PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on October 12, 2023, 08:17:04 AM
-
Study Finds mRNA 'vaccine' Linked Death 1 in every 800 injections.
For those still pretending, the noose is tightening around the necks of the culprits substituting profits for safety.
A bombshell new study is raising major concerns about the widespread use of Covid mRNA shots after linking the injections to 17 million sudden deaths around the world.
The study, published by Correlation Research in the Public Interest, analyzed data related to all-cause mortality across 17 countries.
The researchers quantified the vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) across all ages.
VDFR measures the ratio of vaccine-induced deaths to the total number of vaccines administered to the population.
The researchers found that the mean of all-ages fatal toxicity by injection of the vDFR of 1 death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.
https://slaynews.com/news/study-links-mrna-shots-17-million-sudden-deaths/
-
Just more evidence of what we all suspected, if the study is legit.
-
But it probably isn’t. The rate of serious adverse events following the mRNA shots is known fairly well from numerous peer-reviewed observational studies. It is about 1 per 100,000.
-
Just way too many "coincidences". And way too many "experts" willing to "correct" data for ideological and financial reasons.
-
But it probably isn’t. The rate of serious adverse events following the mRNA shots is known fairly well from numerous peer-reviewed observational studies. It is about 1 per 100,000.
The report is 180 pages long, and I don't think it has been peer reviewed yet:
https://correlation-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-17-Correlation-Covid-vaccine-mortality-Southern-Hemisphere-cor.pdf (https://correlation-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-17-Correlation-Covid-vaccine-mortality-Southern-Hemisphere-cor.pdf)
Pages 19 to 24 have time graphs of All Cause Mortality (ACM) vs Vax doses for 17 countries. The interesting thing is that ACM peaks several times, the first occuring before the first Vax doses in 15 of the countries. There are subsequent ACM peaks that follow on, which they seem to claim correlate with Vax doses. They appear rather confident of their analysis (which appears to be entirely based on temporal correlation between spikes in ACM and Vax dosing) since they state:
"Therefore, we conclude with a high degree of certainty that adverse-effect monitoring, clinical trial reports, and death-certificate statistics greatly underestimate the fatal toxicity of the injections."
However, they do note the following on the first ACM peaks before the introduction of the vaccines, which is discussed in section 6.8 on page 127. Their argument on the cause of those pre-vaccine ACM peaks is that "These hot-spot peaks have been interpreted to be caused by sudden changes in medical and institutional protocols and government responses, tied to the declaration of a pandemic, and that they cannot be due to a globally spreading viral respiratory disease." Presumably because they occurred well before the disease had actually spread much but right after the WHO declaration of a pandemic, thus presumably government policy created ACM.
They appear quite confident of their conclusions, which is not something that should be done with pure correlation analysis. Assuming they correctly did the analysis and correctly excluded other causes of ACM.
-
thus presumably government policy created ACM.
Either way, that I can believe!
-
I follow this guy........https://twitter.com/MakisMD
-
I follow this guy........https://twitter.com/MakisMD
Fasting for a couple of days kills the vaccine damaged cells? I should be good then.
-
I'm reminded of all the old wives' tales about how the woman can prevent a pregnancy or have a baby...
-
They appear quite confident of their conclusions, which is not something that should be done with pure correlation analysis. Assuming they correctly did the analysis and correctly excluded other causes of ACM.
All good points Jim. The main issue with this sort of analysis in this case is that it is difficult to separate deaths possibly due to Covid-19 itself from deaths due to the mRNA vaccines.
This is particularly true because the vaccines induce the production of the spike protein, just like the virus itself.
As for this report, let’s see how it fares in peer-review.
-
Peer review has become as suspect as one of al gore's climate predictions.
The radical, one-narrative all the time, politics of academia have destroyed any credibility that the academic squad had when it comes to almost all topics.
-
Peer review has become as suspect as one of al gore's climate predictions.
The radical, one-narrative all the time, politics of academia have destroyed any credibility that the academic squad had when it comes to almost all topics.
All peer review does is check to make sure that the research method in the paper was performed correctly and that the conclusions follow from the results. But even then, if your paper doesn't follow the current narrative, it will never get published no matter how good it is. I've had many papers where the review is great but are ultimately rejected by the editors because it's outside the accepted dogma.
