data that are already out there, like the date you died, your vaccination status, your age.

“But what do I know, right?”
I’m not in the position to judge cause I don’t know anything about you, Ginny. But perhaps you refer to the ‘boring’ part in “I could do some calculations, try to adjust for the falsely inflated number of unvaxed deaths, see if the difference between vaxed and unvaxed is “statistically significant” in recent months, but that would not only be boring, it would be too speculative, given all the unknowns.”
Apart from the speculative aspect, how would you adjust for the falsely inflated numbers? If just boring, it is vital that we know what is happening in the vaxxed vs unvaxxed with regards to excess mortality and I’m sure you agree. Which means there must be a reason except ‘boring’. That would be impossible, not usable because too speculative an outcome, an excessive amount of work, too complicated.
Whatever, we do need the data on overal mortality to begin with. At some point we (all!) must have an understanding of the vaccine’s true safety profile. Only statistics based on unforgeable facts can give us that proof. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of the entire charade from the start of this pandemic.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of the entire charade from the start of this pandemic.

You’ve been lying since the start of all this? I guess I’m not surprised lucas, you’re not only bold in your lies but prolific too.

“…it is vital that we know what is happening in the vaxxed vs unvaxxed with regards to excess mortality…”

Not really–the long and sordid history of fraud in the vaccine industry has more than ample evidence already to conclude the entire foundation of vaccination is fundamentally flawed, and a “safe and effective” vaccine is an impossibility. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/3/12/spanish-flu-swine-flu-covid19-and-perpetual-vaccine-lies

Vaccination status of everyone who dies would be interesting frosting on the info cake–but not really feasible in a society that maintains an illusion of freedom.

Aarno Syvänen

“@squirrelelite “And Lucas, your beliefs are not evidence that can persuade us. Your comments are conspicuously short of that. Which is partly why I almost always ignore them.” – Which is fine. But wait, I’m not here at all to bring you evidence that should persuade you. It’s the other way around. As an example, […]

Explanation is that is takes about 14 days before vaccine is effective, buildning a immune response takes time.”

EXACTLY!
The know it all’s here don’t even seem aware about this ‘explanation’. Instead I’m the liar. Morons.
So, were the statisticians’ analysis wrong that in a particular vaccinated age group, a coincident rise in deaths shows up in the unvaccinated, with a peak after a week and back to base after 14 days?

Tell me Aarno, have you ever seen such scam in your profession? This covers up the so many deaths due to the vaccine.
What in hell does the vaccine’s effectiveness have to do with the vaccine’s side effects / safety profile? Nothing! Nevertheless we’re perfectly fine that as a measure to check the vaccine’s safety, we leave out what happens in those 14 days.

To doug: here you have an example of what I called the “dark side of commerce”. These people are deeply corrupt.

And there is another little trick to cover up the many deaths. See my post of December 14, 2022 at 5:04 pm that Joel doesn’t want to answer.

Joel, – I’m sure you read along – of course you are aware of this scam. Aren’t you the FRIGGIN ASSHOLE here?

Lucas, can I quote your posts? I’ve been running into some people who have been fooled by the more rational seeming antivaxxers, so I would find your posts useful in demonstrating what is underneath their masks. Your gibbering should be quite useful. I’ll gladly donate to vaccinationyourfamily.org in your honor if you’d like

Thanks in advance,

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“By the way, I am watching for the 3rd time PBS documentary “The Polio Crusade.” Before the vaccine, during polio season my mother would not let me go to movies nor the municipal swimming pool. I was in the first cohort that got the vaccine in 1955. I knew in my elementary school kids with steel braces and met others in wheel chairs and in late 1980s met a man who had been in an iron lung since early 1950. I always loved reading and our public library had books on polio written for younger kids, so I read them; but on nearby shelves in section on infectious diseases were books on smallpox, so I read them. So, I became interested in infectious diseases in 1950s, as a pre teenager. However, for reasons I won’t get into, I didn’t major in them; but continued in my spare time to read on them, especially vaccine-preventable vaccines, etc. And also audited courses in microbiology and immunology. Even read a text on molecular biology where I especially became interested in mRNA. In any case, I’ve been interested and studied, attended seminars, read books and untold articles on vaccines, vaccine-preventable diseases, etc. for over 60 years.”

I get the hidden message, Joel. But don’t compare apples to oranges.

“What I hate most about ASSHOLES like you and anti-vaxxers, who aren’t just trying to anger people; but unfortunately based on scientific ignorance continue, is that they put people at risk. And the current COVID-19 virus could mutate becoming potentially both more virulent and more transmissible. However, even such mutations would be partially recognized by those vaccinated, so the risk of severe disease, hospitalizations, and death will be less, though not zero, LESS and in the real world I look at probabilities, not absolutes”

So who do I put at risk and how, when refraining from giving any advice to anyone on these vaccines? Not my job, none of my business.
I don’t even give advice on investments, even though I mostly know where people should and should not put their money. All of us have to accept responsibility for ourselves.
Physicians are a different story; you are responsible for the treatments you give. Aversion from informedness can be blamed for.

@Wendy Stephen

“Hi Lucas, saw this and just wondered if you might find answers to some of your outstanding questions here.”

Hi Wendy, thank you for your cooperation. I appreciate it.
The article certainly has value if you research the possible causes of excess mortality.
On the other hand, the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 isn’t salient. I’m interested in the period where excess deaths are high, let’s say from about April this year. Fortunately from April onwards, deaths due to Covid-19 have been relatively low, which means we cannot attribute the phenomenon to the disease itself, that’s good.
In order to find out about excess deaths we need raw data on all cause mortality, of which excess mortality is a part. I’m not much focused on whatever caused these deaths in the first place, except on whether they were vaccinated or not.
Deaths and vaccination status are well known. For a comparison we need the data per 100,000 and so per age group.
When all is fine, over the past months we don’t see much difference between both groups. If we do, we have a problem to look into.
My guess is to find higher numbers for the vaccinated, which in turn might well explain excess deaths, perhaps even in absolute numbers. In a discussion on the underlying cause I would be interested to hear about possible causes here, other then the vaccines.
Thanks.

@ Ginny Stoner

So, you repeat a claim linking to one of your papers that I tore to shreds.

You fail to understand that no FLU vaccine was made. The fact that they made vaccines for a bacterial infection because they really didn’t even know at the time what a virus was doesn’t change things. Years ago they thought leukemia was an infection because at the time they had started to see increased white blood cells with infections; but, of course, leukemia is a cancer of white blood cells. So, though they didn’t have antibiotics at the time, if they had, and treated leukemia with antibiotics it would have done nothing. So, would you then claim that they had treated cancers with antibiotics???

I repeat, no vaccine was made against flu. They might have called it a flu vaccine; but calling leukemia an infectious disease doesn’t make it so. You read into things what your predetermined bias against vaccines tells you to.
And, even if the vaccines for the 1918 flu pandemic was based actually on flu had failed; but based on technology from that time, so what? Early cancer treatments failed, so does that mean we shouldn’t use later ones based on advances in science? Early organ transplants failed, so does that mean we shouldn’t perform organ transplants?

So, once again, in 1918 they didn’t know what a virus was, though some suspected, so made a vaccine against a bacteria; but even if it had been a vaccine against the actual flu virus, if it didn’t work, based on early technology/science, so what?

And one other point. People don’t always die from the flu; but the flu causes shedding of epithelial cells in the respiratory system which, in turn, can open a door for secondary opportunistic bacterial infections. So, even if they failed to make a vaccine against the flu, the bacterial vaccine they made probably saved lives.

In fact, it did.

“Most deaths in the 1918 influenza pandemic were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia. . .A meta-analysis of 6 civilian studies of mixed killed bacterial vaccines containing pneumococci identified significant heterogeneity among studies and estimated VE at 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19%-47%) in preventing pneumonia and 42% (95% CI, 18%-59%) in reducing case fatality rates among patients with influenza, using random-effects models. Using fixed-effect models, the pooled VE from 3 military studies was 59% (95% CI, 43%-70%) for pneumonia and 70% (95% CI, 50%-82%) for case fatality. Military studies showed less heterogeneity and may provide more accurate results than civilian studies, given the potential biases in the included studies. Findings of 1 military study using hemolytic streptococci also suggested that there was significant protection”

Yu-Wen Chien, Keith P. Klugman, and David M. Morens (2010 Dec). Efficacy of Whole-Cell Killed Bacterial Vaccines in Preventing Pneumonia and Death during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010;202(11):1639–1648

@ Ginny Stoner

Deluded as usual. Knowing you are right by citing your own papers. Circular reasoning and Dunning-Kruger on steroids.

And a while back you claimed you understood all the problems with VAERS; but then continue to base much of what you write on it.

I “cited” the arguments in my paper that prove your “no vaccines for Spanish Flu” claim is an outright lie–a knowing lie now, since I invited you some time ago to respond to my paper. You didn’t.

Here’s your position, which I summarized for you in my paper you don’t have the balls to respond to. Warning: it’s hard to read with a straight face.

**

A “vaccine” is something that targets a microorganism that causes a particular disease.
Spanish flu vaccines targeted bacteria that caused the flu—except they discovered a decade later that the bacteria didn’t actually cause the flu. That means the vaccines didn’t really target the disease, even though everyone thought they did at the time, and so technically they didn’t fit the definition of a “vaccine.”

Therefore, the claim that no Spanish flu vaccines existed is true—even though millions of vaccines purporting to prevent and cure Spanish flu were administered at that time.

BTW, Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, the CDC and ACIP also continue to write about VAERS. They don’t write about the massive increase in VAERS reports from COVID19 vaccines like I do, but part of their JOB is to keep track of reported vaccine injuries in VAERS. That’s why we’ve spend billions of dollars creating and maintaining VAERS over the last 30+ years.

They write about it, and I write about it, all while fully recognizing the limitations of VAERS. All such databases have LIMITATIONS. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the databases. Do you think the only discussion of VAERS data allowed is to show it’s useless? Take it up with ACIP.

In case any readers don’t know what’s going at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) —

More than twice as many serious injuries and deaths have been reported to VAERS from COVID19 vaccination in the last 2 years, than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31+ years. The increase is massive and unprecedented–and being kept carefully under wraps, with no official explanation for it, or even acknowledgment of it. Here are the numbers. https://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-riskhttps://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-risk

@Asking for a favors

Lucas, can I quote your posts? I’ve been running into some people who have been fooled by the more rational seeming antivaxxers, so I would find your posts useful in demonstrating what is underneath their masks. Your gibbering should be quite useful. I’ll gladly donate to vaccinationyourfamily.org in your honor if you’d like

What do you need me for if you know the rational arguments yourself?
Could you explain the conjunction “so”?
What’s underneath my mask and why your ad hominem demonstration instead of attempt to disprove?

@Asking for a favors

“I’ve been running into some people who have been fooled by the more rational seeming antivaxxers, so I would find your posts useful in demonstrating what is underneath their masks.”

Just as an advise, I would stop my demonstration at once.
Instead of spreading dangerous advice, you had better realise that you are a victim of a large scale scam. You think you know what you talk about on vaccine safety, but you don’t.
The accuracy of any data purporting to show covid 19 vaccine effectiveness or safety is critically dependent on the accuracy of four measurements: (1) people classified as having the disease; (2) vaccination status; (3) reported deaths; and (4) the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated (the so called ‘denominators’). Errors in any of these could undermine claims of vaccine effectiveness or safety.

I advice you to first read my post to Joel Harrison of December 14, 2022 at 5:04 pm
Then study the info here on widespread statistical fraud in medical coding and death reports:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358979921_Official_mortality_data_for_England_reveal_systematic_undercounting_of_deaths_occurring_within_first_two_weeks_of_Covid-19_vaccination

and here (if you don’t understand French, please use translation):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362839342_De_l'efficacite_de_la_vaccination_anti-Covid_et_de_quelques_biais

You will have changed your mind by now. Otherwise feel free to ask questions.
Do ask yourself how you could have been so naive.

Perfect! That was just what I needed. The misspellings were the perfect capper – you’ve helped me convince several people to finally get their shots. Thanks again.

If you read the links, the argument is that because there is a lower mortality among unvaccinated, fraud must be involved. There is are a unproven presupposition here.

These are preprints. Jeffrey Morris at UPenn has summarized this work as follows: “there is zero evidence of vaccines increasing risk of death from the UK ONS data (unless like Neil, Fenton et al. you change the data by arbitrarily reassigning many unvaccinated deaths to vaccinated.”

He’s also written a detailed post about the so-called “straggler” effect.:

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/uk-death-data-artifacts-stragglers-who-delay-vaccine-doses-a-select-group-with-higher-death-risk

I’ll wait for a point by point rebuttal from Lucas.

@Ginny Stoner

“Vaccination status of everyone who dies would be interesting frosting on the info cake–but not really feasible in a society that maintains an illusion of freedom.”
“There is no database of either the unvaccinated or vaccinated, and there is no certification of unvaccinated status to facilitate such data gathering.”

The CDC has mortality data stratified by vaccination status, but it refuses to release the data to the public. This refusal only reinforces theories that covid vaccines are the culprit. The United Kingdom, however, has released mortality data stratified by age group and vaccination status for January 2021 through May 2022, though it is unclear whether it will continue to update these data. We’ll see.

Btw, nice art at your website. You’re a pro.

Interestingly the rate of “blood clot cases” in April 2021 was stated to be 1 in 100,000 vaccinated people, exactly the same risk as initially stated in respect of Urabe mumps vaccine in 1988 and just look how that altered!! It will be interesting to see how that risk of 1 in 100,000 doses for Covid vaccine/clots might alter with the passage of time too.

“Mrs. Sabine Straus, the chair of the committee that produced the EMA report, stressed at a press conference which
was held on the 7 April 2021, that the rate of blood clot cases appeared to be about 1 in 100,000 vaccinated people.
According to the incident numbers the Capillary leak syndrome as a side effect of vaccine is even rarer according to
the EMA”

“The Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHV) has released a report on the domestically produced measles mumps-rubella vaccines that were with drawn in April, 1993, because of vaccine-associated aseptic meningitis. According to the report, an average of I in every 1044 vaccinations has been complicated by aseptic meningitis.” (2)

“The Japanese government realised there was a problem with MMR soon after its introduction in April 1989 when vaccination was compulsory. Parents who refused had to pay a small fine.
An analysis of vaccinations over a three-month period showed one in every 900 children was experiencing problems. This was over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate of one child in every 100,000 to 200,000.” (3)

(1) (UN) REASONABLE CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS ON
VACCINE SIDE EFFECTS AND
PRODUCER’S CIVIL LIABILITY
Algimantas Marcinkevičius
Mykolas Romeris University,
Received April 2021; Accepted June 2021

(2)
The Lancet
Vol 343 . January 8, 1994

(3) Japan: Why Japan banned MMR vaccine 11th May 2019

we know by now that lucas is one of the smoother liars posting here, whether it’s a lie about nazis being a left-wing political movement, lies about how serious covid is, or his lies about vaccines in general, covid vaccines in particular. [There’s very good reason to suspect he’s being dishonest about his personal history too, since someone with his claimed history of education should be more fluent in history and statistics, but it’s possible he just didn’t pay attention in classes and only made sure the checks to the trump-u level school he was at cleared without issue.]

As a little background to the “Japan banned MMR” saga where his dishonesty is due to either intentional omission or simply not being able to check records.

In 1989, a combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, targeting all children aged 1 to 6 years, was introduced into the National Immunization Program (NIP). However, in 1993, due to reports of serious aseptic meningitis following the MMR vaccination, the Japanese government decided to withdraw its recommendation for the MMR vaccine. Ironically, the subsequent incidence of serious aseptic meningitis occurring among unvaccinated patients contracting natural mumps was reported to be as high as 1.24%, whereas the incidence was only 0.05% as a result of the mumps vaccine This decision has become a significant social concern in Japan.

In 1995, the NIP revised its vaccination policy, to now strongly recommend, but not make mandatory, the rubella vaccine for both males and females, aged 12–90 months. On 4 subsequent occasions the government made temporary recommendation changes specific to different populations susceptible to rubella: for first- and second-year elementary school students, in 1995; for first-year elementary school students, in 1996–1999; for junior high school students without a history of rubella, in 2001–2003; and for unvaccinated individuals aged 16–24 years, in 2001–2003. From 2006 onward, measles and rubella vaccine (MR) has been given free-of-charge to children aged 1 y and 5–6 y. More than 10 y passed before NIP resumed its recommendation for the MR vaccine. As a result, there are susceptible pockets among female birth cohorts 1989–1993, with seropositive proportions of 78.3%.3

Due directly to these gaps in ‘herd’ immunization resulting from politicized transitions in vaccination policy by the government, there were outbreaks of rubella with 17,050 cases reported between the years of 2012 and 2014,4 and 45 cases of congenital rubella syndrome reported to the National Epidemiological Surveillance of Infectious Diseases from week 1, 2012 to week 40, 2014.5 Currently, the majority of recent rubella epidemic cases are occurring among adults aged 20–40. There still exist large populations susceptible to rubella in Japan.

That was from [dots removed]
https://www ncbi nlm nih gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557250/

lucas’ trolling is annoying, but since his lies are so blatant pointing them out is easy.

@Aarno

“Source for (3) ? Daily Mail perhaps `?”

No, this is the link for footnote 3.

https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/latest-news/japan-why-japan-banned-mmr-vaccine

You may be interested in this article also where the rate of mumps meningitis associated with the Urabe strain was 1 in 400 doses a big difference from the 1 in 1,000,000 doses originally stated.

A Vaccine That Comes Up Short : Drugs: Safe products were available abroad, but Japan wanted to develop its own. Deaths and illness have resulted.
By LESLIE HELM
May 3, 1993

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-05-03-fi-30607-story.html

The risk in the UK was found to be 1 in 4,000 doses, again very different from 1 case per 1,000,000 doses guesstimated at the outset.

“The risk based on confirmed cases was estimated to be 4 per million doses distributed; all were in Urabe vaccine recipients. However, data from one district, based on 2 confirmed and 4 suspected cases identified by Nottingham Public Health Laboratory, suggested a much higher risk, about 1 in 4000 doses.”

Risk of Aseptic Meningitis after Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine in UK children,
Elizabeth miller et al

[Vol 341: April 17, 1993 The Lancet]

Next thing to do is to give a link to ‘original guessimate of the number of aseptic meningitis cases.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“CDC (Updated Nov. 16, 2022). Impact of Vaccination on Risk of COVID-19–Related Mortality at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/data-review/vaccines.html

Just your usual one-sided highlighting that you base conclusions of vaccine safety on.

Talking about the CDC, in my post of December 17, 2022 at 6:09 pm it says:
“The CDC has mortality data stratified by vaccination status, but it refuses to release the data to the public. This refusal only reinforces theories that covid vaccines are the culprit.”
We need to know the vaccine’s net gain or loss. Why would the CDC frustrate that?

“Interestingly”, antivaxers were (and some still are) convinced that perceived rises in autism rates would eventually be linked to thimerosal preservative in vaccines. Their belief in future vindication was so strong, that they failed to accept the failure of their pet theory, as reported autism rates continued to climb even after thimerosal was removed from vaccines.

Perhaps they will one day accept that thromboses and “dying suddenly” are vastly more to be feared from Covid-19 infection compared to vaccines. But don’t count on it.

https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/09/the-i-told-you-so-fantasy-or-the-fallacy-of-future-vindication

@Dangerous Bacon

“Interestingly”, antivaxers were (and some still are) convinced that perceived rises in autism rates would eventually be linked to thimerosal preservative in vaccines. Their belief in future vindication was so strong, that they failed to accept the failure of their pet theory, as reported autism rates continued to climb even after thimerosal was removed from vaccines”.

There’s a very big difference. All manner of material from the Covid vaccine manufacturers and subsequent papers from around the world acknowledge that the product can, on very rare occasions, cause clots etc. It’s no “pet theory” it’s a fact! There is no question of future vindication being required to substantiate the fact that Covid vaccines have on very rare occasions caused clots etc etc in some very unfortunate recipients. No “fanatasy”, no “pet theory”!