-
All good points Jim. The main issue with this sort of analysis in this case is that it is difficult to separate deaths possibly due to Covid-19 itself from deaths due to the mRNA vaccines.
This is particularly true because the vaccines induce the production of the spike protein, just like the virus itself.
As for this report, let’s see how it fares in peer-review.
I suspect it wont be submitted to any journal and therefore not peer reviewed. Some people have published their own critiques, such as this one:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/analysis-claiming-covid-19-vaccines-killed-17-million-people-flawed/ (https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/analysis-claiming-covid-19-vaccines-killed-17-million-people-flawed/)
-
All peer review does is check to make sure that the research method in the paper was performed correctly and that the conclusions follow from the results. But even then, if your paper doesn't follow the current narrative, it will never get published no matter how good it is. I've had many papers where the review is great but are ultimately rejected by the editors because it's outside the accepted dogma.
Peer Review has come to resemble another in a long line of thought police activities.
Look at the shit mikey promotes, then hides behind peer review to justify his horseshit.
-
All peer review does is check to make sure that the research method in the paper was performed correctly and that the conclusions follow from the results. But even then, if your paper doesn't follow the current narrative, it will never get published no matter how good it is. I've had many papers where the review is great but are ultimately rejected by the editors because it's outside the accepted dogma.
I think this depends a lot on the field. With the plethora of peer-reviewed journals these days, I think you can almost always get a paper that meets those basic criteria published in some peer-reviewed journal. It might be quite far down the pecking order.
And of course, a set of results being rejected at p<0.05 shows it is unlikely due to chance. This sort of criterion tends to select the items which may be a more general effect but the initial reports should be regarded as that and need to be confirmed if they are unusual.
Government funding of research has predictably politicized reports in many fields though.
Regarding the rate of serious adverse events from the mRNA vaccines. As I mentioned above, there are many peer-reviewed observational studies by multiple groups in multiple countries. They are rather clear that the rate is about 1 per 100,000. So the likelihood of reports of much higher rates being correct is very low.
-
Regarding the rate of serious adverse events from the mRNA vaccines. As I mentioned above, there are many peer-reviewed observational studies by multiple groups in multiple countries. They are rather clear that the rate is about 1 per 100,000. So the likelihood of reports of much higher rates being correct is very low.
Covid and the vaccines are the biggest scams perpetuated on the human race. We witnessed the largest transfer of wealth ever seen. Excuse me if I don't buy into these bullshit "peer reviewed" studies.
-
Covid and the vaccines are the biggest scams perpetuated on the human race. We witnessed the largest transfer of wealth ever seen. Excuse me if I don't buy into these bullshit "peer reviewed" studies.
I would add Man Made Climate Change to the list of biggest scams.
The "peers" are corrupt.
-
Covid and the vaccines are the biggest scams perpetuated on the human race. We witnessed the largest transfer of wealth ever seen. Excuse me if I don't buy into these bullshit "peer reviewed" studies.
I think both can be true. Covid and the vaccines are indeed the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the human race. But that can be true without it being true that the vaccines kill high numbers of people. It can be true even if the vaccines kill nobody but are simply ineffective.
Having said that, I know vaccines are killing people. I haven’t settled on what I believe as far as how many. Nobody disputes that they cause immediate allergic reaction deaths. The controversy is over the more distal deaths weeks or months later, from causes not related to anaphylaxis.
-
I think both can be true. Covid and the vaccines are indeed the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the human race. But that can be true without it being true that the vaccines kill high numbers of people. It can be true even if the vaccines kill nobody but are simply ineffective.
Having said that, I know vaccines are killing people. I haven’t settled on what I believe as far as how many. Nobody disputes that they cause immediate allergic reaction deaths. The controversy is over the more distal deaths weeks or months later, from causes not related to anaphylaxis.
Before the scamdemic, if a vaccine killed 50 people it was removed immediately.
And if these so called vaccines were "safe and effective" then the manufacturers would have no trouble defending them, nor would they have done so much in secrecy that they have tried to hide from the public.
-
If reasonable precautions were allowed to be in place how would the big guy get his 10%???
-
Before the scamdemic, if a vaccine killed 50 people it was removed immediately.
And if these so called vaccines were "safe and effective" then the manufacturers would have no trouble defending them, nor would they have done so much in secrecy that they have tried to hide from the public.
“Safe and effective” is never 100% either safe nor effective but it’s a trade off. Let’s say you have a vaccine that is 99% effective preventing you from getting a disease that has a 1 in 3 death rate, but the vaccine has a 1 in a million chance of killing you. That would be a no brainer. You’d be a fool not to get the vaccine.
But if the vaccine is only 50% effective in preventing a disease that only has a 1% fatality rate and the vaccine has a 1 in 100 chance of killing you, that’s a completely different scenario. You probably shouldn’t get it, or at least dig more into the facts to see if the fatalities are skewed into certain demographics. Example: Covid the disease mostly kills old people while the Covid vax mostly kills young people. Learn the numbers for your demographic then make a decision.
One of the problems I have is when they tell you it’s “safe and effective” they don’t give you honest information about these statistics. I don’t have problems with vaccines per se, even the Covid one. I have big problems with government agencies and corporate entities obfuscating information when a political and profit agenda is involved.
I want the bare facts. The truth. Once I feel like they’re playing us, they lose all credibility. That doesn’t mean I suddenly think the vax is 0% effective and 100% deadly. It does mean I mistrust everything anyone tells me. Once something is in two polarized camps it becomes difficult to find truly objective information.
-
“Safe and effective” is never 100% either safe nor effective but it’s a trade off. Let’s say you have a vaccine that is 99% effective preventing you from getting a disease that has a 1 in 3 death rate, but the vaccine has a 1 in a million chance of killing you. That would be a no brainer. You’d be a fool not to get the vaccine.
numbers for your demographic then make a decision.
…
I want the bare facts. The truth. Once I feel like they’re playing us, they lose all credibility. That doesn’t mean I suddenly think the vax is 0% effective and 100% deadly. It does mean I mistrust everything anyone tells me. Once something is in two polarized camps it becomes difficult to find truly objective information.
Some very good points here.
Firstly, the vast majority of people are not able to meaningfully interpret highly simplified statistics appropriately, let alone the raw data. This is particularly true in cases where the calls are closer, as in this case.
Given how the infection fatality rate for Covid-19 depended heavily on age, and with a 1 per 100k rate of serious adverse events, the flip over point for a positive risk-benefit ratio was likely around age 29. But it was not really likely worth the discomfort, inconvenience, and cost (which was never seen by the patients) until older, like around 65. Given the closeness of the call, it also very much depends on individual factors and judgement.
In cases like this, patients normally rely on experts to help make the decision. But with government funding of many of these experts, the advice given becomes biases toward statist solutions.
Oh well, I hope people learned the lessons to never try lockdowns and that masking with cloth masks and the like is futile against a highly infectious respiratory flu.
-
Oh well, I hope people learned the lessons to never try lockdowns and that masking with cloth masks and the like is futile against a highly infectious respiratory flu.
I think that many people are not willing to accept the reality that the lockdowns and diapers were not effective. To do so would be to admit that they were wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
-
I think that many people are not willing to accept the reality that the lockdowns and diapers were not effective. To do so would be to admit that they were wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
All true, just like with climate change where NONE of their predictions come true. None!
-
... against a highly infectious respiratory flu.
What is the criteria for declaring something to be "highly infectious"?
-
What is the criteria for declaring something to be "highly infectious"?
Well most of the studies on masks were concerning things like the normal flu. I guess I would consider the pertinent measure to be the the R0.
Now if something is more infectious, like measles, I imagine that masks would be even less effective. There are a number of models of propagation one could use to determine the likelihood that an illness will be suppressed based on changes in the effective R0 when you reduce it with an intervention. So if one assumes that masks reduce the R0 by perhaps 15% (which is the mean estimate from the data despite the fact that none of the 15 studies on the subject detected a significant effect), one can likely find a value of R0 where the disease would be suppressed even with that limited a performance of the masks.
-
Well most of the studies on masks were concerning things like the normal flu. I guess I would consider the pertinent measure to be the the R0.
Now if something is more infectious, like measles, I imagine that masks would be even less effective. There are a number of models of propagation one could use to determine the likelihood that an illness will be suppressed based on changes in the effective R0 when you reduce it with an intervention. So if one assumes that masks reduce the R0 by perhaps 15% (which is the mean estimate from the data despite the fact that none of the 15 studies on the subject detected a significant effect), one can likely find a value of R0 where the disease would be suppressed even with that limited a performance of the masks.