What the future will tell us, is whether or not the guesstimated rate/risk of clots etc is anywhere near the 1 in 100, 000 doses EMA quoted in 2021 and the Urabe fiasco is an excellent example of how a very remote risk (identical to that) can change virtually overnight to something much, much more concerning.

You indeed are waiting for future vindication. Your pet theory is that EMA did make a guessimate.
MMR vaccine and mRNA vaccines do not have much in common. Interesting thing is that one of MMR vaccines tested had zero cases of aseptic meningitis.
“The rates of virologically confirmed aseptic meningitis per 10,000 recipients were 16.6, 11.6, 3.2 and 0 for the standard MMR, Takeda MMR, Kitasato MMR and Biken MMR vaccines, respectively. “

Taking a fragment of fact and inflating it into a mountain of supposition for the purpose of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt is another cherished part of the antivax playbook.

Also common (and especially popular among antivaccine pediatricians) is staking claim to a purportedly reasonable middle ground between good science and rabid lunacy.

@ Wendy Stephen

The following quote is from one of a number of articles that ALL find the risk of blood clots from the vaccines exponentially less than from the actual disease.

“The risks of these outcomes after vaccination were much lower than those associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the same population.” [Hippisley-Cox j et al. (2021 Aug 27). Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study. BMJ; 374: n1931.]

However, I found a discussion on YouTube by a well-known Australian medical scientist, Susan Oliver, that explains the difference between blood clots found in living people and those found in the dead. She includes a table comparing blood clots found in the living and in the dead, totally different. I wasn’t able to cut and paste it into this comment; but you can see it on YouTube. Basically, especially given the large number of cases from COVID, the longer a body lays, the more clots form and the table she gives shows the clear differences between clots found in living people and those in dead people. Watch it, you may learn something; but I doubt it.

Susan Oliver. Died suddenly! Fact checking the Died Suddenly Shockumentary YouTube

Or you can read an excellent summary of it on AFP Fact Check: Marisha Goldhamer (2022 Nov 29). ‘Died Suddenly’ film amplifies false Covid-19 vaccine claims However, the video explains things in more detail, gives more examples and, as I wrote, gives a table that compares living vs post-mortem blood clots.

As usual, though denying you are an antivaxxer you jump at any article that supports your position without indicating you did any further research.

And just to remind the reader, your daughter suffered unilateral hearing loss from the Urabe mumps vaccine. Something I am truly sorry about; but you explained how another mumps vaccine was available, the Jeryl Lynn that was much much safer and criticized why the UK didn’t switch sooner. OK; but you must also admit that natural mumps causes up to 5% of kids to suffer unilateral hearing loss, so why don’t you include in your writings encouragement for parents to get their kids the Jeryl Lynn?

So, your comment on blood clots just one more example of your not getting things right because of your antivax rigid unscientific bias.

One additional paper on blood clots:

Ozman Tim (2022 Sep 17). BLOOD CLOTS IN DEAD BODIES NOT CAUSED BY VACCINES

@Joel Harrison

“OK; but you must also admit that natural mumps causes up to 5% of kids to suffer unilateral hearing loss, so why don’t you include in your writings encouragement for parents to get their kids the Jeryl Lynn?”

Perhaps you missed the memo but monovalent Jeryl Lynn vaccine ie Mumpsvax is no longer made/licensed so I’d be pretty dumb to recommend it to anyone!

Perhaps you missed the memo but monovalent Jeryl Lynn vaccine ie Mumpsvax is no longer made/licensed so I’d be pretty dumb to recommend it to anyone!

Ah, goalposts, look at them go!

@ Everybody

Note, prefer not to address certain illogical unscientific antivaxxers.

CDC website COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety

Gives a list of various studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated.

An earlier paper gives a table comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated for first six months of vaccines:

Stanley Xu ((2021 Oct 22). COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk — Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations,
United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021. MMWR

I have more; but antivaxxers will just ignore or claim fake data. Basically nothing will change the vast majority of antivaxxers minds.

@ Ginny Stoner

VAERS is not a “safety study”, it is simply “suspects” reported. After a crime police often bring in multiple suspects to question. One may be guilty or ALL found not involved in the crime. CDC has teams who monitor VAERS and investigate reports of serious adverse events, quite simply, people attributing some adverse event to a vaccination. Often just logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc; that is, assuming because something follows something else, the previous is the cause; but many things precede other things and just because people remember/focus on one of them, doesn’t make it so. CDC teams access actual medical records and also look at comparative data. For instance, statistically around 2,300 heart attacks occur every day in U.S. CDC has data from both previous years and months previous to advent of vaccines. In addition, as opposed to people like you, CDC and others understand the immune system, understand mRNA and ribosomes, and understand how vaccines work. Finally, why so many reports? Simple, a combination of people NOT understanding that the evaluation and approval of the new mRNA vaccines was correct; e.g., animal studies, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 studies and rise of many anti-vax websites encouraging people to report to VAERS. With lockdowns and other mitigations, this affected people’s attention, attributions, etc.

And you ignore that CDC has a real-time system connected to a number of HMOs that includes person’s age, gender, comorbidities, vaccine, vaccine lot number, dose, etc. The Vaccine Safety Datalink. And you ignore that nations around the world have their own vaccine monitoring systems.

Maybe at outset, people might question a particular vaccine’s safety; but I just did a search of PubMed, National Library of Medicine’s online database, used several different search terms and found around 800 publications of mRNA covid vaccine safety. Of course, some are reviews/editorials; but many actual analyses of data. And being fluent at several languages, I have bookmarked Swedish National Health Department, Canadian, CDC, WHO, etc.

You just keep showing your ignorance and making a fool of yourself. I suggest, instead of continuing as such, you actually try to learn about the immune system. Start with Lauren Sompayrac’s “How the Immune System Works (6th edition).

An example of mass hysteria. Nations, including US, have had periods of mass hysteria. After WW1, we rounded up 10s of thousands of people and deported them, almost none guilty of anything. During 1950s, again, we persecuted many innocent people. And now, we have idiots like you attacking dedicated medical personnel, some even just faking submissions to VAERS. While it is illegal, I’ve not seen anyone prosecuted for this; but, maybe a few cases?

And one last point, profits say NOTHING about a products value. In supermarkets people buy potato chips and soft drinks or buy fresh fruit and vegetables. Both are manufactured to sell for a profit. Obviously vaccine manufacturers need to make a profit; otherwise they would go out of business; but everything sold is sold for a profit and this does NOT prove in any way, shape, or form if they are valuable or not. Just another false argument of antivaxxers.
You just keep MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

References (Note. I have many more papers):
Cameron English (2021 Nov 4). COVID Vaccine Safety and VAERS/ 4 Common Questions Answered | American Council on Science and Health.
Madison Czopek (2022 Feb 11). No, COVID-19 vaccines aren’t responsible for an increase in deaths. PolitiFact.
David Gorski (2021 Feb 1). The efforts of antivaxxers to portray COVID-19 vaccines as harmful or even deadly continue apace (VAERS edition). Science-Based Medicine.
Emmanuel Lamptey (2021 Sep). Post-vaccination COVID-19 deaths: a review of available evidence and recommendations for the global population. Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research; 10: 264-275

@ Lucas

You write: “The CDC has mortality data stratified by vaccination status, but it refuses to release the data to the public.”

An absolute lie. In several comments above I have listed numerous CDC pages with the mortality data by vaccination status as well as other articles discussing the CDC data, etc.

You really are one really SICK DISHONEST TROLL

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“Note, prefer not to address certain illogical unscientific antivaxxers.”
– Interesting statement, since according to your own words you’re nothing but addressing illogic unscientific antivaxxers. Why the exception, Joel?

“CDC website COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety
Gives a list of various studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated.
An earlier paper gives a table comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated for first six months of vaccines:
Stanley Xu ((2021 Oct 22). COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk — Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations,
United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021. MMWR”
– Under “What is added by this report?” we read:
“During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site.”
Saving some lives while loosing many more isn’t erudite, Joel. You might consider to stop pumping stupidity.
Blind faith is dangerous, premature opinion forming unwise. So Joel, why don’t you do your damn homework first and then give us your balanced opinion?
I helped you with my posts of December 14, 2022 at 5:04 pm and December 17, 2022 at 5:56 pm. Ignore them now and conclude later on you were naive.

Then read the answer on the following question: “What are the implications for public health practice?”
The report states:
“There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine.”
– Well, isn’t this being discussed here?
Where is your proof, CDC? I think you’re lying. What I see is that you count vaccine deaths in the unvaccinated. And I see that you have nothing but a fraction of the total number of vaccine deaths in your databases due to physicians not identifying them; and I think you are aware of this, CDC.

“I have more; but antivaxxers will just ignore or claim fake data. Basically nothing will change the vast majority of antivaxxers minds.”
Basically nothing seems to change YOUR mind, Joel. Go back to basics and find out you need to know on the databases used. I.o.w.: “do your damn homework first”. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“You write: “The CDC has mortality data stratified by vaccination status, but it refuses to release the data to the public.”
An absolute lie. In several comments above I have listed numerous CDC pages with the mortality data by vaccination status as well as other articles discussing the CDC data, etc.”

You haven’t given any link that provides what I asked for.
For your information I added this link: https://mises.org/wire/united-kingdom-mortality-data-age-group-and-vaccination-status-looking-vaccine-effectiveness
It does not necessarily mean I agree on the content; see my issue on databases.

@ Wendy Stephen, etc

I wrote above: “However, I found a discussion on YouTube by a well-known Australian medical scientist, Susan Oliver, that explains the difference between blood clots found in living people and those found in the dead. She includes a table comparing blood clots found in the living and in the dead, totally different. I wasn’t able to cut and paste it into this comment; but you can see it on YouTube.”

Well, I actually found it on another website, http://www.semanticscholar.org, so don’t need to view Susan Oliver’s YouTube, though it is excellent. You can find the postmortem clots table at:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Module-2-.-Hemodynamic-Disorders/43e1532c409ae883ebd6f3b9514950f4ffbc015b/figure/37

@Wendy Stephen

I just looked back here to see if I missed one of Joel’s links containing this recent raw data on all cause mortality. That was not the case, but I noticed I missed your post of December 12, 2022 at 1:37 pm. I didn’t see that one in an email and I didn’t see it here on the website. When I opened the website again it showed up.

About this “heck of a dishonest man”, indeed, but it’s not always based on dishonesty, Wendy. He’s becoming a bit absent-minded, which I guess we will suffer from too when older.

“In one week alone Joel has attempted to influence posters…”
– As an example of the latter. Tiresome!

“Then he addressed a rather off putting suggestion as having been made by me when in fact it was clearly Dangerous Bacon and proceeded to make an issue of it in a post.”
– Another example of the latter. I hope.

“His hope is always that either through long impressive sounding tutorials, often off topic and intended to deflect or rude insulting name calling he is beyond reproach and no one will challenge him on his mistakes, flawed research or insinuations. He reproaches others for dwelling on the past but is guilty of that himself over and over. He demands references/evidence but often avoids providing them himself by telling the poster (usually with some reference to laziness), to do the research themselves. He sets his own standard “tests” for determining whether or not someone is an anti vaxxer irrespective of what the true definition is and labels them as such.”
– Unfortunately very true.
The term ‘antivaxxer’ of course is mood-making nonsense, a form of negative peer pressure. As well as pathetic parroting due to a lack of creativity in one’s language curriculum.

“He advocates for science and argues vaccine safety but struggles to acknowledge that vaccine science recognises the potential for adverse events (even the pharmaceutical industry/WHO/UNICEF etc etc acknowledge that).”
– He does acknowledge, no doubt. It’s just that the arrogant suppose everyone else is ignorant. They forget that if they get old this often turns out rediculously stupid.

“He disrespects the vaccine injured by either arguing against causation altogether or switching the focus on to the very fortunate majority who have successfully undergone vaccination………..as if that matters to the injured or makes it in any way less significant!”
– That’s an example of dishonesty.

“He seeks to lessen the impact of a vaccine induced disability by harping back to the historical impact of naturally occurring diseases on the population………….again, as if that matters to the unfortunate few who suffer a lasting vaccine induced injury!”
– Which shows a lack of empathy. Similar to how the C19vaccine injured are treated so often, no one cares a f…

“He frequently questions why he’s posting……. suggesting other posters aren’t worth his time/effort, but continues to do so anyway!”
So why then the effort? Strange.
– I admit that in real life I sometimes assist as well despite feeling he or she isn’t worth time/effort. In a way this may be a quality? Like helpful, concerned?
Apparently men can be like that.

“He attempts to discredit posters who are not entirely in agreement with him as rabid antivaxxers, assholes, sacks of shit, morons, idiots, and trolls (the place is over run with trolls) all of which is indicative of a certain mindset and does nothing to support his stance on vaccination.”
– Raw and coarse. It leaves me untouched, but to a woman one should seriously try and be more polite. Btw it’s against the rules of this forum.
And indeed lots of useless words. As if he tries to influence other readers except you; that’s pathetic behaviour.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

I missed your post of December 12, 2022 at 2:52 pm. Can someone tell me what’s the cause that some posts aren’t visible at this website, while opening the same page again, it shows up?

“What you in your biased immense ignorance don’t understand is that VAERs actually is a valuable dataset. Studies find that ca. 25% of serious adverse events are reported to VAERS; but only around 1% of mild adverse events.”
– Of course it can be valuable and better something than nothing.
What’s your source of the “ca. 25%”?

“Through the CDC research of the reported serious adverse events the CDC finds, together with other programs, the risk of rare albeit serious adverse events. Again, it isn’t an all or none moronic approach that suits your mentality.”
– If you are so in the know, why don’t you answer my questions regarding the reporting?

“Given that the current SARS virus has mutated to deadly strains three times in 20 years”
– Which tells me you don’t consider a lab leak this time?

“and that there exists flu strains that currently aren’t highly transmissible, e.g., H7N9, the likelihood is high that there will be from either or both a highly virulent highly transmissible strain that will cause a world-wide pandemic with a really high number of deaths and hospitalizations. It may or may not occur in my life-time; but assuming you and Ginny much younger than me, odds are high will happen.”
– And what is your opinion on the risk of viral dispersal due to an intentional act or not complying with safety measures?
Either way, these are disturbing times and this risk is just one of the many.
I’m not that young as you may think.

“And if you both really are anti-vaxxers and if a vaccine exists for the aforementioned or one previously confers some protection, then either you two directly or friends and loved ones will suffer and die. I wonder if either of you will feel guilty for having talked them out of getting vaccinated?”
– I guess anti-vaxxers are a rare phenomenon. But a consideration of risk and benefit can be tough. I remember in 1993 I went to Moscow and got all the jabs I was advised on. A physician (without experience as such) asked me critically why I would get them, since I was relatively young without underlying medical problems. Now I think he was right.
No, I won’t feel guilty because I don’t talk anyone out of getting vaccinated. The only advice I have given someone in a long time was about 4 months ago; an acquaintance of 82 y/o with a history of epilepsy then was in hospital to recover from a status epilepticus. I advised both the son and his wife to contact his neurologist to discuss providing them a bottle of Midazolam nasal spray, so that when a next time an attack persists the family could intervene in time in order to prevent further brain damage. I told them that after they would give one or two sprays, best is to immediately call an ambulance; usually the patient will get stable and hospitalization is not necessary. Unfortunately they didn’t listen, two months ago a status occurred again without any swift intervention. In hospital he got infected with some bacterium he didn’t survive and this Saturday we buried him.
Often you need to act without delay, sometimes it is better to hold on; in general I would never rush into medical interventions if risks may be substantial, while one is hardly at risk, like in my case with the use of an mRNA vaccine during this pandemic. Only fools act that way.

Can someone tell me what’s the cause that some posts aren’t visible at this website, while opening the same page again, it shows up?

Yes.

Last dataset:
Deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 May 2022 edition of this dataset

Aarno Syvänen

“CDC data reflects number of COVID case, of course,”
– Why of course?

“You just not get this one:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
Stop complaining lack of vaxxed/unvaxxed studies”
– Yes Aarno, I’ve seen it a dozen of times meanwhile. Recently 2 months were added, that’s a start. Still not the data I need (from april up to now), but we’ll get there eventually.

@ldw56

“we know by now that lucas is one of the smoother liars posting here, whether it’s a lie about nazis being a left-wing political movement,”
– Of course they were an extreme left wing movement, see my original post that you didn’t comment on. Always changing history, typical for the left up and till to today. What nonsense did they teach you? And if so, why indiscriminately accept? Start doing your own research and thinking.
I know exactly what happened where I live.
I asked you the last time you brought up the subject for the 11th time, if you were told anything about the influence of the Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism. You will have heard of the ‘Reichskonkordat’. It is a crucial treaty between the Vatican and the emergent Nazi Germany, signed on 20-7-1933 by Cardinal Pacelli (the later Pope Pius XII) and Franz von Papen. Now tell me what your teachers told you on the background of this treaty, how it helped the Nazis obtain power and it’s role in the persecution of Jews and another religious minority. If you were told nothing on the subject, render your teachers useless. If they did, I wait for the lies.

“lies about how serious covid is, or his lies about vaccines in general, covid vaccines in particular.”
– Funny guy you are. I’m not much interested in vaccines and never was. I’m interested in numbers, that’s all I need to know.
So me telling lies about vaccines is… a lie; and you know you’re a liar. Pathological yes, delusional maybe.

” [There’s very good reason to suspect he’s being dishonest about his personal history too, since someone with his claimed history of education should be more fluent in history and statistics, but it’s possible he just didn’t pay attention in classes and only made sure the checks to the trump-u level school he was at cleared without issue.]”
– You asked for it and I’ll tell you in some post hereafter. Just don’t cry, I warned you.

“As a little background to the “Japan banned MMR” saga where his dishonesty is due to either intentional omission or simply not being able to check records.”
– Stupido, you’re confusing me with someone else here. You’re like Joel. If you don’t mind, I leave out the rest of your text, no need to reply.

ou will have heard of the ‘Reichskonkordat’. It is a crucial treaty between the Vatican and the emergent Nazi Germany, signed on 20-7-1933 by Cardinal Pacelli (the later Pope Pius XII) and Franz von Papen. Now tell me what your teachers told you on the background of this treaty, how it helped the Nazis obtain power and it’s role in the persecution of Jews and another religious minority. If you were told nothing on the subject, render your teachers useless. If they did, I wait for the lies.

It’s amusing when you bring up things that do not come close to supporting your lies about history, but it’s really sad that an adult (like you) is so poorly informed and delusional that they believe the nazis were left wingers.

But then you do lie about the most obvious things, so it is par for your course.

@ ldw56old

If you read the history of the rise of the Nazis, they battled communists everywhere. One of the reasons they gained power was that some average Germans thought it would end the street violence. You can also find an good article at http://www.brittanica.com

Were the Nazis Socialists?

Of course, Lucas could care less as his comments are not meant to actually take a position; but just to irritate people and some of his comments literally don’t make sense.

As a Jew who group up right after World War II, knew sole survivors of the Nazis and early on read many books, articles, and watched documentaries, Lucas is just being Lucas, a despicable excuse for a human being.

Note. some right wing think tanks, including Mise, claim they were socialists; but this is typical propaganda. Given that Americans on the whole don’t understand the difference between Democratic Socialism and Totalitarian Communism, just calling someone a socialist can sway voters, regardless of the lie. Democratic socialism separates public goods from private market goods. Water, roads, electricity, and health care are considered public goods; but clothes, furniture, cars, etc are private consumer goods. However, democratic socialists would ensure safe working environments, all employees covered with medical insurance, decent wages, etc; but the free market would continue, as it does in many nations with mixed economies.

Another good article that explains my last paragraph is: Full Fact. (2019 Sep 25). The Nazis were not socialists.

@ ldw56old

When I wrote totalitarian communism it was because no nation historically has actually ever followed the teachings on communism by Karl Marx, who was a true humanitarian. I read years ago quite a few of Marx’s writings. Stalin was not a Communist; but a ruthless dictator. Mao was basically the same. For Marx communism started for a short time with dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class; but only short time until society developed into one with all having a good standard of living and equality. The only true communism was a few small isolated communities around the world and some kibbutzim in Israel. No leader, no higher ups, everyone took turns doing dishes, cleaning, building and repairing, and working the fields. Children did not live with their parents; but together where parents could visit and devote a couple of hours a day to playing with them, etc.; but they were raised as equals. So, actually there was NEVER any totalitarian communism, a contradiction in terms. Soviet Union, China, etc. were dictated to by a “communist party” from above with vast majority having no say-so

I should mention that my undergraduate degree was a major in Political Science including two semesters of Political Theory and a minor in Social Psychology.

Maybe it would be best to just ignore Lucas as he is a truly disturbed individual.

Now tell me what your teachers told you on the background of this treaty, how it helped the Nazis obtain power and it’s role in the persecution of Jews and another religious minority.

I see that this gig has gone completely to shit.

“In 1989, a combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, targeting all children aged 1 to 6 years, was introduced into the National Immunization Program (NIP). However, in 1993, due to reports of serious aseptic meningitis following the MMR vaccination, the Japanese government decided to withdraw its recommendation for the MMR vaccine. Ironically, the subsequent incidence of serious aseptic meningitis occurring among unvaccinated patients contracting natural mumps was reported to be as high as 1.24%, whereas the incidence was only 0.05% as a result of the mumps vaccine This decision has become a significant social concern in Japan.”

Your point is what? That vaccination lowered the rate of mumps in Japan? I acknowledged that the introduction of mumps vaccine significantly lowered the incidence of mumps way back! I also acknowledged that the rate of mumps meningitis in the pre vaccine era (and obviously in the period when vaccination against mumps ceased) was much higher as opposed to the time frame when mumps vaccine was being administered. I’m not hearing anyone dispute that but it doesn’t alter the fact that the Urabe containing vaccines caused mumps meningitis in some recipient children and sadly in Japan, deaths, to the point that the Urabe strain had to be abandoned by some prefectures, not in 1993 but in 1989.

An English translation of a transcript from one of the Japanese court cases records the fact that some Prefectures stopped using it because of mumps meningitis within months of its introduction in 1989. For example………..

“u The Head of Tuberculosis and Infectious Disease Measures Office instructed the Head of Health Supervision Department (Bureau) of each prefecture, as of the same date, to investigate the occurrence of aseptic meningitis after the MMR vaccination up to the end of October, 1989 again in detail and asked them to report the results by 20th November of the same year. He instructed them to be cautious about the implementation of the MMR vaccination at the time of the regular measles vaccination, based on the Preventive Vaccination Law in each prefecture, considering the natural prevalence of measles and mumps until the results of the survey become clear. He also informed them that the National Institute of Health will conduct screening tests by the PCR method and determine whether the occurrence of aseptic meningitis is caused by wild strains or vaccine strains, and decide the procedure.

v On 31st of the same month, the Head of Environment and Health Department, Osaka Prefecture issued a notice to municipal heads in the prefecture that they should be prepared to suspend the MMR vaccination. Takatsuki City decided to suspend the MMR vaccination on 1st November of the same year, and Toyonaka City on 2nd November of the same year.”

Main Judgments of Lower Courts

13th March, 2003 1993 (wa) 12535 and 1996 (wa) 4262, Damages claims

Case numbers: 1993 (wa) 12535 and1996 (wa) 4262
Case subject: Damages claim
Date of trial: 13th March, 2003

@ Wendy Stephen

Dishonest as usual. Yep, you were both right and wrong about the Urabe mumps vaccine. Compared to natural mumps, both unilateral hearing loss and aseptic meningitis, it prevented far more cases than it caused. But you continue to obsess on a vaccine that is not used anymore and have never as far as I can tell encouraged parents to get the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine which, as you even admitted, basically is as safe as one can get and would prevent unilateral hearing loss and aseptic meningitis from natural mumps.

Bottom line. YOU ARE AN ANTIVAXXER, SOMEONE WHO EMPHASIZES ANY PROBLEMS WITH VACCINES, INCLUDING WRONG ABOUT BLOOD CLOTS AS I WROTE ABOVE.

@ Joel Harrison

“But you continue to obsess on a vaccine that is not used anymore and have never as far as I can tell encouraged parents to get the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine which, as you even admitted, basically is as safe as one can get and would prevent unilateral hearing loss and aseptic meningitis from natural mumps”

I think you may have missed my earlier post of December 19th 2022 at 2.43 pm so I’ll copy it here for you again.

“Perhaps you missed the memo but monovalent Jeryl Lynn vaccine ie Mumpsvax is no longer made/licensed so I’d be pretty dumb to recommend it to anyone!”.

So, to be clear, neither Urabe AM 9 monovalent mumps vaccine or Jeryl Lynn monovalent mumps vaccine is available anymore to anyone.

@ldw56old

“”You will have heard of the ‘Reichskonkordat’. It is a crucial treaty between the Vatican and the emergent Nazi Germany, signed on 20-7-1933 by Cardinal Pacelli (the later Pope Pius XII) and Franz von Papen. Now tell me what your teachers told you on the background of this treaty, how it helped the Nazis obtain power and it’s role in the persecution of Jews and another religious minority. If you were told nothing on the subject, render your teachers useless. If they did, I wait for the lies.”
“It’s amusing when you bring up things that do not come close to supporting your lies about history, but it’s really sad that an adult (like you) is so poorly informed and delusional that they believe the nazis were left wingers.””

I told you I already wrote extensive proof of the Nazis being left wing, so why repeat it. However, in order to determine if you have profound knowledge on the war and it’s background, I asked you some questions that you seem not able to answer. Nevertheless you claim wisdom by trying to humiliate others. That wisdom is not there, ldw56.
Btw, for different reasons we should all know what happened; there will be a follow up in the not too distant future.

@Dangerous Bacon

““I’m not much interested in vaccines and never was.”
Your trope is Implausible Deniability.”
– Let me rephrase for you: I have never showed that much interest here, did I? I usually study what I need to know.

“Antivaxers who are not really interested in vaccines are a recognized variant of the species. Igor is fond of the trope too.”
– You start with a word that doesn’t make sense, to what category of species do you belong and who is Igor.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

Note. some right wing think tanks, including Mise, claim they were socialists; but this is typical propaganda.
– You had better define a ‘socialist’ first. Then the answer is obvious.

“Were the Nazis Socialists?”
By the definition: they were.

“Of course, Lucas could care less as his comments are not meant to actually take a position; but just to irritate people and some of his comments literally don’t make sense.”
– I explained my statement of being a left wing group rather in detail before, without any substantial comment.

Given that Americans on the whole don’t understand the difference between Democratic Socialism and Totalitarian Communism, just calling someone a socialist can sway voters, regardless of the lie.
– Democratic socialism is extremely dangerous, social democracy is not and is probably the system that has worked best up to now.
The Netherlands is a sort of the latter. It is more of a socialist than a capitalist country. Besides having a free market economy, the Netherlands has a reasonably good welfare system, regulating the minimum salaries and the maximum one, taxes, education and many social measures. We pay extremely high taxes here, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately this country tends to authoritarian socialism more and more; step by step it is becoming a disgusting country to live in.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“Note. some right wing think tanks, including Mise, claim they were socialists; but this is typical propaganda.”

And tell us if socialists have ever existed, do exist or ever will.
Na na na Joel, when socialists didn’t meet your utopian standards, you simply claim they weren’t socialists. And then you label them as ultra right. The same thing with the Nazis.
So Joel, socialists have existed. And we saw to what evil that led.
And now it’s the same old story over again. Some amazingly stupid and dangerous idiot you are!

@Joel Harrison

“YOU ARE AN ANTIVAXXER, SOMEONE WHO EMPHASIZES ANY PROBLEMS WITH VACCINES, INCLUDING WRONG ABOUT BLOOD CLOTS AS I WROTE ABOVE”

No, I have never emphasized any problems with vaccines but I have highlighted them, acknowledged them and where I’ve found it appropriate, helped those adversely affected by vaccines.

That doesn’t sit well with your outlook on vaccination to downplay the incidence and impact of vaccine induced problems.

How many victims of a vaccine induced injury have you supported? How many times have you argued for help, justice and compensation for those proven to have suffered a vaccine induced injury? When you run out of material to argue against their viability you then deny their existence and level of disablement.

Yet another of your self-made tests to determine an antivaxxer!

Incidentally, what have I said re blood clots that you’ve shown to be wrong!

No sacks of presents for me, only sacks of shit I fear!!!

@Narad

“we know by now that lucas is one of the smoother liars posting here, whether it’s a lie about nazis being a left-wing political movement,” – Of course they were an extreme left wing movement, see my original post that you didn’t comment on. Always changing history, typical for the left up and till […]
Now tell me what your teachers told you on the background of this treaty, how it helped the Nazis obtain power and it’s role in the persecution of Jews and another religious minority.
I see that this gig has gone completely to shit.”

Then you tell (+ motivate) us what you think you know.

Then you tell (+ motivate) us what you think you know.

Is that the royal Us?

I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking about you. Mind your place.

@ Wendy

You write: “No, I have never emphasized any problems with vaccines but I have highlighted them, acknowledged them and where I’ve found it appropriate, helped those adversely affected by vaccines. That doesn’t sit well with your outlook on vaccination to downplay the incidence and impact of vaccine induced problems.

First, I have clearly in a number of comments over the years explained the rare but serious adverse events; however, I have also made clear that antivaxxers grossly exaggerate them. And I have explained that the benefits of the vaccines far outweigh the rare risks. So, your claiming I “downplay the incidence” is absolute proof you are both dishonest and an antivaxxer. And, of course you have emphasized problems with vaccines. Almost all you write is about the Urabe vaccine, both unilateral hearing loss and aseptic meningitis; but you have not compared with natural mumps and have NOT advocated people getting the Jeryl Lynn. You really are too stupid to understand if someone over and over comments on problems with any vaccine and doesn’t then say they are rare and that the advantages of the vaccines exponentially outweigh the risks, clearly antivax. And as I wrote several times in the past, it is possible, highly possible, that your daughter had a genetic predisposition that if she had been infected with mumps she would have developed unilateral hearing loss.

You write: “Perhaps you missed the memo but monovalent Jeryl Lynn vaccine ie Mumpsvax is no longer made/licensed so I’d be pretty dumb to recommend it to anyone!”

Why? Are you against the measles and rubella vaccines? Yep, antivaxxer! !

You write: “How many victims of a vaccine induced injury have you supported? How many times have you argued for help, justice and compensation for those proven to have suffered a vaccine induced injury? When you run out of material to argue against their viability you then deny their existence and level of disablement.”

I have written in comments over the years that I have supported legislation to increase funding for ALL people with disabilities. My support has included contact with politicians in office, etc. And when younger I drove handicapped friends to doctors appointments, sometimes did shopping for them, etc. However, as I’ve explained, whether a child, for instance, develops unilateral hearing loss from a vaccine or from natural mumps, we should help ALL of them. You have ignored that I have written this. I repeat. I support legislation, funding, and programs to help ALL people with disabilities! ! !

You write: “Incidentally, what have I said re blood clots that you’ve shown to be wrong!

You wrote: “There’s a very big difference. All manner of material from the Covid vaccine manufacturers and subsequent papers from around the world acknowledge that the product can, on very rare occasions, cause clots etc. It’s no “pet theory” it’s a fact! There is no question of future vindication being required to substantiate the fact that Covid vaccines have on very rare occasions caused clots etc etc in some very unfortunate recipients. No “fanatasy”, no “pet theory”!

Which I gave two comments that gave strong evidence that the clots found were the type found AFTER DEATH. Either you didn’t read my comments, are too stupid to understand them, or, as usual, ignore them and continue with your absurd unscientific antivax bias. However, I don’t completely rule out any extremely rare events. I repeat, extremely rare event.

My comment above on blood clots. J
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
says:
December 19, 2022 at 10:02 am
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
says:
December 19, 2022 at 6:33 pm

So, just to summarize:

You are mentally disturbed. Why? Your decades long obsession with the Urabe vaccine, a vaccine no longer in use. You are callous. Why? Your admitting that you do not encourage people to get their kids vaccinated, thus, putting them at unnecessary risk. You are dishonest. Why? Either not reading what I write, not understanding it, or ignoring it and continuing to make claims about what i write, claims that are outright lies. And finally, your supporting Lucas, an antivax troll. YOU ARE SICK

YOU ARE A REALLY DESPICABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING. AND WHILE I SINCERELY AM SORRY ABOUT KATIE’S UNILATERAL HEARING LOSS, I ALSO AM SORRY SHE HAS YOU AS A MOTHER.

@Joel Harrison

“And as I wrote several times in the past, it is possible, highly possible, that your daughter had a genetic predisposition that if she had been infected with mumps she would have developed unilateral hearing loss”.

First of all, what is this “predisposition” you speak of but never expand on which would impact on an individual’s susceptability to mumps meningitis/sensorineural deafness etc?

“Which I gave two comments that gave strong evidence that the clots found were the type found AFTER DEATH. Either you didn’t read my comments, are too stupid to understand them, or, as usual, ignore them and continue with your absurd unscientific antivax bias. However, I don’t completely rule out any extremely rare events. I repeat, extremely rare event.”

My point is that the 1 in 100, 000 doses quoted by EMA is exactly the same as that quoted for Urabe and Mumps meningitis and look how significantly that risk altered with the passage of time!!

Time will tell just what the risk of VITT etc actually is. Apparently I am not alone in suggesting that the rate of VITT may change from the 2021 estimate with at least one 2022 paper suggesting that the “incidence of VITT/TTS may be much higher than previously assumed”. In addition there are huge differences in the rates being determined in different countries (just as was the case with Urabe)

“Currently the prevalence of VITT varies by pharmacovigilance database with the Ontario Science Table noting that the incidence is from 1 case per every 26,000 to 1 case per 127,000 doses administered of the AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccines and another recently published review notes the incidence could range from approximately 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 1 million of vaccinated cases after the first dose.

There have been reports suggesting that the incidence of VITT/TTS may be much higher than previously assumed, and this incidence may further increase as physicians become increasingly aware of the syndrome. The estimated incidence of VITT varies among different reports, from ~1 in 25,000 vaccinated with ChAdOx1 and 1 in more than 500,000 vaccinated with AD26.COV2•S”

Front. Cardiovasc. Med., 18 March 2022
Cardiovascular Complications of COVID-19 Vaccines
Runyu Liu et al
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.840929/full

So, unless you consider Runya Liu et al as anti vaxxers, Trolls or Lucas supporters you now need to concede that the science/medicine is highlighting the possibility that the rate of VITT etc may be higher than originally estimated. (My point exactly)

Even you would have to concede that a rate of 1 case per 62,000 doses would alter just how “rare” VITT actually is from the 1 in 100,000 doses quoted in 2021………..and as for 1 in 25,000!

Ps You may also recall that the Canadian finding re mumps meningitis in respect of Urabe was 1 in 62,000 also.

Your link seems to be a reasonable survey of the risks associated with the various Covid-19 vaccines. However it’s unlikely that the overall risk will increase substantially for the AstraZeneca and J&J/Janssen vaccines for the simple reason that they have largely been discontinued except for special groups who are at lower risk for VITT and can’t get one of the mRNA vaccines for some reason.
AstraZeneca doses hit 66 million in August 2021. Only 1 million doses have been administered since then. J&J doses hit 18 million a year ago, but only about half a million doses have been administered in the last year.
I could list a dozen things that have a risk of 1 in 100,000 but there is no reason to expect that the risk for each of them would necessarily increase in the future. One thing that has been increasing here in the U.S. is guns. They are now the #1 cause of death in children surpassing diseases, car accidents and other caused.

Aseptic meningitis is a risk of the Urabe mumps vaccine. But it was adopted and then dropped over a relatively short time span. I found a trial of 3 different MMR formulations published in 1984. But the Urabe vaccines were dropped by Canada in 1987 and the UK in 1992.

Another study that took place in the Unites States attempted to assess the level of increased risk, if any, of hospitalizations for AM after Jeryl-Lynn mumps strain MMR vaccine in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) population. The VSD project linked outcome and vaccine exposure information for 500,000 kids under the age of seven in Northern California. This particular study was run as a retrospective case-control study and used the first two years of available data in ascertaining the possible risk. Of the 59 cases of AM that were identified, it was found that none of these cases had apparent onset within 30 days of receiving the Jeryl-Lynn mumps vaccine. The researchers then concluded that “there was no increased risk of aseptic meningitis after MMR vaccine containing the Jeryl-Lynn strain of mumps. Thus, studies involving both the monovalent and trivalent vaccines support the assertion that the Jeryl-Lynn strain of mumps vaccine is not correlated with increased risk of post-vaccine aseptic meningitis. Because of this, the Jeryl-Lynn strain has become the accepted vaccine in many vaccination strategies throughout the world.

The Urabe strain, on the other hand, has been widely confirmed as a causative agent of post-vaccine AM. The VSD project analysis, for one, has indicated risk of hospitalization for aseptic meningitis after MMR vaccination containing the Urabe strain to be 1 per 3800 doses. Despite the high efficacy of the strain in preventing mumps disease, reasons such as this have led to the end of use of the vaccine in many countries. For instance, “use of the MMR vaccine containing the Urabe mumps strain was discontinued in the UK in September 1992 following the identification of an unacceptably high risk of aseptic meningitis 15-35 days after vaccination.” Also, this same vaccine was removed from the Canadian market in 1987 due to the association between the Urabe mumps strain and aseptic meningitis. Here the risk of AM was calculated to be about 1 in 10,000 doses. However, according to a French study conducted from 1991-1993, where the associated risk was found to be 1 in 28,400 doses, the frequency of meningitis due to wild virus is still much higher at 1-3 cases per 1000 mumps cases. Thus, it can be argued that the benefit outweighs the apparently variable risk of vaccination.

Mostly I ignore your ongoing squabbles with Joel. But I thought I would suggest that if you wish to persuade or inform others on this blog, you should try to find a better argument than “something bad happened to my daughter 30 years ago, therefore whatever”

@ Squirrelelite

“Aseptic meningitis is a risk of the Urabe mumps vaccine. But it was adopted and then dropped over a relatively short time span. I found a trial of 3 different MMR formulations published in 1984. But the Urabe vaccines were dropped by Canada in 1987 and the UK in 1992”.

Squirrelelite, I’m sorry but I’m struggling to get the point you make. It has long been acknowledged on here by me and Joel that MMR II which contains the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps and not Urabe AM 9, didn’t have the problem of mumps meningitis. That was actually part of the issue in the UK.

Despite being notified by Japan in 1989 as to the problems encountered re Urabe strain and mumps meningitis and being aware of Canada’s choice to abandon Urabe in 1987 (for the same reason) the UK kept using it and provided the manufacturers with the lion’s share of the UK market until September 1992. Both MMR II and Pluserix containing Urabe were distributed in the UK from 1988 onwards and so there was, at all times, a choice of a safer vaccine ie MMR II for everyone. It was never the case in the UK that the choice was restricted to the naturally occurring diseases versus a problematic vaccine causing mumps meningitis in some recipient children. It wasn’t dropped in the UK in a relatively short time span as it was in other countries, the UK continued to distribute it for 4 years.

I’ve agreed for years that MMR II did not have the problem with mumps meningitis and those fortunate to have received that brand did not face the same risks as those receiving a Urabe containing MMR.

There is no viable excuse/reason for the fact that the UK knew about the problems re mumps meningitis and failed to remove it as swiftly as other countries to the detriment of many children particularly when there was always a safer alternative brand already licensed and on the UK market.

It was said that the delay in the UK was due to the fact that the authorities wanted to be sure that MMR II did not have the same problem before switching to that brand alone but that was evident from the outset when after 9 years of usage in the US it hadn’t resulted in cases of mumps meningitis.

And yes, I agree that many things in life come with great risk and it’s entirely possible that an initial risk will not increase with time but when it comes to VITT I’d suggest that the medical and scientific papers (many of which I have referenced) are already indicative of the fact that might not be the case. Clearly the passage of time hasn’t endorsed the original risk quoted of 1 case per 100,000………on the contrary, if anything the medical/scientific papers are suggesting/ questioning something quite different.