I did figure R0 would be the measure. To be more specific, what R0 would consistute "highly infectious"?
Or to put it another way, the covid-19 R0 of 2.5 or so would seem to be a far cry from the measles R0 of 18+, especially given that R0 is exponential. So many people exaggerated the covid threat.
-
I did figure R0 would be the measure. To be more specific, what R0 would consistute "highly infectious"?
Or to put it another way, the covid-19 R0 of 2.5 or so would seem to be a far cry from the measles R0 of 18+, especially given that R0 is exponential. So many people exaggerated the covid threat.
I think there are two points here.
I agree that people grossly over-estimated the threat of Covid 19 in terms of its R0 early on. In fairness, it looked rather bad from the initial news reports. But then that was just continued for political reasons once better estimates were available. I think in many cases that was simply because politicians and public health authorities want to feel they are important and helpful and here was their chance to make a difference!
I could try and compute it more exactly if you really want based on a specific model. However, for a treatment like masks with an assumed reduction in spread of just 15% to suppress an illness in a population the R0 would need to be _less_ than that of Covid-19, so not very infectious. To suppress even a relatively modestly infectious agent like Covid-19 one needs a treatment much _more_ effective than the general public wearing masks.
In that sense it might have been better to say that the lesson should be that the masks won’t work against even a modestly infectious agent, but here we are debating the application of qualitative descriptors. I generally prefer in more serious work to just use the numbers and equations.
-
I think in many cases that was simply because politicians and public health authorities want to feel they are important and helpful and here was their chance to make a difference!
Bullshit. First of all, the government incentivized public health officials to call anything and everything "covid". The money was free flowing and the government wanted those hospitalization numbers as well as covid death numbers to climb. These same public health authorities turned away patients who desperately needed medical attention in favor of giving all attention to "covid cases".
Then we watched politicians use covid as an excuse to deprive people of their rights. Churches, schools and small businesses closed while liquor stores, strip clubs and the big box stores could remain open. Politicians took glee in sending in cops to arrest "non conformist" and we watched the politicians with their media mouthpieces deride those who dared speak back.
And let's not forget the politicians that sent covid patients into senior citizen facilities, and killed many of our senior citizens.
The scamdemic was all about a power grab and wealth transfer, and nothing to do with health and well being.
-
Bullshit. First of all, the government incentivized public health officials to call anything and everything "covid". The money was free flowing and the government wanted those hospitalization numbers as well as covid death numbers to climb. These same public health authorities turned away patients who desperately needed medical attention in favor of giving all attention to "covid cases".
Then we watched politicians use covid as an excuse to deprive people of their rights. Churches, schools and small businesses closed while liquor stores, strip clubs and the big box stores could remain open. Politicians took glee in sending in cops to arrest "non conformist" and we watched the politicians with their media mouthpieces deride those who dared speak back.
And let's not forget the politicians that sent covid patients into senior citizen facilities, and killed many of our senior citizens.
The scamdemic was all about a power grab and wealth transfer, and nothing to do with health and well being.
I agree about the distorting effects of having government money involved. Always a bad idea and really the root of the problem.
I don’t know that there is a lot of evidence it was some sort of conscious malicious plot to do harm. As von Mises has written extensively about, the incentives of government bureaucrats are just all wrong from the perspective of optimizing the overall benefits for average citizens. And then LEOs, politicians, and bureaucrats always delight in flexing their muscle and enforcing their rules, whatever they are.
I imagine we would agree on the solution. Eliminate government involvement in healthcare. What does that have to do with the core job of protecting life, liberty, and property? Historically this connection grew out of concerns over medicine for and health of servicemen in the armed forces. Then like most government programs, it just grew and grew. It is an example of one of the downsides of standing armies.
-
The scamdemic was all about a power grab and wealth transfer and getting Trump out of office, and nothing to do with health and well-being.
Just to add a little clarity.
-
In terms of Trump’s involvement, best to remember it was Trump that initiated Operation Warp Speed and advocated for rapid development with immunity for the vaccine manufacturers.
I do agree that the issue of the pandemic was exploited for political purposes. That tends to be done by both branches of the uniparty. Given the enormous economic stakes involved in Federal politics, I would expect no less from either side. And again the solution seems to me to reduce politician’s power. If they have it, they will sell it and do just about anything to hold onto it.