Thanks for the reply.
Regarding VITT, I found this news article about a study published in August 2011.
https://www.tctmd.com/news/largest-study-vitt-after-covid-19-vaccination-digs-lab-clinical-features
Fortunately, the complication appears to be rare, with an estimated incidence after a first dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine of one per 100,000 people 50 and older and one per 50,000 in younger adults. This is consistent with prior reports, including those related to another adenovirus-based vaccine (the Janssen shot from Johnson & Johnson).

And I found this from April 2022.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35512903/

The reported incidence of VITT differs between jurisdictions; it is dependent on accurate ascertainment of cases and accurate estimates of the size of the vaccinated population. The incidence ranges from 1 case per 26,500 to 127,3000 first doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administered. It is estimated at 1 case per 518,181 second doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administered, and 1 case per 263,000 Ad26.COV2.S doses administered.

So the highest reported rate (with a wide range of variation) is about twice the earlier reported rate for younger adults. That is important, but not greatly surprising based on enhanced awareness of the problem. And as i noted by 2022 these vaccines had been largely replaced by the mRNA formulations.

@ Wendy Stephen

When younger I was involved in several political movements. Because of my eyes I was exempt from the draft; but one of my roommates at the time led protests against the Vietnam War, which I participated in. I also participated in demonstrations against racism. I also participated in demonstrations against nuclear power stations. I volunteered at soup kitchens and food drives. Most recently I supported Black Lives Matter. I worked in election campaigns. And I’ve protested against Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians and I am a Jew. There is a real difference between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, despite what pro-Israeli groups claim. The organization I most support, believe in, is Doctors Without Borders.

And I volunteered for the Phase 3 mRNA Covid vaccine trials. I phoned several food banks offering to help; but when I gave my age they said they would call me if they needed me. This was in beginning of pandemic before vaccines; but I did have a bunch of N-95 masks which I had for various tasks around the house; e.g. sanding and painting, etc.

And I go every fourth Sunday to local blood bank to donate one unit plasma and one unit platelets and every eighth week also a unit red cells. For 50 years I donated whole blood once or twice a year; but when pandemic began we were told shortage of blood donors, so, despite in mid 70s, I immediately started and will continue as long as I can.

And, yep, I strongly support vaccines because I have studied/learned immunology, microbiology, epidemiology (my profession), and mRNA. I have strongly followed the current mRNA covid vaccines, probably read more than thousand papers. I realize that there is NO intervention without risks; but as I have written over and over, the risk of serious adverse events from the current mRNA Covid vaccines i extremely small compared with the risk to a person and to those around him/her from the natural virus. And there is tons of studies on serious risks from previous vaccines, again, extremely rare.

So, what have you done for others???

@ Wendy Stephen

I listed above things I’ve done to help others. Unfortunately, as I look back on my life I feel guilty that I did so little. For instance, I thought of joining the Peace Corps; but didn’t. So, the only thing I can now do at my age is donate blood every four weeks as long as I can. Oh well, I’ll just have to live with a guilty conscience.

Oh one thing I did that I am proud of. During the six months I lived in Israel I joined other Israeli Jews and Palestinians in meetings that supported one democratic Palestine with Jews and Palestinians totally equal. Not the brutal current state of Israel. I was told later that Israeli Shin Bet (secret police) attended the meetings, so, somewhere in Israel’s archives is my name. There is an excellent book that documents in detail how Israel is not a Jewish state if one believes in the Covenant to be kind to strangers in your midst for were you not once strangers in the Land of Egypt.

Thomas Suarez. Palestine Hijacked. Extremely well-documented

I know you won’t read it; but, perhaps, others following this blog will.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “First of all, what is this “predisposition” you speak of but never expand on which would impact on an individual’s susceptability to mumps meningitis/sensorineural deafness etc?”

I already explained this, including citing articles. It is a waste of time finding and reciting things that you either ignore or are too stupid to understand.

You write: “My point is that the 1 in 100, 000 doses quoted by EMA is exactly the same as that quoted for Urabe and Mumps meningitis and look how significantly that risk altered with the passage of time!!”

You ignore that since the Urabe vaccine that systems for monitoring severe adverse events have been vastly improved. You ignore, for instance, that the mRNA vaccines have been used for two years and monitored by systems around the world. This is typical antivax rhetoric, that is, maybe we still have noticed severe long term effects. Well, I have written and Orac and others that research has found that adverse events to vaccines occur within less than two months. However, i will accept that some extremely rare event may occur later; but doesn’t change things. Just more proof you are an antivaxxer, wanting follow-ups for a long period of time before believing a vaccine is safe.

As for Liu et ale article, I guess you missed: “The incidence of VITT complications following adenovirus vector vaccination remains low, while the COVID-19 infection rate and mortality rate are much higher. . .Although multiple COVID-19 vaccine-related cardiovascular adverse events have been reported, vaccines are still widely used because they are effective against the virus. Compared with the low incidence of complications, the high efficacy of the vaccines against COVID-19 suggests that COVID-19 vaccines should be widely administered. In fact, the cardiovascular complications caused by vaccines can be effectively treated, and most patients improve quickly. Furthermore, a recent study indicated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is itself a very strong risk factor for myocarditis, and the virus also substantially increases the risk of many other serious adverse events.”

So, as usual you ignore the benefits to risk ratio, simply suffering prevented, hospitalizations prevented, and deaths prevented far outweighs the risks. And you even ignore that the article you refer to states: “the cardiovascular complications caused by vaccines can be effectively treated, and most patients improve quickly. Furthermore, a recent study indicated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is itself a very strong risk factor for myocarditis, and the virus also substantially increases the risk of many other serious adverse events”

Just more dishonesty by an antivaxxer, referring to articles that you either didn’t carefully read or are too stupid to understand. I don’t live in your antivax world of black and white. I look at the overall picture, benefits and risks. And the mRNA vaccines benefits outweigh by an exponential factor its risks.

YOU REALLY KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

Right now I am reading the latest editions of textbooks on immunology and microbiology, subjects I learned years ago; both to strengthen my memory and learn new developments.

@Joel Harrison

“Well, I have written and Orac and others that research has found that adverse events to vaccines occur within less than two months. However, i will accept that some extremely rare event may occur later; but doesn’t change things. Just more proof you are an antivaxxer, wanting follow-ups for a long period of time before believing a vaccine is safe.”

Although I agree that ordinarily ADR’s to vaccines occur within less than two months “Follow-ups for a long period of time” are very important, as is evidenced by the emergence of “long-VITT”. Just as it will be interesting to see the final rate for VITT itself, it will also be interesting to see how many sufferers go on to have “long VITT”.

“Long-VITT” evidences the fact that it’s only prudent to do long term follow up to determine vaccine safety and it’s got nothing to do with anti vaxxers.

“Some patients with VITT continue to show seriological evidence of anti-PF4 antibodies and clinical morbidities even 1 year later (long VITT) and optimizing their treatment is a priority”

Heparin or nonheparin
anticoagulants for VITT
Donald M. Arnold | McMaster University

“We also describe a case of “long –VITT”, describing the treatment challenges resulting from platelet-activating anti – PF4 antibodies that persisted for more than 9 months”

Treatment of Vaccine – Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) Nadia Gabarin et al, 2022

@ Wendy Stephen

You missed that the initial thrombocytopenia discussed in the article developed shortly after vaccination, so the fact that it continued does not change what I wrote that severe adverse events occur in less than two months. The intro to article: “VITT patients are almost always recognized because of symptoms and signs of thrombosis, beginning 5 to 45 days following vaccination with an adenovirus vector vaccine (most often, between 5 and 30 days post-vaccination, with median time from vaccination to presentation 14 days; day of vaccination = day 0)”. Then read the next to last section of the article entitled Long VITT which gives a couple of examples.

So, you just keep proving how stupid and dishonest you are. Stupid because you ignore, don’t understand, the articles you read. Dishonest because you leap to conclusions that confirm you bias without careful reading.

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF, THE ONLY THING YOU ARE AN EXPERT AT! ! !

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“And I’ve protested against Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians and I am a Jew.”
– According to a Ukrainian scientist of Jewish origin that I knew, the main nazis you find in Jerusalem. Do you agree on his statement?
Like you I have Jewish blood running in the veins, who knew we are related?
Just how does one identify as a Jew, when in 70 AD the Romans destroyed the genealogical records in the Temple?

Because of my eyes I was exempt from the draft;
– Many Ashkenazi Jews have ocular defection and many wear glasses.

“One of my roommates at the time led protests against the Vietnam War, which I participated in.”
– Wise not to participate in wars.

“I also participated in demonstrations against nuclear power stations.”
– We definitely should get rid of them all.

“Most recently I supported Black Lives Matter.”
– Too politicized.

“During the six months I lived in Israel I joined other Israeli Jews and Palestinians in meetings that supported one democratic Palestine with Jews and Palestinians totally equal. Not the brutal current state of Israel. I was told later that Israeli Shin Bet (secret police) attended the meetings, so, somewhere in Israel’s archives is my name. There is an excellent book that documents in detail how Israel is not a Jewish state if one believes in the Covenant to be kind to strangers in your midst for were you not once strangers in the Land of Egypt.”
– How will you ever solve the problem with conflicting religious interests?
Leviticus 19:34 may contain the command you mention, it was definitely not ment as a permit for foreigners to practice foreign religion on Israelite territory. So we can understand the problem orthodox Jews have; what would happen when the Jews placed a synagogue for worship near the Kaaba in Mekka? WW3?
Best would be that both parties came to understand that none of their religions have anything to do with God; since that will not happen, how would you want to solve the endless conflict? Jews are in general used to use their brains, what they should ask themselves is for what reason they lost their ground for so many centuries. Answer: they chose to break the covenant themselves.

@ Lucas

Amazing. We agree on some things. However,
You write: ““Most recently I supported Black Lives Matter.” – Too politicized.”

The US has 4% of world’s population and 25% of prisoners, majority blacks. Whites use drugs same as blacks; but police target blacks. When whites are arrested given much lower punishments. Compared to 20 leading democracies US police kill far more people, many unarmed and most blacks. And we still have a significant, hopefully minority, of racists in this nation. Even in employment, blacks often first to be let off, blacks with equal qualifications, promoted less. And on and on it goes.

I totally agree with Martin Luther King, Jr when he said: Don’t judge by the color of someone’s skin; but by the content of the character.

As for Judaism, there is an excellent paper that explains how the Bible, the Midrash, the Talmud, and famous rabbis explained how Jews should treat non-Jews. Read it, you may learn something: Rabbi Reuven Hammer (2016 Apr 21). The Status of Non-Jews in Jewish Law and Lore Today.

As for Islam, ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Wahabis of Saudi Arabia would behead Mohammed if he came back. Many who follow the Quran are among the nicest most decent people, charitable, honest, and kind. In fact, the Quran, Chapter 2 verse 256 says: “The Shall Be No Compulsion in Religion” and other versus gave more independence and respect to women than either Christianity or Judaism. And the Quran specifically states that Jews and Christians are a protected class and shall not be mistreated or harmed. In fact, when the Arabs first broke out from Arabian and took Damascus, Jerusalem, and Cairo, they didn’t harm Christians or Jews nor damage Churches or Synagogues. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 they killed every man, woman, and child, Moslems, Jews, and Christians. When the Moslems retook it in 1087 they harmed no one. But just as nations like Germany were part of the enlightenment and devolved into Nazis, many so-called Moslems are NOT.

As for the Bible, written by different people at different times with a primitive tribal basis. An interesting piece of literature; but anyone who tries to legitimate hate and discrimination based on it is WRONG. And if one read the Bible carefully, it is full of contradictions.

And there is an excellent book that shows Zionism to have been and continues to be a form of Nazism. Thomas Suarez. Palestine Hijacked.

@ Lucas

Actually a number of nations have a significant number of Nazis, including the Ukraine, Hungary, Sweden (23% of population, now part of conservative coalition governments, Brazil, etc. And, yes, Swedish party is neo-Nazis. Their leader had large poster photos of Hitler and Swastika flags on walls of his house. He has now taken them down, do what?

@ Lucas

Actually, you are right that Jerusalem has become a Nazis stronghold; but not any better nor worse than others in the world; but, based on Jewish tradition, clearly a betrayal of it and it is horrible that the US continues to support Israel. The latest Israeli government clearly indicates that a majority of Israel citizens have gone over to the dark side.

Sorry, Frau Stoner, but your Fuehrer wasn’t too into preventing diseases – he just executed the people who suffered from them, celebrating the deaths of the inferior, like Wakefield and the rest of the antivax (sorry
“vaccine safety”) cult do.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “That fits with Israel’s uber-aggressive vaccination policies.”

Nope, going over to the dark side, if you actually read my comments, refers to racism against Palestinians. And vaccinations was to protect the racists. Just as Israeli housing policies, criminal justice, etc. is for the racist Jews.

YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF

@ldw56old

“You have failed whatever schooling you might have tried and abandoned.”
We’ll see.

“Other than you not knowing anything about my financial situation [but begin completely ignorant on a topic never stops you from spouting a false statement]”
– Which is why I used the words “probably not rich”. Let me rephrase: 99,999999% you’re not. Not that being rich adds much, but it’s just easy to conclude.

“if you are really an economist [doubtful, since you’ve never demonstrated the intellect needed for a graduate program, or even a rigid undergraduate program] ”
– I think I am, ldw56. And an Industrial Designer as counterpart (data and charts for too long get on my nerves).
Worse: I come from a family of scientists, including a couple of economists (professors even).
Worst: one of them advises our very own prime minister on political and economic affairs, as well as the representatives of the European governments.

“implying that the inflation here in the US is at a record level”
– Oh it is, ldw56. And the more so by the definition of the 70’s when it was seriously high as well. Core inflation as the change in the costs of goods and services, does not even include those from the food and energy sectors. The inflation you deal with is significantly higher than the official number.
Most of us do not compensate (well) for inflation, which equals an undermining of purchasing power. With a year after year cumulative effect you will be surprised at what speed that ‘tax’ robs you. A reduction in prosperity and freedom is therefore unavoidable. I wrote Aarno S. here that this would happen and you read along. And as a sideline, another kind of threat to your freedom comes from the new digital currency (CBDC) underway; just think through the possible implications and risks, once it’s there you can’t go back.

In september 2019 I officially predicted today’s mega inflation. And here we are. A bit later I added stagflation (combination of a stagnating economy and inflation) to the list. I was correct.
In fact a long stagflationary debt crisis looms. The entire world of equities needs to get repriced at a lower level.
Earnings have already gone down substantially. But didn’t I say so? A year ago I told Aarno S. here that this would happen. He thought (like so many others) the hype (in stocks) would continue. You read in my post to him:

“Indeed the S&P 500 has performed badly lately. I hear you say that the hype will continue; based on what would you say so? You are more positive than I am, Aarno.”
Read on in a next post: “More disturbing for the financial markets however, is the recent change in tune of the FED. Instead of ‘tapering’, now it speaks of ‘tightening’. That is what the markets do not like and is the main reason for the set back lately. Tightening is the rolling back of what has been done for years.
An aggressive quantitative tightening (QT) pace would of course set the stage for another spike in rates and that’s when things get tricky.”
Well, aren’t these spikes in interest rates exactly what we’ve witnessed this year?
And indeed things ‘get tricky’; it puts a brake on the economy. Combined with higher interest rates, while private, corporate and public debt are at absurdly high levels. THIS IS DANGEROUS.

I wrote:

“So, one way or the other we are screwed. Either inflation gets out of control or (partly) because of tapering, interest rates reach higher level.
Like I said before, there is unavoidable chaos ahead. It’s only a matter of when.
Problem remains that without legitimate economic growth, debt becomes that much more of a problem. And it is the bond market that predicts a slowing down in the economy. I.o.w., trouble ahead according to me.”

Again: I was spot on. And let me assure you that you will be in for much more trouble from here.
It doesn’t really matter what the self cornered Central Banks do from here. They’ll bring havoc to their economies with a continuation of the current policy and as such cause a hard landing (dangerous crashes in the financial markets – shares, bonds, derivatives, commodities, currencies) or they throw in towel and try and cause a soft landing – hopefully no sudden crashes, but spread out more slowly – with year after year mega inflation and high interest rates. We’re screwed anyway.

Ask yourself: is this all accidental or deliberate? I tell you that every scholar in the field must have known it will end like that.
The above will add substantially to the slow dive into chaos that I warned Aarno about a year ago.
What more did I predict?

You will also remember that back then I predicted a war to come; Aarno here ridiculed me with the words I “watch too many science fiction movies”. But, here we are.
And isn’t this sick, none of our leaders is interested in ending this war. Even though it is escalating with some threat to go nuclear. And even though it has already cost the lives of over 250,000 (!) humans (a Ukrainian refugee woman in a shop here showed me so at some barometric website last week).
And rising geopolitical tensions not only here, tomorrow it could be China seizing Taiwan, Iran going nuclear or North Korea pushing luck too far.
Now, war isn’t the only issue. Meanwhile add an energy crisis that suddenly popped up, to the chaos list. Btw, no need to say that this increases inflation. Just like wars, high energy prices are typical stagflationary drivers.

Chaos is the perfect breeding ground for change; otherwise a population won’t accept it. Have you noticed that almost all – if not all – of the problems we watch – be it in sequence or combined – are due to deliberate actions? Think about it; this is man made.

All-in all ldw56, these predictions were accurate. Step by step it will go from bad to even worse on different fronts. Let’s take stock of the situation in a year again, shall we? You’ll be more unpleasantly surprised and worried.

I told you that it won’t get as bad that you won’t be able to buy your bread. That is, not yet.
From the ancient book on the rise and fall of world powers I read that first we will experience that unexpected event I warned you about ten times or so. You’re not convinced yet, how could you possibly if you don’t read. But compare the situation now to a year ago and you might start to discover we are actually moving in that direction. Even though I’m sure we have the future in our own hands, I told you I think it does not look good for most of us.

@ldw56old: Guess they’re right when they say a hit dog will holler. Judging from the whimpering sounds from our rabid pet pupper Lucas, you nailed him but good. Keep up the good work

@SarahGoodman
Lucas has been lying his ass off since he came here, posting things so egregiously stupid it was obvious from the start he was trolling. Occasionally he says things so incredibly stupid the only reason has to be he truly believes them [the Nazis being a left wing group being the near the top of things he’s monumentally wrong about] but his “economic” views are so clearly bogus they are a clear giveaway of his both his lack of knowledge and his identity as a troll. HIs conspiracies about covid and the vaccines are just “icing on the cake” for a run-of-the-mill clown like him.

It’s sad, and would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that following his advice puts people at risk.

I don’t know what bull crap he’s onto now — it isn’t worth bothering with. Reading his stuff is the mental equivalent of stepping in dog shit on the sidewalk

Thanks. Judging from his latest yelping, you’re living rent-free in his head. Condolences.

I’m confused – you ‘think’ that your an economist? What to the actual economists in your family think about that?

I come from a family of scientists, including a couple of economists (professors even).

Are there really no workable WP killfiles?

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“The US has 4% of world’s population and 25% of prisoners, majority blacks. Whites use drugs same as blacks; but police target blacks. When whites are arrested given much lower punishments. Compared to 20 leading democracies US police kill far more people, many unarmed and most blacks. And we still have a significant, hopefully minority, of racists in this nation.
Even in employment, blacks often first to be let off, blacks with equal qualifications, promoted less. And on and on it goes.”
– That’s tragic. I had hoped racism was a bit on its way out in your country. Isn’t this different from state to state?

“I totally agree with Martin Luther King, Jr when he said: Don’t judge by the color of someone’s skin; but by the content of the character.”
– I personally have never cared about colour; my closest friend was Indonesian. It has always been kind of multiculti in the cities where I used to live for a long time. Perhaps because I’m a mix of refugees from France and Normans from the north, it makes integration easy.
You talk about Muslims, we have lots of them here and I grew up in an area with the highest density. Among them the highest criminality in the second generation. Nevertheless, among them the nicest of people as well. For me it is all about the individual; it makes it easy not to dislike groups too. I had the privilege of being invited to Muslim weddings a couple of times, and as the only caucasians we were treated like a king by literally everyone there. In this culture this is still taken seriously. I might have even got married to a Kurdish Iranian neurologist, had I not taken care of a relative.

As for Judaism, there is an excellent paper that explains how the Bible, the Midrash, the Talmud, and famous rabbis explained how Jews should treat non-Jews. Read it, you may learn something: Rabbi Reuven Hammer (2016 Apr 21). The Status of Non-Jews in Jewish Law and Lore Today.
– I just read it, thanks. Beautiful words: “they require love of the stranger and proper consideration, equity and fairness in their treatment.”

“… as are any beliefs in racial superiority or inferiority.”
– This is so deeply rooted and often religion adds to it.

“As for Islam, ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Wahabis of Saudi Arabia would behead Mohammed if he came back.”
– True.
“Many who follow the Quran are among the nicest most decent people, charitable, honest, and kind.
– This is also true, but in my experience less so for the more orthodox Muslims. And some Imams here are the real poison mixers.

“In fact, the Quran, Chapter 2 verse 256 says: “The Shall Be No Compulsion in Religion” and other versus gave more independence and respect to women than either Christianity or Judaism. And the Quran specifically states that Jews and Christians are a protected class and shall not be mistreated or harmed.”
– Nevertheless, here in Europe still many (but by no means all) Muslims hate Jews. However deeply rooted, at least in theory it should be fine then. Muslims here often think every Dutchman is an atheist; they indeed show more respect to Christians but I’m not so sure about Jews. I’ll ask in ‘Jewish Antwerp’ when I’m there a next time.

“In fact, when the Arabs first broke out from Arabian and took Damascus, Jerusalem, and Cairo, they didn’t harm Christians or Jews nor damage Churches or Synagogues. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 they killed every man, woman, and child, Moslems, Jews, and Christians. When the Moslems retook it in 1087 they harmed no one. But just as nations like Germany were part of the enlightenment and devolved into Nazis, many so-called Moslems are NOT.”
– Those crusaders with their military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers. So much for thou shalt not kill; or: love your enemies. It’s a joke.

“As for the Bible, written by different people at different times with a primitive tribal basis.”
– It claims differently: “All Scripture is inspired of God”. So who was the writer.

“An interesting piece of literature; but anyone who tries to legitimate hate and discrimination based on it is WRONG.”
– It’s abuse.

“And if one read the Bible carefully, it is full of contradictions.”
– I’ve read it a couple of times and indeed it seems so here and there. I found that on further research it is not. So, I’m always curious to find a true contradiction in it. Feel free to share.

“And there is an excellent book that shows Zionism to have been and continues to be a form of Nazism. Thomas Suarez. Palestine Hijacked.”
– Interesting. In the book: the violent take-over of Palestine by a European racial-nationalist settler movement, Zionism, using terror to assert by force a claim to the land that has no legal or moral basis.
I don’t know if I agree entirely with that statement, it depends I guess. First off, no one can proof Jewish identity since 70 AD; so no legal basis indeed. Still many Jews live in the misconception of the ‘Promised Land’, the land promised to them when they entered into a covenant with God. They broke this covenant, but Muslims are not aware of it. From a historic and religious perspective one could argue that they should respect ‘Jews’ to live where they originally did. Think about it vice versa.
But no far fetched nonsense, you’re entirely right.

@ Lucas

Read the entire book: Palestine Hijacked

Here’s more to read;

Bart D. Ehrman (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It documents how current New Testament is NOT accurate. Book goes through finding of earlier documents. Just one example, in earlier documents women had a much more important role.

Richard Elliot Friedman (1987). Who Wrote the Bible? If you read the Bible you know there are two versions of creation, and two versions of several other parts, written at different times with different “political” situations.

Finally, Bertrand Russell. Why I Am Not a Christian
Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization
You should be able to find both free on internet

As for your experiences, good and bad, with Moslems, no different than with Christians, Jews, and all other religious groups. Many people project their “tribal” culture/values onto whatever religion they claim to follow and one can always twist or find sections, ignoring context, to justify. ISIS could actually learn lessons from Christianity; e.g., witch hunts, Holy Inquisition tortures, Puritans killing Quakers, justification of slavery, etc.; yet, one can also find Christian groups who are kind, charitable, etc. My favorite is Quakers.

As for Israel, two excellent websites by Jews who don’t support the Neo-Nazi state of Israel:

Mondoweiss

+972 Magazine

Check them out.

Now, I don’t have time for this. I’m old and suffer insomnia, so tired a lot and I’m trying to review/update my knowledge of microbiology and immunology. Reading new editions of textbooks and found several college courses that use books and can be followed free on internet.

@SarahGoodman

@ldw56old: Guess they’re right when they say a hit dog will holler. Judging from the whimpering sounds from our rabid pet pupper Lucas, you nailed him but good. Keep up the good work

You must have thought ldw56 is too stupid to speak up for himself, so let me do that for him.
And didn’t you save the day here.
Ldw56 clearly is a deadbeat and must lie in the bed he has made for himself. You Sarah came out of nothing here, but feel free and lie next to him.

“You must have thought ldw56 is too stupid to speak up for himself, so let me do that for him.”

Your mind-reading is just as faulty as your regular reading, I see. ldw56 has been dissecting your droppings like a paleontologist dissecting coprolites throughout this thread. He needs no help from me – he just deserved a little thanks for his efforts. He’s also replied to me without any need for you to do anything for him, so you’re wrong there too.

“You Sarah came out of nothing here, but feel free and lie next to him.”

I’ll have to decline – you’re doing so well with the lying that I’d feel totally out of my depths in trying to compete. You have a real talent for lying – have you considered scamming the elderly for pocket change?

In conclusion, dearie, I’m sorry to have hurt your feelings; next time I praise someone else for their efforts, I’ll remember to give a little gift to you too, so you won’t feel left out. I encourage you to keep posting here, as much as possible. It limits the damage you can cause in the physical world. Remember to keep hydrated, though, and shift in your chair from time to time to keep bedsores from developing.

Byee!

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD,

“Bart D. Ehrman (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It documents how current New Testament is NOT accurate.”
-Thanks. I have read several of the countless books on higher biblical criticism available. Ehrman is right on many topics, like did Jesus of Nazareth really exist or was Jesus God (part of a trinity). However, at some point all of these writers cross the line from facts to speculation. I don’t see it as my task to refute the many groundless assertions these authors make and sometimes downright nonsense they produce – the “crucifixon of Jesus” as an example of the latter (Ehrman should have known criminals were never crucified in those days as this was not the method of torture by the Romans, nor the Jews). I ment my invitation more as personal to you to come up with what YOU consider one of your found “contradictions”.

“Just one example, in earlier documents women had a much more important role.”
– Not sure what you mean; ‘more important’ than what? Nevertheless, read f.e. chapter 31 of Proverbs, women looked after family, bought and sold land, made clothes, traded in the marketplace. I can’t think of more important roles. There were even prophetesses in those days, like Hulda, Miriam, Deborah. That’s perhaps why those “earlier documents” you mention, provide notice of them?

“Richard Elliot Friedman (1987). Who Wrote the Bible? If you read the Bible you know there are two versions of creation, and two versions of several other parts, written at different times with different “political” situations.”
– As far as I know there are no contradicting versions of creation in the Bible, if that is what you mean. Several writers did write about the same event from their own perspective and that’s perfectly fine, unless you know of some contradictions. Feel free to describe them with references, but please no links.
The interesting part of ‘different times’ and ‘different political situations’ (which is certainly true) is about consistency. I see one consistent book with one and the same theme, which in theory should be impossible. If YOU do see inconsistencies, please share them (again: I’m not going to discuss links).

“Finally, Bertrand Russell. Why I Am Not a Christian
Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization
You should be able to find both free on internet”
– And this has been my point all the time: religion in general is an evil force. Just look at what I wrote about the Catholic Church and the Nazis. If you assume that these criminals / criminal organisations can be excused based on the Bible, just let me know why you think so. I called this “abuse” before and that’s what it is.

“As for your experiences, good and bad, with Moslems, no different than with Christians, Jews, and all other religious groups. Many people project their “tribal” culture/values onto whatever religion they claim to follow and one can always twist or find sections, ignoring context, to justify.”
– Indeed and these are the ‘rotten trees’; we know that because their ‘fruit is rotten’. We read: “The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree [religion that is], then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire.” It is simple Joel, dismiss such religions. No matter whether this is islamic Sjiism or Sunnism, the so called Christian religions or Judaism. These are almost all fake when judged by their actions. Search elsewhere.

“As for Israel, two excellent websites by Jews who don’t support the Neo-Nazi state of Israel:
Mondoweiss +972 Magazine
Check them out.”
– I will look into it.

“Now, I don’t have time for this.”
– Time is limited; this year alone I have buried 7 acquaintances and 2 family members. Even though I have never experienced such a high number in my life, it tells me that we may be next and as such time is limited.
Take a Bible and you read about a final stage characterized by war, pestilences (widespread diseases, including pandemics), earthquakes, food shortages, fearful sights (heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, floods and what not), disturbances (citizen anger about economic problems like surging inflation, antigovernment protests) etcetera. This might make time even more limited; so perhaps we had better use our time like we should.

“I’m old and suffer insomnia, so tired a lot and I’m trying to review/update my knowledge of microbiology and immunology.”
Perhaps that’s because of your Jewish genes, I suffer insomnia as well; 4 hours of sleep has kept me alive and functioning reasonably well for years. But these nights can be tormenting.
Anyway, have fun with the updating. Was the pandemic the reason you started this?

Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated all-cause deaths in England. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/12/26/all-cause-deaths-in-england-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated

If you use the raw mortality rate, the vaccinated have a higher death rate. But if you apply “age-standardization”, then the unvaccinated have a higher death rate.

It’s the same in the US–vaccines look much better using the “age-adjusted” death rate than the “crude” death rate.

Maybe someone here knows where the criteria and formulas for these “age-adjustments” and “age-standardizations” can be found, which always lower the mortality rate of the vaccinated, and raise the mortality rate of the unvaccinated.

Are you really that ignorant of some very basic epidemiology? Age-adjustment and age-standardization are very well-accepted adjustments that epidemiologists have long used since time immemorial to compare mortality rates between two groups. The reason is simple. The older you get, the more likely you are to die during any given time period examined. Also, diseases have different mortalities in different age groups, usually higher with age.

Basically, age confounding occurs when the two populations being compared have different age distributions and the risk of the disease or outcome varies across the age groups. The process of age-adjustment by the direct method changes the amount that each age group contributes to the overall rate in each community, so that the overall rates are based on the same age structure. Rates that are based on the same age distribution can be compared to each other without the presence of confounding by age.

As for how this is done, it’s not hard to find the methods. Age-adjustment is so basic an epidemiological concept that they teach how and when to do it in Epi 101.

You haven’t taught me anything new here, and you have provided the data. You’re saying that because age adjustment is a well accepted practice, that we should accept their figures without question. I don’t agree. Deception is commonplace with the vaccine agenda, and there’s no reason to trust these dramatic changes in the mortality rate, without verification of how they arrived at them. A general understanding of age-adjustment doesn’t do that.

“You’re saying that because age adjustment is a well accepted practice, that we should accept their figures without question.”

No, I’m saying that you clearly don’t have the background or basic understanding of epidemiology to understand why and how age-adjustment is done, and that’s really saying something given how basic a technique it is in epi. Also, it’s obvious that you’re not interested in learning other than as a means of trying to find a way—any way!—to falsely claim that COVID vaccines kill. It’s not up to me to help you in your endeavors.

That’s partly true, and partly false, as I do have several years of graduate study in research design and data analysis under my belt, which hopefully will help an anti-vax addled brain like mine to comprehend.

Maybe you should have a little curiosity about why the adjustments made such a dramatic change in the mortality risk, making vaccinated look better than unvaccinated instead of the other way around.

It doesn’t require any expertise in epidemiology or graduate training in statistics to understand common sense. In fact, often those things seem to interfere with it.

Actually, as I like to say, the very reason that science, mathematics, and statistics are so necessary in the first place is to keep people’s “common sense” from leading them to leap to incorrect conclusions based on “common sense.” Seriously, to anyone with a modicum of understanding of disease, it’s mind numbingly obvious why age adjustment is necessary when comparing mortality in different populations.

It’s painfully obvious to me (and every other science-based person here) that you’re not asking about age adjustment because you genuinely want to understand what it is, why it’s necessary, and how it’s done. You want to find out how enough about it’s done so that you can you try to use your knowledge of math divorced from any understanding of epidemiology to try to nitpick or re-analyze the data to make it show what you want it to show. In other words, you want to learn just enough to torture the data until it confesses what you want it to confess but not enough to actually understand.

Orac said: “It’s painfully obvious to me (and every other science-based person here) that you’re not asking about age adjustment because you genuinely want to understand what it is, why it’s necessary, and how it’s done.”

Correct. As I said, I have quite a bit of graduate training in research design and data analysis, and am very familiar with the concept. I’m looking for data showing what adjustments were made.

Orac said: “Seriously, to anyone with a modicum of understanding of disease, it’s mind numbingly obvious why age adjustment is necessary when comparing mortality in different populations.”

I’m not going to argue with you about that–I never claimed age adjustments weren’t appropriate here. I just questioned whether they were legit, given how much the results pumped up vaccines.

In view of your “several years of graduate study in research design and data analysis”, I’m sure that you read the methodology paper, published in the ONSs website (and linked to from the excel you based you post on).I guess you interest in better understanding epidemiology doesn’t extent to actually reading the ‘methods’ section. Alternatively, you could go to table 6, showing all deaths, by vaccination status and age group.

While it’s true that we can be biased, claiming that knowledge and experience can be a impediment to understanding is amusing, to say the least. I’m sorry if you’re disappointed that the data doesn’t confirm you belief (that vaccines don’t work).

Ginny,

You were questioning how the age-adjustment was conducted, and it seemed to me that you were havening a problem finding an explanation of the methodology used by the ONS.
I hope that you were able to follow the link and see how this was calculated.

As for the legitimacy of age-adjustment – what is your question?

David said, “I hope that you were able to follow the link and see how this was calculated.”

No.

Not sure what you think you saw that verified the legitimacy of the age standardizations. Should have just linked to it or copy/pasted.

@Ginny Age adjustment is done to allow to compare groups with different age structure. One with older people will have more cancer deaths, because older people people are more proably to die b
because of cancer. Rather simple,it is not ?

It’s the same in the US–vaccines look much better using the “age-adjusted” death rate than the “crude” death rate.

LOL. This explains why all your posts are full of nonsense.

LOL.

I am tossing up between you are pretending to be stupid, or you really are stupid.

The fact that you don’t understand that confounders can influence results and need to be managed for in order to find the real signal is why all of the posts on your blog are junk.

In this particular case, people of different ages have different probabilities of dying in any period. Old people are much more likely to die than young people. The older the person, the more likely they will die in the next year. So if there are two groups, one with a lot of old people and one with very few old people, then there will be more deaths in the first group just due to the population being older. This is why death rates need to be age adjusted.

This is so blindingly obvious that only someone truly ignorant or truly duplicitous would fail to recognise the need.

Next time read what I wrote before falsely claiming I don’t understand something I discuss in there. ‘LOL’.

“Age adjustments in statistics have been around a long time and are an accepted practice. But that doesn’t mean the specific age adjustments used by the CDC and the ONS were legitimate. To determine that, we need more information, such as what age groups they used, the expected death rate they assigned to each, the formulas they used, etc.”

Second verse same as first:

Virginia Stoner says this:

“I could do some calculations, try to adjust for the falsely inflated number of unvaxed deaths, see if the difference between vaxed and unvaxed is “statistically significant” in recent months, but that’s boring.”

A far more believable but for Gin-gin would be “but that is something I don’t know how to do.”

@ Ginny Stoner

As Orac explained, of course one has to adjust for age. Senior citizens and/or those with severe combordities were the first to get the vaccines because they were at the highest risk. Well, the world isn’t black and white, so we know the vaccines don’t confer 100% protection; but senior citizens and/or those with severe comorbidities who got vaccinated still had significantly fewer hospitalizations and deaths than those unvaccinated.

YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. As Orac explained, you don’t even understand simple Epidemiology 101.

Seriously, you’re getting ridiculous. This is a standard statistical practice. It’s not up to me too educate you how it’s done.🙄

I don’t need you to tell me how it’s done–I need you to tell me where to find the age groups they used, the expected death rate they assigned to each, the formulas they used, and any other info pertinent to the standardizations.

You only have to adjust for age if you actually want an accurate picture. There are lots of statistical games you can play if accuracy isn’t important to you and you just want to confirm you opinion

@David

“As Orac explained, of course one has to adjust for age. Senior citizens and/or those with severe combordities were the first to get the vaccines because they were at the highest risk. Well, the world isn’t black and white, so we know the vaccines don’t confer 100% protection; but senior citizens and/or […]

You only have to adjust for age if you actually want an accurate picture. There are lots of statistical games you can play if accuracy isn’t important to you and you just want to confirm you opinion”

And even adjusted you cannot exclude some bias; suppose you standardise and compare the group 70-79 vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Is the average age the same for both groups?

More in general about your ‘accurate picture’, just forget it.

I don’t know – Is it? Did you check – or are you ‘just asking questions’? No one believes that both groups have exactly the same characteristics (we know that unvaccinated have different ‘news’ sources etc.), but you suggestion that we ignore any data compering these two groups is absurd. Especially as the UK data shows trends that are supported by data from other countries.
And what do you want us to forget?

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Where can we find the criteria they used and the numbers? We just have to go on blind trust their adjustments are legit? That would be foolish.”

Really? So, you think that 80 and 90 year olds are equally vulnerable to infections as 20 and 30 year olds? Wow! And you believe that the immune systems of 80 and 90 year olds are equally effective as the immune systems of 20 and 30 year olds. I guess in your book people really don’t age???

i suggest you get hold of any introduction to epidemiology textbook. Oops! Why would you do that when you are “the expert” based on what? Your deluded brain!

YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

Just looking for some fundamental info, such as what age groups they used and what expected risk of death did they assign to each, and what formulas they used. It seems like a reasonable request, but you think it’s foolish, and blind faith that everything is in order is wise. OK, good luck.

Blind faith has nothing to do with it. Your ignorance of basic epidemiology and your bias that will lead you to do everything you can to manipulate the numbers to falsely suggest that the vaccines don’t work or even kill do.🙄

Pointing out a huge disparity between the raw mortality rate and the standardized mortality rate isn’t “manipulating” any numbers, and asking for basic info to back up their standardizations is not “bias.”

No – bias is when you are suspicions of or even reject data that doesn’t fit in with your narrative.

@ Ginny Stoner

First and foremost, they usually don’t form groups based on risk; but simply age. So, if, for instance, we compare a group of 70 – 80 who are vaccinated vs same group unvaccinated, we can simply get percentage of each hospitalized or dying. We can then combine all the age groups. Nothing magical or secret about this. And one find the grouping by rather simple web searches.

I asked you two questions; but you haven’t answered, so I’ll ask again: Do you think that there is no difference in vulnerability to infectious diseases between younger and older people and do you think that there is no difference in effectiveness of immune systems between younger and older people?

If there is a difference then combine them in one analyses, not dividing into groups, will give inaccurate results.

I’m just looking for the data to back up the ONS standardizations and the CDC adjustments, not have a conversation about “what I believe.” If want info like that read my blog.

The age groups they used, and the expected risk of death they assigned to them is definitely relevant. Now if only we had some real data about that and not just your bloviating.

@ldw56old

“Lucas has been lying his ass off since he came here, posting things so egregiously stupid it was obvious from the start he was trolling. Occasionally he says things so incredibly stupid the only reason has to be he truly believes them [the Nazis being a left wing group being the near the top of things he’s monumentally wrong about] but his “economic” views are so clearly bogus they are a clear giveaway of his both his lack of knowledge and his identity as a troll. HIs conspiracies about covid and the vaccines are just “icing on the cake” for a run-of-the-mill clown like him.
It’s sad, and would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that following his advice puts people at risk.
I don’t know what bull crap he’s onto now — it isn’t worth bothering with. Reading his stuff is the mental equivalent of stepping in dog shit on the sidewalk”

Some incompetent babbling, ldw56.
That you cannot imagine someone to be more knowledged than you are, doesn’t make one a liar.

“His “economic” views are so clearly bogus”.
– He he. Funny guy, what is a mathematician to judge on economic affairs?
Unfortunately for a phoney like you, it still is the results that speak for themselves.
I predicted 2022. It appears I was right on track with my forecasts on: today’s mega inflation, stagflation, spikes in interest rates, not continuing hype in stocks / going in bear territory, slow dive into chaos, reduction in prosperity and freedom, the war, a dangerous economic and thus social environment.

Forecasting is the most complex task in the universe; some are correct in one area but go wrong in another, that’s kind of worthless.
How about you, ldw56? Since my “views are so bogus” I guess we might profit from your wisdom. We listen to what you have to say about 2023.

And one final remark, before calling someone a liar, you might have used your mind. Somewhere I gave you (or was it F68.10) a rather simple riddle on my last name. I told you to simply add ‘professor’ before the name and google it. You immediately would have found that institute with the advisory function to the European leaders. Didn’t I tell you back then “I know more than you do”? Listening is not your best quality.
Now don’t tell me it was a waste of time here with you; you (and Aarno as well) have been privileged to be notified rather in extenso what to expect in 2022 and thereafter. A year later this still hasn’t called you to action. I wonder what will and when.

@ Lucas

I am not an economist, though took a few courses as undergraduate over 50 years ago. However, I am aware that there exist a number of different schools of Economics, ranging from Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, Socialists, etc. For instance, Milton Friedman’s economics was quite different from John Kenneth Galbraith’s. What is interesting is that no school, in my opinion, was totally wrong. Each had predictions of limited natures that were correct. My point is that you may be a brilliant professor of economics; but economics is not a science in the traditional sense; that is, with objective universally accepted methodologies. Thus, your EXPERT opinions may be partially right, totally right in some circumstances, and even wrong. So, even a non-economist can form an opinion based on reading, thinking, etc. that may in some circumstances be partially right, totally right, etc.

One major point. This blog and its sister blog, Science-Based Medicine, are for discussing medical science. I have, unfortunately, gone off on tangents, subjects totally devoid of any medical science, and your discussing economics also is not meant to be on this blog. Orac has shown himself to be extremely tolerant; but I am trying to keep to the purpose of this blog, though I am but human.

@oncejolly

“These are preprints. Jeffrey Morris at UPenn has summarized this work as follows: “there is zero evidence of vaccines increasing risk of death from the UK ONS data (unless like Neil, Fenton et al. you change the data by arbitrarily reassigning many unvaccinated deaths to vaccinated.”
He’s also written a detailed post about the so-called “straggler” effect.:
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/uk-death-data-artifacts-stragglers-who-delay-vaccine-doses-a-select-group-with-higher-death-risk
I’ll wait for a point by point rebuttal from Lucas.”

Why would I provide you with a point by point rebuttal? Wouldn’t it be a complete waste of time? It is people like you standing in front of a skypescraper denying there’s any building for miles around. Proof isn’t enough to overrule your religious beliefs. And then, didn’t I ask for recent data / from april onwards? In that link it isn’t about recent data. However, since the subject is now being discussed here, I might have a swift look at it though.

What does Morris show us? We read:
“I plot the monthly death rates (age-adjusted deaths per 100k person-years) along with the 95% bounds to indicate level of uncertainty (wide bands correspond to small sample sizes and high levels of uncertainty)… I make the width of the lines proportional to the number of individuals in that vaccination group at that time… For each age group, I do 3 sets of plots, one for each dose… For some big picture perspective, here are the age-adjusted death rates for each vaccination group aggregated over the entire year:”.

Then Morris concludes:
“We see that overall, the age-adjusted all-cause death rates are substantially lower in the vaccinated groups than the unvaccinated.”
He he, you slippery slime ball. You are not specifically lying here but you’re trying to fool everyone, Morris.

We count seven vaccination categories in the UK data table; 1 for the unvaccinated and 6 for the vaccinated. If you separate the data for each individual vaccination status, bias is what you get in return. Bias in favour of vaccination, that is.
If you die after your first jab you won’t show up in the data on the following jabs, agree? Likewise the third dose does not represent the general population; only if you survived the first and second dose you’ll end up in that categorie. The bias caused by this separation is known as immortal time bias.
Aside from the injuries (!) from vaccination that do not result in death, expect the higher age groups to benefit from the vaccines and the lower to medium age groups to have a disadvantage. The mortality rate of the latter will be higher in the vaccinated (net harm).
And keep in mind we don’t know about future (!) harm of vaccination.

Furthermore, Morris should have done his damn homework before presenting conclusions. Not likely but at least he acts as if he does not get the picture. We read:
““It is always tricky to interpret observational data, but this is especially true in a dynamic setting like the vaccine rollout”
“I have yet to see[n] a reasonable explanation for how one proposes the misclassification error occurred, or how it would explain this artifact, but given the timing it is possible there is some sort of misclassification or misrecording of some of the death times.”
Is Morris really clueless or is he a vicious man with some third party he benefits from?
Morris: “The artifacts discussed above only involve small, select subsets of individuals, and are strongly outweighed by the lower death rates for the same vaccination subgroups during times in which they contained much larger numbers of individuals.” – WRONG CONCLUSION.
You are a dangerous man, Morris.

Next to the above we seem to have some genuine problems in the ONS data, which darkens the picture of the dangers of vaccination likely even (far) more.
Check it for yourself, the data is there. Here’s the link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358979921_Official_mortality_data_for_England_reveal_systematic_undercounting_of_deaths_occurring_within_first_two_weeks_of_Covid-19_vaccination

Do study the ENTIRE article.
Conclusions:
“The deaths reported in the ONS dataset are significantly lower than expected. There are lower numbers of both non-covid and covid deaths in the first two weeks after vaccination. Those non-covid deaths for the within 21 days of first dose vaccination category included in the ONS dataset tally perfectly with the non-covid deaths that would be expected should they have occurred in the third week alone. Thus, the two weeks of post first vaccination non-covid deaths appear to have been omitted from the ONS dataset. This pattern is repeated for the covid deaths occurring in the same within 21 days of first dose vaccination category and again across all age groups. Total deaths not included in the ONS dataset are disproportionately higher than that expected for the population excluded from the ONS dataset. This suggests deaths have been omitted from the ONS dataset. The fact that total deaths excluded from the ONS dataset correlate with the population of those in the within 21 days of first dose vaccination category supports this assertion. A variety of factors could have led to deaths in the first 14 days being omitted in the ONS dataset, including miscategorisation, reporting lags and data handling or transcription errors. The dataset is therefore corrupted, making any inferences about vaccine efficacy or safety, reliant on the data, moot. The ONS should therefore publicly withdraw their dataset and call for the retraction of any claims made by others that are based upon it.”

In readable english: we are being framed.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“I am not an economist, though took a few courses as undergraduate over 50 years ago. However, I am aware that there exist a number of different schools of Economics, ranging from Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, Socialists, etc. For instance, Milton Friedman’s economics was quite different from John Kenneth Galbraith’s. What is interesting is that no school, in my opinion, was totally wrong.”
– You may have heard of Stephanie Kelton, evangelist of a fringe economic movement called Modern Monetary Theory. She was a senior economic adviser to Bernie Sanders and a professor of economics. MMT is basically Keynesianism (with some social-media-influencer branding). MMT hasn’t ruined Japan’s economy, where deficits were high and the interest rate was set at less than zero. Kelton argued that the Fed can, and should, set the interest rate near zero—problem solved.
Times have changed as you’ve noticed.
The bigger the deficit the more the government has to borrow, which means that, past a certain point in the economic cycle, the interest rate has to go up. This stifles private investment and chokes off growth. This is partly what we see today. In Ecomics your purpose is to prevent distortion, not create them.
Of course the policy worked up to some point, but we are paying the price now with a seriously high inflation tax. And what’s so social about the savers and pensionados having to pay the highest price in the form of destruction of their wealth and spending power? Stephanie Powers has definitely not been my cup of tea. And yes, she turned out being ‘totally wrong’. And even a non-economist could see this.

“Each had predictions of limited natures that were correct. My point is that you may be a brilliant professor of economics; but economics is not a science in the traditional sense; that is, with objective universally accepted methodologies. ”
– It is a science of laws and communicating vessels.

“Thus, your EXPERT opinions may be partially right, totally right in some circumstances, and even wrong.”
– A winter coat you wear when it’s cold, if that’s what you mean. Iow, the tools we use must fit the circumstances. There should be no place for short term benefit if that means destruction at a later stage. That is greed.
MMT can be useful for a short while under a specific set of circumstances. In practice it is used to serve shortsighted Politicians.
Why pass on piles of debt to our children, just because you want to live a life of abundancy. Why finance wars with fake money? Why ruin well-being and even our climate for the sake of welfare?

“So, even a non-economist can form an opinion based on reading, thinking, etc. that may in some circumstances be partially right, totally right, etc.”
– True, just like a non-physician can base an opinion based on the same. Question is will the patient survive?

“One major point. This blog and its sister blog, Science-Based Medicine, are for discussing medical science. I have, unfortunately, gone off on tangents, subjects totally devoid of any medical science, and your discussing economics also is not meant to be on this blog. Orac has shown himself to be extremely tolerant; but I am trying to keep to the purpose of this blog, though I am but human.”
– Yes you are right.

@ Lucas

I really don’t want to get into this; but . . .

President Reagan cut taxes on corporations and the super rich, leading to huge deficits. He then increased the FICA tax (Social Security Tax) so more came in than was paid out. The excess was loaned to the government for ongoing expenditures; however, in the US when money is loaned between Federal government departments it isn’t counted as debt, so the Social Security Trust Fund, composed on the same treasury bonds as the rest of National Debt isn’t counted as National Debt; but it is. Then President George W. Bush lowered taxes even more on corporations and the super rich, creating more debt. We then fought two criminal wars, against Afghanistan and Iraq, taxes weren’t raised, so the National Debt increased. Finally, President Trump lowered taxes even more on corporations and the super wealthy. So, probably 70 – 80 % of US National Debt from lowering taxes on corporations and super wealthy and fighting two criminal wars. Prior to President Reagan, average corporate CEO salary was around 70 times average workers, now 700 times or more. Stocks increased in value, corporations became wealthy; but the economy actually grew slower than previously and middle class shrunk and overall working class wages increased barely. Someone said in the US the 19th Century was followed by the 20th Century which was followed by the 19th Century. Well, end of 19th Century overwhelming majority of wealth in US controlled by a few corporations and the super wealthy. Now, we are back there.

And the shrinking middle class and working classes taxes pays interest on National Debt and will have to pay to redeem Social Security Trust Fund as it nows begins to pay for retirements, retirements much lower than many other advanced democracies. And, of course, our senior citizen Medicare comes with copays, deductibles, doesn’t cover dental care, most home health care, etc.; but is the most expensive in the world. 30 cents on dollar going to unnecessary excess bureaucracies, profits, and bloated CEOs salaries; yet we have highest infant mortality, lowest life expectancies, and absolute most bankruptcies due to health costs. You can find two papers I wrote on American health care online:

Joel A. Harrison. Paying More, Getting Less: How much is the sick U.S. health care system costing you?
Joel A. Harrison, The Case for a Non-Profit Single-Payer Healthcare System

So, our National Debt did NOT benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans; but only major corporations and super wealthy individuals.

There is more; but I’m tired.

@ldw56old

“Yup. Nobody believed you then either.”
– We call that ‘urge to deny’.

And lucas, we call you a lying troll. Keep spewing your nonsense on economics and science. I’m sure it makes you fell better and it clearly identifies you as uneducated in both.

@David

“I’m confused – you ‘think’ that your an economist? What to the actual economists in your family think about that?”
– The other economists actually think so to.

That’s nice of them.
I wonder if they are trying to keep from hurting your feelings, because it’s hard to believe that they are impressed by your experience as Industrial Designer (we know that it’s not you love of ‘data and charts’).
What ever their rational, I hope that you’re appreciative. I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it.

What ever their rational,

Lucas’ comments remind me of the meme with the older woman with a walker talking about “In my day …” while a young woman says “Sure Grandma, let’s get you inside”.

Lucas is the woman with the walker, the “other economists” are the younger woman.

This is what I always hear from these cranks. They’re convinced that research is loaded with “Data manipulation.” It makes them feel smart. I had a guy at a brewery the other night lecture me about data manipulation in climate change research. He was a retired school district facilities director with a high school diploma.

What they fail to realize is that manipulation is blatantly obvious to those conducting peer review in nearly every case.

You can’t seriously believe that a college education is required to understand all the types of data manipulation that have been used in climate research. Even a child, or someone in a completely different field like medicine, can understand many of them.

Oh wow. And I mean that in a “your stupidity just blew my mind” way.
You are seriously telling us you believe that someone who hasn’t yet graduated school has the requisite knowledge to look at the data, group it, and to know what formulae and analyses to perform on it to get valid results? Really?
And you wonder why we mock you.

“And you wonder why we mock you.”

LOL–I’ve never wondered that. I’d be shocked if you didn’t mock me. You’re just doing your job–mockery, that’s your best (and often only) weapon.

“You are seriously telling us you believe that someone who hasn’t yet graduated school has the requisite knowledge to look at the data, group it, and to know what formulae and analyses to perform on it to get valid results?”

Where did I say that? I sense some over-sensitivity there, perhaps around obedience to authority, or approval of authority, or something along those lines. When my comment about the placement of thermometers makes it thru moderation, I trust you will contemplate the fact that my comment said nothing about “data” or “formulae”.

Ah, so Ginny’s stubborn ignorance reflects her rebellion against “obedience to authority”.

It’s like a seven-year-old screaming “You can’t make me learn, I won’t, I won’t!”

@Ginny:

“You are seriously telling us you believe that someone who hasn’t yet graduated school has the requisite knowledge to look at the data, group it, and to know what formulae and analyses to perform on it to get valid results?”

Where did I say that?

In the comment I was responding to, where you said:

You can’t seriously believe that a college education is required to understand all the types of data manipulation that have been used in climate research. Even a child…

Not only are you spouting BS, you are trying to claim you never spouted the BS I called you out for.

Julian Frost said “Not only are you spouting BS, you are trying to claim you never spouted the BS I called you out for.”

Simple misunderstanding–obviously you thought my comment meant something it didn’t–I’m not blaming you, just saying, chill. I have a comment still pending approval that will help clarify what my comment meant–which is about bias in the gathering of data, practical issues in the collection of data, not the analysis of data.

You can’t seriously believe that a college education is required to understand all the types of data manipulation that have been used in climate research. Even a child, or someone in a completely different field like medicine, can understand many of them.

No, nothing there is true [well, the spelling is, but I’m sure someone helped you with that].

I will guess that math started going over your head as soon as “letters” [variable notation] showed up. That’s about the only thing that could explain your absolute ignorance of mathematics and statistics.

I have two advanced degrees, my undergraduate involved three semesters from hell in physics for engineering courses, and I have no idea how scientists are sure the LIGO detected gravity waves.

I do know that the other physicists have reviewed their work and believe it sound. If I tried to write rebuttals on their forums? I’d sound as ridiculous and out of my depth as you.

“Reading sh*t on the internet” is no substitute for education and training in a field. It NEVER will be. Get over it. You should have made different choices in life if you want to play at this level.

@ Ginny Stoner

So, please, explain how you determine that data has been manipulated?

Besides your delusional belief system, can you give any concrete objective criteria that you used?

Just because an analysis, data, disagree with your delusional highly biased belief system doesn’t mean it has been manipulated.

As for Global Warming, I guess you haven’t noticed that average temperatures have surpassed any over my lifetime (1940s), that we have droughts, floods, increased ocean temperatures, mud slides, etc. Oops! All photos and reports are also false???

“Bias” describes it more accurately. As far as corruption, just look up climategate. Do you have that term blocked online or something? It’s all about email exchanges among insiders that discuss manipulating the perception of global warming.

As far as bias, here’s a simple example, Joel: Do you think it’s possible to introduce bias in the collection of temperature data, either intentionally or unintentionally?

Of course it is, both types. For example, does it matter whether the thermometer is placed on a blacktop area downtown, or in a shady park, or in the middle farming fields? Does it make a difference whether nearby tall objects like buildings, trees and mountains block sun certain times of the day? Does it matter if there are nearby air conditioning units or other heat-generating machinery? TIP: None of these answers are “no.”

@ Ginny Stoner

You are amusing in a sick way. I asked you to explain how you know the data has been manipulated. Explain in an objective way so others can replicate your approach. But, as usual, you just throw out empty phrases.

It must be nice to live in your own fantasy world, a world devoid of even common sense, let alone science.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “You can’t seriously believe that a college education is required to understand all the types of data manipulation that have been used in climate research. Even a child, or someone in a completely different field like medicine, can understand many of them.”

So, if, according to you, “even a child . . . can understand many of them” [type of data manipulation], why do you refuse to answer my request for a clear simple explanation of HOW “even a child” could understand types of data manipulation? Please, just explain so that others can also understand them.

Or, maybe, you have NO objective methodology; but live in your own fantasy world which ignores that climate experts around the world from widely different political and cultural systems concur on climate change, which includes ice cores from Antarctic, tree rings, historical records, and measurements of CO2 going back a century.

So, either explain the methodology or finally admit that your are DELUSIONAL

@ Ginny Stoner

As usual you ignore the obvious. It is much hotter for more days than it was 50 years ago or even 100 years ago. The glaciers are melting at an increased rate, many already gone. And once they melt the white ice that repelled sunlight (called albedo) becomes millions of tons of blue water that absorbs sunlight. Off the coast of California one can see methane bubbling up in the ocean, meaning that methane hydrate (frozen) at ocean floor is melting and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Islands, such as the Maldives, as seas rise are in real trouble. We are having an ever increasing number of forest fires and larger as well. We have droughts, floods, mudslides, etc, far more than during the past half century, etc.

You write: ““Bias” describes it more accurately. As far as corruption, just look up climategate. Do you have that term blocked online or something? It’s all about email exchanges among insiders that discuss manipulating the perception of global warming.”

Below are a number of papers that refute the misuse, taking out of context, etc. of the e-mail exchanges.

You write: “As far as bias, here’s a simple example, Joel: Do you think it’s possible to introduce bias in the collection of temperature data, either intentionally or unintentionally?”

Given that the temperature data was taken by numerous people in various nations over many years, why would the vast majority either be incompetent or dishonest? And the temperatures were taken ALL over the world, in forests, along coast lines, etc.

However, there are a number of papers online that refute climate gate; e.g., showing how they misinterpret things, etc. Of course, you automatically believe them because they conform with your delusional rigid belief system.

Here are a few refutations (I won’t bother cutting and pasting since you either won’t read them or are too stupid to understand them. However, one point is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change basis its report on three totally separate organizational reports. And please explain why you believe that so many different scientists were willing to falsify data that affects the entire world:

“This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All three organizations synthesized data from many sources.” There is also a three-part series on PBS entitled: “The Power of Big Oil” that documents how the oil industry’s own researchers predicted severe global warming and the industry, in the name of short-term profits, began a campaign to undermine climate change science. You can also find on PBS a documentary drama of a real court case: ‘The Trick’ (The true story behind the Climategate Jason Watkins drama).

Jess Henig (2009 Dec 10). ‘Climategate”: Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don’t change scientific consensus on global warming. factcheck.org

Wikipedia. Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Kate Sheppard (2011 Apr 21). Climategate: What Really Happened? How climate science became the target of “the best-funded, best-organized
And smear campaign by the wealthiest industry that the Earth has ever known.” Mother Jones magazine.

And you could actually read any and all of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change documents. Easy to find online.

OF COURSE YOU WON’T READ AND/OR WATCH ANY OF THE ABOVE BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT BECAUSE YOU ARE AN EXPERT IN ALL THE SCIENCES THAT CLIMATOLOGY IS BASED ON, THUS YOU KNOW THAT CLIMATE GATE IS TRUE, DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IT WAS PROPAGANDA FROM BIG OIL.

GIVEN THE INTERNET ONE CAN CONFIRM EVEN THE STUPIDEST BIAS.

YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. KEEP IT UP, YOU ARE SO SO GOOD AT IT.

p.s. a couple of years ago I exchanged comments on climate change with a denier. At the time I downloaded and read almost 500 papers, many in journals such as Nature and Science, plus from various governmental organization websites, both in US and elsewhere.

@ Ginny Stoner

You can find my comments in exchange with Sophie Amsden on Global Warming where are quotes and references from a number of the papers I mentioned above

The BMJ editors strike back against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook
December 22, 2021 at: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2021/12/22/the-bmj-editors-strike-back-against-mark-zuckerberg-and-facebook/

Read them, you might learn something. Oops! I forget you don’t need to learn anything as you are a world expert on so many things?????

You’re misunderstanding the situation, Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH. I used to believe the official narrative about man-made climate change, f/k/a man-made global warming, that you still believe in. After acquiring more knowledge, I rejected it. When kids figure out who Santa is, they never go back to believing.

@ Ginny Stoner

Nobody cares what you believe in your delusional mind. I gave you a list of documents/websites that support global warming. Just three more examples:

Permafrost above arctic circle has melted. Explain?
Northwest Passage, above Canada, from Atlantic to Pacific, now ships can use it year round, couldn’t until recently because blocked by now melted ice
Sweden suffered forest fires so huge that needed help from firefighters from other nations and their hydroelectric power was hurting as lakes and streams dried up. Keep in mind that not in recorded history has such happened in Sweden

Once again, you come up with ridiculous statements; e.g., measuring temperature on hot sidewalks. Yep, that’s what they did and nobody noticed. And you choose to believe climategate. interesting how you are against vaccines because industry makes a profit; but ignore the tremendous profits of the oil industry.

Even if one can challenge one of the many different measured/reported aspects of climate change, “IF” it is virtually impossible to deny the overwhelming number of them, unless one is delusional like you.

Oh, you are younger than me, and though climate change caused disasters are already happening, within the next 20 – 30 years, given we are doing little to stop the progression, the world will be a horrible place to live in. So, I wonder what you will say to yourself when this happens. Will you ever admit you were wrong?

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF

Read all that I listed above if you dare.

NOTE. I can find websites, books, articles, some even written by university professor that can confirm any sick belief ones has:

Holocaust denial
Racism
QAnon

And on and on the list goes, so you don’t believe in vaccines, with no understanding of immunology, and you don’t believe in climate change, based on your
delusional expertise.

@ Ginny Stoner

It seems that you take positions in opposition to some of the most overwhelmingly scientifically supported issues. I was wondering if you were ever diagnosed with Oppositional Disorder of Childhood? If not, maybe you should see a psychiatrist or psychologist and see if you receive a similar diagnosis. On the other hand, you also believe you are absolutely right, not even admitting small probability you could be wrong, so another diagnosis would be Delusions of Grandeur. Whatever official or unofficial diagnosis fits you, it is obvious that, despite basic understanding of science, you believe you are absolutely right. In essence, you are absolutely NUTS.

Hey, you’re the one who’s able to read through your comments and say stuff like this to yourself: “Wow, I’m good. I really accused that woman of being mentally ill like a pro! And the way I called her ‘idiot’–classic! The more I degrade her, the more I impress my friends! I’m saving that one where I called her 4 crass names in the same sentence for my curricula vitae!”

@Joel

“Permafrost above arctic circle has melted. Explain?
Northwest Passage, above Canada, from Atlantic to Pacific, now ships can use it year round, couldn’t until recently because blocked by now melted ice
Sweden suffered forest fires so huge that needed help from firefighters from other nations and their hydroelectric power was hurting as lakes and streams dried up. Keep in mind that not in recorded history has such happened in Sweden

Once again, you come up with ridiculous statements; e.g., measuring temperature on hot sidewalks. Yep, that’s what they did and nobody noticed. And you choose to believe climategate. interesting how you are against vaccines because industry makes a profit; but ignore the tremendous profits of the oil industry.

Even if one can challenge one of the many different measured/reported aspects of climate change, “IF” it is virtually impossible to deny the overwhelming number of them, unless one is delusional like you.

Oh, you are younger than me, and though climate change caused disasters are already happening, within the next 20 – 30 years, given we are doing little to stop the progression, the world will be a horrible place to live in. So, I wonder what you will say to yourself when this happens.”

Whatever the cause, climate change is pretty disturbing here in The Netherlands.
We used to have winters you could skate on natural ice, now this is more of an exception. Winters now are relatively warm and extremely wet, summers hot and extremely dry. Spring has left the scene, in March winter simply turns into summer. Quite absurd and unusual.
Most disturbing is the speed of change. Have you heard of the ‘little ice age’ (“Kleine IJstijd”)? The old paintings in the Rijksmuseum here show long winters with much lower temperatures than past century. The Dutch had to be more careful not to be invaded by the French or the Spaniards back then, as the cities were no longer protected by the surrounding canals. Climate apparently isn’t a constant, but the speed of today’s change feels uncomfartable.
The ecosystem is under pressure too, many organisms (insects, meadow birds and the like) are simply disappearing, I could make a list of what has almost completely disappeared in my area, it is very sad. I personally prefer to see people disappear instead.

@ Lucas

Are you completely nuts. I am a strong believer in Global Warming/Climate Change. You are quoting my responses to Ginny Stoner:

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
December 30, 2022 at 6:33 pm
@ Ginny Stoner

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
December 30, 2022 at 6:42 pm
@ Ginny Stoner

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
December 31, 2022 at 10:33 am
@ Ginny Stoner

I’m not completely sure, but I think Lucas is trying to suggest that the current climate change is just a natural occurring thing and has nothing to do with human activity.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Wow, I’m good. I really accused that woman of being mentally ill like a pro! And the way I called her ‘idiot’–classic! The more I degrade her, the more I impress my friends! I’m saving that one where I called her 4 crass names in the same sentence for my curricula vitae!”

“like a pro” Well, actually many years ago I was a licensed psychologist. In Sweden, clinical psychology is a professional program with almost no overlap with doctoral research programs, so, it took me longer; but I completed both, a PhD in combination educational and social psychology and a professional clinical psychology diploma which to get licensed included a one-year internship at major hospital’s psychiatric clinic. Then I returned to the States, got a competitive post-doctoral research fellowship from NIH and earned an MPH. And started working as an epidemiologist. I then started reading and auditing courses in immunology and microbiology, etc. And today I am currently reading recent editions of texts on both subjects; both to ensure I haven’t forgotten anything and to learn new developments, etc.

However, I don’t know anyone personally who is following this blog, so not trying to impress anyone, just hoping that at some point you might realize/accept just how wrong your positions on vaccines and global warming are; but given you have not shown any knowledge of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, history and current status of vaccine-preventable diseases nor the sciences underlying climate change, basically you are hopeless. You live in your own world, devoid of any serious reality testing. I gave you a list of papers, etc. on global warming; but I know you won’t read them; but instead you believe climate gate, propaganda put out by the oil industry.

One last thing. I’ve written numerous comments, including often references, refuting your positions; but you, on the whole, ignore them and focus on what I think of you. Just one more example of your unscientific intellectually dishonest approach. Oh well

In the future I will abstain from psychological diagnoses.

@Renate

“I’m not completely sure, but I think Lucas is trying to suggest that the current climate change is just a natural occurring thing and has nothing to do with human activity.”

I’m not suggesting this. I was saying that climate change is more than real. Even today we have the highest temperature (13,8 degrees C.) here on 31 december since measurements started in 1906.
It’s just that I don’t need a discussion on its cause, whether natural (like during the little ice age here when it was relatively cold) or due to human behaviour.
I agree with Joel that the situation is quite alarming. In so many areas we find ourselves in a more than disturbing situation, geopolitical and economical included. The overall outlook is pretty grim. And it will get worse.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

Are you completely nuts. I am a strong believer in Global Warming/Climate Change. You are quoting my responses to Ginny Stoner:

Not nuts, at least not completely. My comment was ment as an addition to what you said. Global warming is real, sea level has risen about 20 cms since the beginning of the previous century. As a result of this and of future higher levels, as well as storms that are much heavier and more frequent, our dikes have been raised substantially already (half of this country is situated below sea level).
Climate change has been abused by left wing politicians as a tool to win the favor of the voter. And it is being used to take away freedom from everyone except the very rich. This proces is clearly visible already here in Europe. The unfairness is unacceptable but basically I’m fine with the restrictions that will follow; just stay in your area and if you don’t want to, why don’t you take your bicycle.

Climate change has been abused by left wing politicians as a tool to win the favor of the voter.

You can always count on lucas to make asinine conspiratorial comments devoid of any relationship to reality.

It’s his only ability.

Climate didn’t start changing 100 years ago. Climate change, often sudden and dramatic, has been going on for millennia. Earth is nowhere near the warmest its ever been, nor as rich in CO2. I hope everyone can at least agree on these facts, as established by ice core samples?

Nice rhetorical question, Ginny.
The problem is not with what you say, but with what you omit. Like so many climate change deniers, you glom onto something irrelevant and act as if it overturns the mountains of evidence you’ve overlooked. There is a “journalist” in South Africa named Andrew Kenney, who has been an Anthropogenic Climate Change denialist for over a decade. He uses the exact same tactics, and can’t be convinced he’s wrong.
The fact of the matter is, human actions are changing the climate extremely rapidly, and in such a way as to endanger our own survival as a species.

It’s not rhetorical, you’re mistaken–it is a genuine attempt to reach agreement.

“…you glom onto something irrelevant”.

Whether or not climate is in fact different now than in millennia past is a fundamental issue. How do you prove climate change is man-made, if it was changing in similar ways long before man?

“The fact of the matter is, human actions are changing the climate extremely rapidly, and in such a way as to endanger our own survival as a species.”

That’s not a fact–it’s a highly disputed claim, and lacks context–“extremely rapidly” compared to what? I’ve heard about woolly mammoths that were found frozen solid with undigested green grass in their mouths.

Gindo, I hate to break this to you, but nobody actually cares about your ill-informed opinions, despite their being your métier.

Ginny, I know you’re not very bright, but you are massively dishonest.
You are ignoring [possibly don’t know, the two are equally likely] the fact that the changes seen over last 100-150 years have occurred far more rapidly than the ‘natural’ changes. Overwhelming evidence exists to show these changes are primarily due to human activity and the increased use of fossil fuels.

Some quotes from a 2015 study:

Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring.

Further

In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years—two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills.

A little more.

“We have a very, very clear understanding that the amount of heat in the ocean is increasing—the ocean heat content is going up by a lot,” said Schmidt. “That implies that there must be an external change in the radiation budget of the earth—more energy has to be going in than leaving.

“There are a number of ways that can happen, but each of them has a different fingerprint. If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.”

While we wait for you to weave lies and disinformation about this, one more thing: you’ve commented that there’s been meddling with climate data so blatant that anyone can detect it. So pick a data set and a model applied to it and explain what the problem is.

“the fact that the changes seen over last 100-150 years have occurred far more rapidly than the ‘natural’ changes.”

That’s not an agreed fact, it’s a disputed opinion or claim.

“Overwhelming evidence exists to show these changes are primarily due to human activity and the increased use of fossil fuels.”

Again, not an agreed fact, it’s a disputed opinion or claim. And it’s followed by more of the same.

Meanwhile, you forgot to answer the question, which was to verify your agreement with the fact that “Climate change, often sudden and dramatic, has been going on for millennia. Earth is nowhere near the warmest its ever been, nor as rich in CO2.”

When Earth were warmer than now, sea level was a 100 higher.This is exactly the catastrophe we must avoid.

@ Ginny Stoner

Besides what ldw56old wrote above, again, I challenge you to read the list of papers, etc that I included in a comment above. They repeat what ldw56old wrote and add much more.

As I’ve written before, I realize that nothing will change your mind, basically because your opinions are not based on reality testing but on your own biased world of fantasy.

I realize that your antivax position, including almost everything on your website is based on VAERS and you ignore everything Orac, I and others write. I think I understand why, basically if you were to accept that VAERS is simply a list of suspects then just about everything on your website would be wrong and you would have to remove them and admit you have been wrong. Given your circular reasoning, basically backing your positions with your own paper, you would have to admit the truth, namely, that you don’t understand any of the medical sciences.

SO KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF, SOMETHING YOU ARE AN EXPERT AT

“Besides what ldw56old wrote above, again, I challenge you to read the list of papers, etc that I included in a comment above. They repeat what ldw56old wrote and add much more.”

See my above comment to ldw56old–it applies to you, too.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Climate didn’t start changing 100 years ago. Climate change, often sudden and dramatic, has been going on for millennia. Earth is nowhere near the warmest its ever been, nor as rich in CO2. I hope everyone can at least agree on these facts, as established by ice core samples?”

OK, let’s look at one expert paper:

“This modern temperature reconstruction, combined with observational records over the past century, shows that current temperatures in Greenland are warmer than any period in the past 2,000 years. That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago. . . Climate proxies can be obtained from sources, such as tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments and corals. Ice cores are one of the best available climate proxies, providing a fairly high-resolution estimate of climate changes into the past.”

Zeke Hausfather (2019 May 3). Factcheck: What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change. CarbonBrief

So, yep, temperatures have been higher in the distant past; but they are rapidly increasing and we will surpass previous in this century.

And something else you probably aren’t aware of; but, I’m sure you will reject, namely, that the toxins from fossil fuels based on conservative estimates contribute to premature deaths in 100,000 people per year in US and 100s of thousands more with various chronic conditions.

Tell us, are you a paid spokesperson for Big Oil or just an ignorant supporter? After all, for some, profit comes before people. In fact, maybe this explains your antivax position, namely, you hope more people will die, thus, a less crowded world??? But, then Big Oil’s profits will go down?

“That said, they (temperatures) are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago. . . […] So, yep, temperatures have been higher in the distant past; …”

That sounds like you agree with my proposed facts. Good.

“…but they [temperatures] are rapidly increasing and we will surpass previous in this century.”

That’s a disputed claim or opinion, not an agreed fact.

As for “toxins”–probably one of the leading causes of death in the world, although not necessarily fro the oil industry. The global warming fraud is in large part to protect international corporations from liability for the harms they cause to people and the environment with their toxins.

Too bad that CO2, the ‘toxin’ being regulated, is neither a toxin nor pollution.

@ldw56old

“”Climate change has been abused by left wing politicians as a tool to win the favor of the voter.”
You can always count on lucas to make asinine conspiratorial comments devoid of any relationship to reality.
It’s his only ability.”

Our superficial islander doesn’t even have some basic understanding of left wing politics. All european left wing parties (mis)use climate change as a topic for political gain. Duh…
That’s as conspiratorial as Anna Nicole Smith married out of love.

Lucas, given your history of misrepresenting everything and making conspiracies out of things you don’t like, nobody should give your “OMG the left is profiting off climate change” BS a second thought.

Maybe, just once, tell the truth about something, with data to support it. I get that idea is foreign to you, but try it nonetheless.

Our superficial islander doesn’t even have some basic understanding of left wing politics.

Coming from someone who failed education so badly he believes the Nazis were on the left politically that comment is asinine — which is not a surprise, since it’s from Lucas.

All european left wing parties (mis)use climate change as a topic for political gain.

Again, assertion with no support, and again not a surprise, given the source.

Right wing climate politics, are either, saying there is no such thing as climate change, or denieing human activity has something to do with. If right wing parties accept the idea of global warming and human respoinsibility, they start with considering that everything will be solved in the future.
Taxing industries that harm the environment? No go, because these companies need to make money, in order to devellop techniques that are less harming for the environment. (Like for instance electric planes, or planes using hydrogen.)
Forcing people to make choices that are less harming for the environment, for instance by prohibiting things that harm the environment? No go, because people should be free to choose.
Taxing choices, that are harming the environment? No go, because that means that wealthy people have an adventage over average people.
The so called Green Right seems to think that everything will change because people will change their behaviour voluntarily and everything can be solved by new techniques that still have to be devellopped.

“”Climate change has been abused by left wing politicians as a tool to win the favor of the voter.”
You can always count on lucas to make asinine conspiratorial comments devoid of any relationship to reality.
It’s his only ability.”

Given that you’re an expert on everything, could you turn your attention to how to use quotation marks and tags?

@Ginny Stoner

“Climate didn’t start changing 100 years ago. Climate change, often sudden and dramatic, has been going on for millennia. Earth is nowhere near the warmest its ever been, nor as rich in CO2. I hope everyone can at least agree on these facts, as established by ice core samples?”

Here in The Netherlands climate change started being noticable about 25 years ago or so. Whatever the cause.

@ Lucas

If you mean that the left has a platform to actually deal with climate change and, thus, receive votes from those who understand climate change, yep. In US, Republican party sabotages almost all efforts to mitigate climate change, so I would bet you would vote for them.

@ Ginny Stoner

There are about 1.446 billion cars on Earth in 2022. Now add in thousands of oil and coal fired power plants. Prior to around 1800 the amount of CO2 generated from wood burning was minuscule compared to cars and power plants, etc. So, despite your rigid biased ignorance, explain how so many cars and power plants creating far more CO2 can not be affecting global temperatures. You apparently don’t even understand that CO2 and methane get trapped at certain level above Earth and function as a blanket keeping heat from escaping, so it builds up.

@ldw56old

“Lucas, given your history of misrepresenting everything and making conspiracies out of things you don’t like, nobody should give your “OMG the left is profiting off climate change” BS a second thought.”

You understood it. Good, so no “asinine conspiratorial comments” here.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“If you mean that the left has a platform to actually deal with climate change and, thus, receive votes from those who understand climate change, yep. In US, Republican party sabotages almost all efforts to mitigate climate change, so I would bet you would vote for them.”

The left may ‘deal with climate change’ somewhat by taking away your personal freedom: inflation, taxation, regulation (like carbon footprint).
The right prefer to work through economic incentives, which would be a far less discriminating policy. With the left the only freeloaders are the rich.

Ldw56 – I’m sure you read along – no conspiracy here. You just don’t realise that it’s you that gets restricted. I simply buy a way out, just like my colleages that have always taken good care of themselves. You still don’t get it what kind of in your own foot shooting fool you are.

The left may ‘deal with climate change’ somewhat by taking away your personal freedom: inflation, taxation, regulation (like carbon footprint).

I’m not sure there is a more asinine take on the importance of taxes and regulations in society, but if there is it’s only more asinine by a hair. And as for political parties being responsible for inflation — only a fool believes that. [Lucas qualifies]

The right prefer to work through economic incentives, which would be a far less discriminating policy.

Again, bullshit. Economic incentives benefit the well-off and harm people in the bottom of the economy. Again, only a fool…

With the left the only freeloaders are the rich.

Unsupported assertion [but it is lucas again], but given the fact that tax laws are written to benefit people at the high end of the income curve I might see an extremist try to make that argument.

In short: all of those comments sum up the modern libertarian mantra:

Might makes right
People are poor and sick because they deserve to be
Nobody in the next generation should be allowed to use any of the social structures I used to achieve my status: that way I can claim to be “self made”
I owe nothing to society and anything that society tries to get from me is an attack on my freedumbs

I don’t know if lucas is a modern libertarian, but if he isn’t he’s so close to someone who is his nose is in the guy’s rectum.

no conspiracy here.

Conspiracy motivated: your assertions are pure bullshit, just as everything you have to say is.

I’m amazed that an adult can turn out to be so ethically lacking as you are. You must work hard to maintain that degree of dishonesty.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“In US, Republican party sabotages almost all efforts to mitigate climate change, so I would bet you would vote for them.”

I don’t vote. Whatever the political movement, it is always unsavory. We all know that I guess, but I’ve seen it up close for years.
I’m not ‘left’ and not ‘right’. But the left has often turned out as a dangerous movement and this time will be no different.

@ Lucas

You write: “The left may ‘deal with climate change’ somewhat by taking away your personal freedom: inflation, taxation, regulation (like carbon footprint).
The right prefer to work through economic incentives, which would be a far less discriminating policy. With the left the only freeloaders are the rich.”

What economic incentives does the right work through? In US, the right lowers taxes on corporations, lowers regulations on pollution, reduces criminal prosecutions. Personal freedom does NOT exist outside of a community, so, one has to balance personal freedom with communal responsibilities. For instance, In California required to test cars catalytic converters which reduce emissions of toxins. If above certain amount, need to repair within period of time or be fined.

As for only freeloaders are the rich based on leftist politics, actually, leftist politics involves more fairly taxing the rich. Right wing politics does its best to lower taxes on the rich. Are you really so stupid?

What you write is pure Bull Shit.

@Renate

“Right wing climate politics, are either, saying there is no such thing as climate change, or denieing human activity has something to do with. If right wing parties accept the idea of global warming and human respoinsibility, they start with considering that everything will be solved in the future.”
– I largely agree with what you say.

“Taxing industries that harm the environment? No go, because these companies need to make money, in order to devellop techniques that are less harming for the environment. (Like for instance electric planes, or planes using hydrogen.)”
– Fine if you tax these industries, but then what? You get price inflation in return that will only victimize the poor and middle class. And this is exactly the direction we are heading; f.e. the price trend in energy is no coincidence. I.o.w., is that what you want?

“Forcing people to make choices that are less harming for the environment, for instance by prohibiting things that harm the environment? No go, because people should be free to choose.
– It is simple: you cannot just reverse the system. The consequences would be dramatic with immense human suffering. However, we should immediatly step back substantially in welfare in order to stop harming the environment (not necessarily speaking of climate change here). Now how would you want to reach that goal?

Taxing choices, that are harming the environment? No go, because that means that wealthy people have an adventage over average people.
The so called Green Right seems to think that everything will change because people will change their behaviour voluntarily and everything can be solved by new techniques that still have to be devellopped.
– Exactly so.

@Joel

“end of 19th Century overwhelming majority of wealth in US controlled by a few corporations and the super wealthy. Now, we are back there.”
“shrinking middle class and working classes”

Exactly so and everyone here would do well to keep this in mind.
Back then those were factors that have lead to a long lasting economic depression. It might be no different this time.

“President Reagan cut taxes on corporations and the super rich, leading to huge deficits. He then increased the FICA tax (Social Security Tax) so more came in than was paid out. The excess was loaned to the government for ongoing expenditures; however, in the US when money is loaned between Federal government departments it isn’t counted as debt, so the Social Security Trust Fund, composed on the same treasury bonds as the rest of National Debt isn’t counted as National Debt; but it is. Then President George W. Bush lowered taxes even more on corporations and the super rich, creating more debt. We then fought two criminal wars, against Afghanistan and Iraq, taxes weren’t raised, so the National Debt increased. Finally, President Trump lowered taxes even more on corporations and the super wealthy. So, probably 70 – 80 % of US National Debt from lowering taxes on corporations and super wealthy and fighting two criminal wars. Prior to President Reagan, average corporate CEO salary was around 70 times average workers, now 700 times or more. Stocks increased in value, corporations became wealthy; but the economy actually grew slower than previously and middle class shrunk and overall working class wages increased barely. Someone said in the US the 19th Century was followed by the 20th Century which was followed by the 19th Century. Well, end of 19th Century overwhelming majority of wealth in US controlled by a few corporations and the super wealthy. Now, we are back there.

And the shrinking middle class and working classes taxes pays interest on National Debt and will have to pay to redeem Social Security Trust Fund as it nows begins to pay for retirements, retirements much lower than many other advanced democracies. And, of course, our senior citizen Medicare comes with copays, deductibles, doesn’t cover dental care, most home health care, etc.; but is the most expensive in the world. 30 cents on dollar going to unnecessary excess bureaucracies, profits, and bloated CEOs salaries; yet we have highest infant mortality, lowest life expectancies, and absolute most bankruptcies due to health costs. You can find two papers I wrote on American health care online:
Joel A. Harrison. Paying More, Getting Less: How much is the sick U.S. health care system costing you?
Joel A. Harrison, The Case for a Non-Profit Single-Payer Healthcare System
So, our National Debt did NOT benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans; but only major corporations and super wealthy individuals”

Like you said it with many words: our governments serve the interests of some minor groups. Like I posted here frequently, you might say that most of us have our governments against us.
Now you mentioned republican presidents but forgot to add that the democratic ones are basically no different. Now tell me what wonderful setting we are in now with your president Joe Biden? I see a war he’s fighting relatively near where I live with lots of deaths and refugees filling my already overcrowded country. I see skyhigh energy prices, high inflation numbers etcetera; is this what you wished for? Come on Joe, time to develop a different view. More as a collection of individuals where – no matter what political preference – many are rotten and some are fine. I think that’s the reality.

There are some other issues with our debt based economies you left unmentioned. It causes financial turmoil. And this turmoil ALWAYS serves the rich. I know this, it’s what keeps me very busy from time to time. But the rest pays for it.
And shall we add that huge differences in wealth between the rich and poor has always lead to civil unrest?
Another real problem is that debt based economies need growth in order to function. Unfortunately that growth conflicts severely with climate targets. Joel, we need economic growth to come to an end as fast as possible! But this system makes it virtually impossible.
I personally would like to see the entire money system disappear. And I know at some point in time it will

“Stocks increased in value, but not as an indicator of growth in GDP.”

True. Large scale stock buy backs and massive amounts of created money finding its way somewhere. All bubbles to burst sooner or later.
And in case you start seeing even stronger rising values it might indicate that markets have expectations of hyperinflation. Stocks – like all assets – literally crash up in such scenarios. That means chaos and poverty.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“”You write: “The left may ‘deal with climate change’ somewhat by taking away your personal freedom: inflation, taxation, regulation (like carbon footprint).
The right prefer to work through economic incentives, which would be a far less discriminating policy. With the left the only freeloaders are the rich.”
What economic incentives does the right work through?”
In US, the right lowers taxes on corporations, lowers regulations on pollution, reduces criminal prosecutions. Personal freedom does NOT exist outside of a community, so, one has to balance personal freedom with communal responsibilities. For instance, In California required to test cars catalytic converters which reduce emissions of toxins. If above certain amount, need to repair within period of time or be fined.
As for only freeloaders are the rich based on leftist politics, actually, leftist politics involves more fairly taxing the rich. Right wing politics does its best to lower taxes on the rich. Are you really so stupid?
What you write is pure Bull Shit.”

Only with your interpretation it is pure BS.
When I wrote “the right prefer to” of course I ment to say ‘under a right-wing government’.
Under such governments climate goals are less reached by ‘imposing’, like the left seems to want to meet targets. In contrast, in a capitalist system with competition and free enterprise, it is private entrepreneurship that gets things done; and so in a much much more economic way. All a government needs to do is to provide enough incentives and if necessary, regulate. Basically it should back off as much as possible.

Joel, perhaps you should get rid of short term presidency in your country and choose a leader with good mental health.
Most important of all, avoid socialism, marxism, fascism, communism and nazism at all cost. These are counterproductive and have shown its true face of outright evil.

If a right-wing president doesn’t care about its ‘citizens, pollution or criminal prosecutions’, all you can conclude is that this person is nothing but an ill minded, greedy short term thinker.
But what are the options in your country.

About your “balance personal freedom with communal responsibilities”, fine. But please describe what we should understand by “communal responsibilities” and what not.

And of course you need to tax the rich. It is immoral not to.
Having said that, look at your politicians like Pelosi, Biden, the Clintons and what not. Aren’t these perfect examples of those freeloaders in disguise, like I mentioned? Despicable people and you seem to vote for them.
Don’t forget that the minute you choose a president, you are jointly responsible for his actions.

I include some quotations of the late Margaret Thatcher:

“Marxists get up early in the morning to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.”

“One of our principal and continuing priorities when we are returned to office will be to restore the freedoms which the Socialists have usurped. Let them learn that it is not a function of the State to possess as much as possible. It is not a function of the State to grab as much as it can get away with. It is not a function of the State to act as ring-master, to crack the whip, dictate the load which all of us must carry or say how high we may climb. It is not a function of the State to ensure that no-one climbs higher than anyone else. All that is the philosophy of socialism. We reject it utterly for, however well-intended, it leads in one direction only: to the erosion and finally the destruction of the democratic way of life.”

“Let me give you my vision. A man’s right to work as he will to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as servant and not as master; these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our others depend.”

@Dangerous Bacon

“Predictably, antivax ghouls waste no time trying to take advantage of the cardiac arrest suffered by a Buffalo Bills player last night.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/us-sport/damar-hamlin-buffalo-bills-charlie-kirk-conspiracy-b2254990.html

For your information: here in Europe – and my country is no exception – the number of sporters suffering from cardiac arrest and other heart related issues is truly disturbing. Whatever the cause.
If I were a vaxxed sporter I would reduce my amount of physical effort substantially.

For your information: here in Europe – and my country is no exception – the number of sporters suffering from cardiac arrest and other heart related issues is truly disturbing. Whatever the cause.

One is disturbing, but more disturbing is your blatant attempt to use an unsupported assertion of large numbers with cardiac arrest to buttress your [also unsupported] attacks on covid vaccines.

If I were a vaxxed sporter I would reduce my amount of physical effort substantially.

Given that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and cardiac events that line is simply more lucas b.s.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

“If you mean that the left has a platform to actually deal with climate change and, thus, receive votes from those who understand climate change, yep.”
– So, what has been achieved so far with that platform, other then had already been set in motion under the right?

“In US, Republican party sabotages almost all efforts to mitigate climate change, so I would bet you would vote for them.”
– Can I help that? Hire me for the job.
No, I don’t vote. I prefer to stay neutral.

Try watching this for starters.
And consider that Trump’s first choice to had the EPA was an Oklahoma politician who had made his reputation suing to block the EPA.
And one of Trump’s major steps was to whack off big chunks of public parks and wildlife preserves to allow for more oil drilling.

But I’d really like to know what major effort to combat climate change the Republicans passed during all those years they controlled the government?

https://youtu.be/RjAZPOrCupc

@ldw56

“And as for political parties being responsible for inflation — only a fool believes that. [Lucas qualifies]”

When will you ever pay attention? I’ve explained this so many times now, numb nuts.
In theory it is quite simple, so even you should be able to understand this in 3 simple fast steps:

Inflation is basically a result of monetary expansion (M).
Central Banks (FED in your case) regulate M.
The FED can be pressured by your politicians.

Inflation is caused when the money supply in an economy grows at faster rate than the economy’s ability to produce goods and services.
So yes, inflation is a tax. Time to find out what’s happening in the real world.

“Again, bullshit. Economic incentives benefit the well-off and harm people in the bottom of the economy. Again, only a fool…”

Indeed, only a fool like you is so utterly ignorant like ldw56.
Economic incentives benefit the well-off…, what kind of moron are you? It gets worse with every new post.
Why would incentives benefit the well-off and harm people in the bottom? Completely makes no sense.
What slum do you inhabit with your typical leftist freeloader rethoric?

“”With the left the only freeloaders are the rich.”
Unsupported assertion [but it is lucas again], but given the fact that tax laws are written to benefit people at the high end of the income curve I might see an extremist try to make that argument.”

Let me spell it for you what this is: R.E.A.L.I.T.Y. Wake up fool, you are being played. With the left the only freeloaders have always been the rich. Share with us your experience of the opposite.

In your country tax laws are indeed written to benefit the rich. But tell us, has the situation changed meanwhile with your current president or has it become worse? Have you any idea by what extreme percentage the rich became richer since Biden took office? Then find that out, you utter fool!

“In short: all of those comments sum up the modern libertarian mantra:
Might makes right
People are poor and sick because they deserve to be
Nobody in the next generation should be allowed to use any of the social structures I used to achieve my status: that way I can claim to be “self made”
I owe nothing to society and anything that society tries to get from me is an attack on my freedumbs”

Fyi: I live in The Netherlands and unfortunately I’m still a citizen here. Which means redistribution of wealth through taxation.

“I don’t know if lucas is a modern libertarian, but if he isn’t he’s so close to someone who is his nose is in the guy’s rectum.”

Go on with your socialist experiment and experience the misery you ask for. When in history has this ended differently for people like you? Self destructive moron.

@ldw56old

“”For your information: here in Europe – and my country is no exception – the number of sporters suffering from cardiac arrest and other heart related issues is truly disturbing. Whatever the cause.””
“One is disturbing, but more disturbing is your blatant attempt to use an unsupported assertion of large numbers with cardiac arrest to buttress your [also unsupported] attacks on covid vaccines.”

Attack on covid vaccines? How so?
But really, one sporter after the other here is having heart issues. No joke. But didn’t I say “whatever the cause”? Perhaps they were locked down at home for too long and then suddenly started training in the cold. Who knows, in each case not you.
Something is causing this and it has never happened before…

“”If I were a vaxxed sporter I would reduce my amount of physical effort substantially.””
“Given that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and cardiac events that line is simply more lucas b.s.”

I said no more than what I would do. I would be careful because of a theoratical link between exercize, vaccination and heart issues. Just my 2 cents. Nobody seems to have any answer. And our government refuses to look into it, despite questions asked to our House of Parliament by a couple of ministers.

Here another quote: “Coöperatie DELA, de grootste uitvaartvaartverzorger van Nederland, denkt de laatste maand van dit jaar uit te komen op zelfs 25 procent meer.”
Translated: “Cooperation DELA, the largest funeral provider in the Netherlands, expects to reach even 25 percent more [mortality] in the last month of this year.” – https://www.dela.nl/over-dela/nieuws-en-media/20221229–sterfte-loopt-in-nederland-verder-op-en-leidt-tot-extra-drukte-bij-uitvaartondernemers, 29/12/2022

Nothing to see here, ldw56.

@Lawrence

“”For your information: here in Europe – and my country is no exception – the number of sporters suffering from cardiac arrest and other heart related issues is truly disturbing.””

“Why?”

Ask the experts here.
In short answer will be: any cause is allowed as long as it’s not the vaccines.

@ldw56old

“Lucas’ comments remind me of the meme with the older woman with a walker talking about “In my day …” while a young woman says “Sure Grandma, let’s get you inside”.
Lucas is the woman with the walker, the “other economists” are the younger woman.”

In economics we have this worn-out expression that history repeats; and if it doesn’t, it rimes.
Experienced economists are the best by far; based on historic events they know what to expect, they recognize similar patters.
What has happened will happen. Plea please give me my walker.

Since economics is far from being a science all you can do is look at history.

Since you have no clue about science your implications that sudden cardiac arrest i athletes is in any way tied to vaccines is asinine — there’s no data to support it.

but keep pushing your conspiracies in your attempt to sound like you care

Amazingly enough, sudden cardiac death in football players was a well-described phenomenon before the advent of Covid-19 vaccines, as explained in this 2019 review:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327574/

Of course, the obvious antivax comeback is that the article’s authors knew that the pandemic and depopulation vaccines were coming, and engaged in a coverup beforehand.

The tentacles of the PharmaMedicoConspiraFauci are pervasive and terrifying.

@Dangerous Bacon

“Amazingly enough, sudden cardiac death in football players was a well-described phenomenon before the advent of Covid-19 vaccines, as explained in this 2019 review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327574/

Why would this be so amazing? We all know about the risks of high performance sports. I used to be a fanatic sporter once, playing soccer, cycling and sprint. And once in a while indeed there was a sporter with heart related problems. But these cases were quite rare, at least in my country.
You just hardly ever heard about such cases; if they were there, for sure the media would have mentioned them in those days just as well as they (have to) do now.
Why don’t you provide us with a ‘before and after’ comparison?

“Of course, the obvious antivax comeback is that the article’s authors knew that the pandemic and depopulation vaccines were coming, and engaged in a coverup beforehand.”

Crap. See above.

“The tentacles of the PharmaMedicoConspiraFauci are pervasive and terrifying.”

Crap as well. Just mood-making.

@ldw56old

“Since economics is far from being a science all you can do is look at history.”

I’ll tell my relative, advising the EU leaders. At faculties he teaches economic science – which is no science in your perception, public administration – no science either and political science – again no science. Won’t that help his self-esteem.
Let me tell you, dummy, that these are sciences, hence the name at universities. You probably ment to say these are no ‘hard’ sciences. And even this is not entirely true. I visited another cousin yesterday, with a background in mathematics, theoretical physics and astronomy. For some time he worked at a bank as an econometrist. Econometrics, as part of economics, is ‘hard’ science (lots of math and statistics). Not only you’re just whistling Dixie, every nuance is missing as well.
Btw, I found that economics was a tougher subject than mathematics.

“Since you have no clue about science your implications that sudden cardiac arrest i athletes is in any way tied to vaccines is asinine — there’s no data to support it.”

And why is there no data? Many are wondering what’s going with these sporters, so why not reassure them with some relevant statistics?
Perhaps because such statistics are not reassuring at all and thus are not shown?

“but keep pushing your conspiracies in your attempt to sound like you care”

I care about people I know. Today I received a whatsapp that the daughter (between 20 and 30 y/o) of an acquintance died after 2 days of having a cold and fever, at least that’s what the message said (it seems as if there is a problem with the immune system of many people, I’ve been seeing this for a longer time now). Last year 9 people died in my circle of acquaintances, which is a relative (very) high number. Suggesting I wouldn’t care about them makes you worthy of contempt.

@Aarno Syvänen

“Interesting mortality statistics:
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/49/excess-mortality-in-november-lower-than-in-october
Excess mortality peaks follow number of COVID cases, as usual.”

Aarno, excess mortality has been continuously high here, it just shows some fluctuation. Last month we had a 20% excess mortality! Amazing, isn’t it?
Here is some interesting information from Pieter Omtzigt, a member of parliament, please open the link and have a look.
This is what Omtzigt was twittering recently (see: https://twitter.com/PieterOmtzigt/status/1607717378455998469?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1607717378455998469%7Ctwgr%5E11729c75549791f910513bcd4afe4356484134c6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninefornews.nl%2Fomtzigt-trekt-aan-de-bel-hierom-is-het-oversterfte-onderzoek-onmogelijk%2F):

“het oversterfte onderzoek door onafhankelijke onderzoekers met data van @statistiekcbs en @rivm is onmogelijk. Reden: de data van gevaccineerden die zijn overleden, worden uit de dataset gehaald (zie onder)”
Translated: “the excess mortality study by independent researchers with data from @statistiekcbs and @rivm is impossible. Reason: the data of vaccinated people who have died are taken from the dataset (see below).”
Similar in the research into traffic victims, the victims of car accidents are extracted from the dataset. Isn’t it great.

Our good old CBS in Den Haag (The Hage); I visited this rather huge office several times in the past and must admit I met some professional employees there. But I’m not so sure about its integrity nowadays.
The CBS receives the so-called vaccination file from the RIVM. It turns out that a number of categories are not included in this file.

Aarno, this obfuscation of data is the fraud you expect from a banana republic.

One of the comments at Pieter Omtzigt’s twittering read: “Nonsensical ramming on the populist drum. You can still view foreign data. This also shows that vaccine relationship is not an issue.”

Gullible uncritical minds tend to believe that indeed there is this overwhelming data proving that ‘vaccine relationship is not an issue’. But how can they know this for a fact? There is no reliable publicly accessible data(base) to back up that mRNA based vaccines are safe.
The ONS data seem usable, but just like our data (CBS/RIVM) they are not. There are some genuine problems in there, which may darken the picture of the dangers of vaccination. Check it for yourself.
More generally, you might investigate the link between a country’s vaccination grade and excess mortality.

[…] that one of the main false claims about these vaccines is that they are causing people to “die suddenly” of clotting disorders leading to strokes and myocardial infarctions (heart attacks). (They […]

Comments are closed.

Discover more from RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading