We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

This doesn’t help

Some guys called “disclose.tv” sent this tweet:

NEW – The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require employers to record worker side effects from #COVID19 vaccination.

I do not know anything about disclose.tv but the link does seem to take you to the Coronavirus FAQs page of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Scroll down the page to the heading “Vaccine Related”. The text of the answer is as described in the tweet.

Many libertarians argue that OSHA’s reporting requirements have long since ceased to be aimed at preserving public health. Most government bureaucracies become parasites eventually. Their purpose is to feed. But if it is justified to force businesses to report side effects of vaccinations in general, how can that justification suddenly stop applying now of all times? The pandemic is the very time when it is most important that all relevant information reaches the community of scientists.

I have been vaccinated against Covid-19 (both jabs AstraZeneca if you want to know). I believe that for most people the risk of side effects from being vaccinated against Covid-19 is much less than the risk of Covid itself. But my confidence that adverse effects from vaccines are rare is shaken by the thought that maybe not all of them are being reported. If that disturbs me, with my fairly high starting level of trust, you can be sure that it terrifies those who were vaccine-hesitant to start with.

60 comments to This doesn’t help

  • bobby b

    “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    Irish Democracy is the new watchphrase. There are almost no federal administrative agencies that have not been taken over by progressives for partisan enforcement.

    Why would OSHA be different?

    (Buy guns and ammo.)

  • Mr Ecks

    Not taking their gene re-writing crap under any circs as I have zero fear of their exagg casedemic con-vid plandemic scam.

    But it is too late for safety-hesitant vaxed mugs anyway. Once its in you cant change the result or get the crap out again.

  • bobby b

    (Just to add a bit of context to OSHA’s decision):

    The vax makers have been granted immunity for injuries and damage resulting from the vaxxes. Private employers generally get immunity from liability if they were following fedgov rules and regulations.

    Presently, we have many employers mandating vaccination because Biden seemed to require it, but Biden didn’t really require it. No exec order was promulgated even after Biden announced his mandate.

    So, if hordes of employees now come down with heart failure due to being ordered by their employers to get a faulty vaccine – but the government actually didn’t mandate that yet – then the employers are on the hook legally for damages.

    If an employer orders me to work on a roof without protection and I fall, the employer pays. If an employer orders me to get a shot and the shot kills me, the employer pays.

    By imposing their own vax mandates, employers may have taken on all of the liability that the government shielded the vax makers from.

    So, OSHA is right now protecting employers from having to make self-harming statements by suspending the reporting requirement.

    But I know several Personal Injury lawyers who are gearing up for lawsuits against employers for vax harm. People need to remember that if you’re downstream from someone who is getting immunity, (stuff) just flows downhill onto you.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Natalie,

    As someone who has not yet taken the magic COVID-19 jab, I emphatically reject the notion that I am or have ever been “vaccine hesitant”. Neither word fits.

    1. I am very pro vaccine. I get the flu shot every year and would give my future children all the vaccines (except the magic covid-19 jab obviously).

    2. I have never hesitated regarding my decision to decline the magic COVID-19 jab and I do not hesitate now. I have declined the magic COVID-19 jab and I continue to decline it now. Zero hesitation.

    Every person I know who has not taken the magic COVID-19 jab bristles when fake news media smears us as “vaccine hesitant”.

    It’s a fake phrase poll-tested to smear, vilify and other-ize us. Worst of all, its just not true. It’s like calling Jews “subversives” because it claims to know what we are thinking.

    It is a term designed and indeed invented to demonize the person and imply that there is no logic behind declining the magic jab, thus we are just hesitating to accept the inevitable. Using the term “vaccine hesitant” advances (whether intentionally or, as I suspect in your case, unintentionally) a sick culture that accommodates tyranny and medical apartheid in my city and in many cities in the USA.

    I must confess that I am quite shocked to see a Samizdatista (and one of my favorite writers at this website) use this term. I kindly ask you to reconsider using this term, given that it incorrectly characterizes the thinking of those it categorizes, and how it is being used in the western world to manufacture consent to authoritarianism.

  • I have been vaccinated against many diseases. I will not be getting vaccinated against this one as (1) I am antibody positive, and evidence natural immunity is better is now overwhelming (2) the evidence is now fairly compelling that for people not in a high risk group, the vaccine’s risks outweigh the benefits. The behaviour of state bodies in many nations are also indicative that things are not as stated, so that would be a hard pass from me.

  • llamas

    As before, in order that unvaccinated US readers may accurately assess their true, individual and localized risk from COVID-19, here is the excellent COVID risk tool operated by Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    https://covid19risktools.com:8443/riskcalculator

    I run this tool for myself, every Wednesday. Hey, I’m a llama of regular habits.

    I fully grasp, and accept, that others may have very-much-different risks than mine, and may choose to take this vaccine to protect themselves from some part of those risks. I urge and encourage them to do so. But my risk is laughably-low, far-lower than the 101 other risks I run every day. My aggregate risk of dying of any cause in the next 24 hours is about 1 in 22,000 – my risk of dying of COVID, ever, calculated for this week, is less than half of that. It’s noise. And since it is now clear that the vaccines do not prevent the spread of the disease in the general population, will not prevent me from catching the disease, will not prevent me from giving it to others, and decline in efficacy in unknown and unpredictable ways – there is not one single good reason for me to take it. Not one. And I am a llama that does things based on reason. When you add to that the downsides that bobby b. carefully describes – that those trying to force me to take this vaccine have a) eliminated any recourse I might have if it harms me and b) are actively suppressing avenues for reporting and recording any harm it may do – then my choice is reinforced. It’s a bad bargain – for me. It may be a good bargain – for others. Let them decide, what is best for them, and leave me to decide, what is best for me.

    I’m not ‘vaccine-hesitant’ – that mealy-mouthed term implies that I’m slow to grasp the benefits of this vaccine, which are so obvious as to need no explanation, and I’m just irrational, or foolish. What I am is vaccine-decisive – I’ve assessed the relative risks for me, and decided against it.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Paul Marks

    There is a difference between the United States Government and the government of the United Kingdom on this matter.

    The government of the United Kingdom has never denied that some people are harmed by the vaccines, indeed that some people are killed by the vaccines (indeed I have heard this openly discussed in the House of Commons). The argument here, in the United Kingdom, is that, on balance, the vaccines save far more people than than they harm or kill.

    But in the United States any mention of harm or deaths from the vaccines is treated in a totally insane way by the establishment – “LIAR!”, “CONSPIRACY THEORY!”, “AGENT OF PUTIN!”. “INSURRECTIONIST!” and so on – the American government (and many State and local governments) and the Corporate Media (who get a lot of money from certain drug companies) react in a totally hysterical way.

    No wonder people conclude that the American government and media are just lying lunatics.

    There are also several DIFFERENT vaccines – which have different health risks.

    It is much too complicated a matter to deal with in a comment – people need to go to a medical doctor, with experience in this field, and discuss their personal case.

    The question that needs to be dealt with on a personal (individual) level with your doctor is “is the risk of the particular vaccine greater or less than the benefits that I will get from it?”

    That can only be judged on a personal level with your doctor – one can not make generalised (sweeping) statements.

    Last point.

    LACK OF RESEARCH INTO LONG TERM HARM – several of the vaccines, by the way these are the ones that most often used in the United States, have nagging questions about the long term harm they could (could) do.

    There needs to be serious research into this – not screams of “AGENT OF PUTIN!” “INSURRECTIONIST!” and so on.

  • Duncan S

    Paul Marks writes:

    “The argument here, in the United Kingdom, is that, on balance, the vaccines save far more people than than they harm or kill.”

    And those that it does harm or kill: “Oh dear, how sad, nevermind” says the government (and the brainwashed collective) as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

  • APL

    Natalie Solent: “I have been vaccinated against Covid-19 [snip]. I believe that for most people the risk of side effects from being vaccinated against Covid-19 is much less than the risk of Covid itself.”

    Those at risk of actual death, – when effective medical treatment is withheld, or as in the UK where the NHS advice is to stay at home until the condition has progressed to the stage where you have difficulty breathing ( because your lungs have been so badly attacked by the disease ), whereupon they’ll admit you to A&E and thrust a tube down your throat to artificicially inflate your, already rigid with mucous lungs, causing additional insult, then watch as your condition deteriorates further, – are generally of the older demographic.

    Shall we say over 65 ?

    Their expectation of a long life ( having already been more or less realized ) is ten to twenty years.

    The calculation is; does the increased probibility of some life threatening incident; a blood clot in the arterial side of the blood stream or the brain, a debilitating condition, Bell’s Palsy, or some other manifestation of autoimmune condition associated with this specific treatment ( it’s not a vaccine ), outweigh the likelyhood that you are going to reach the end of your life in the natural course of events.

    If you are in the last quarter of your life, you might make the calculation that catching a condition that, should you willfully refuse to treat it ( because that is the current NHS
    advice ) might kill you, against a treatment that could kill you, but it’ll just be called a ‘heart attack’ ( (s)he was old, had a good innings), stroke ( tragic, but what can you expect at her/his age ). Then that is an individual decision that no reasonable person would argue with.

    And by the way, we definitively know, that recieving the ( Bill Gates and Anthony Faucci ) treatment, doesn’t give you immunity against catching COVID-19. So that calculation is void anyway.

    In my opinion, at this stage, people below that threshold ( 65< ) should not touch this treatement in a million years. Simply because the long term unknown nasty side effects of the treatment are, well – unknown. Known short term effects are bad enough.

    Shlomo Maistre: ” I get the flu shot every year and would give my future children all the vaccines (except the magic covid-19 jab obviously).”

    I could lay my hands on a study that demonstrated that the flu vaccination has absolutely no effect, I’ve probably posted a reference to it already on Samizdata.

    It’s always struck me as a fairly futile exercise, select last years endemic influenza strain, ( everyone who survived last year will likely have immunity ) create a vaccine out of it, and inject the vaccine in to the ‘vulnerable’, this year.

    Meanwhile, this years novel influenza strain is already running riot through the population.

  • Shlomo (Shlomo Maistre, October 21, 2021 at 3:33 am), while you are right that vaccine-hesitant is a poor way to describe you and many others, you did not provide a suggested alternative. Trying to do so would not alter your valid point but might have given you more sympathy for Natalie’s not delaying her post to work that one out. A comment thread is good place to see if we can find a good general term.

    – The Seattle police union head who stressed it was the mandate, not the vaccine as such, that was being rejected, could be called anti-vaxmandate.

    – The father who had had a bad reaction to another vaccine in the past, and had also had the virus (so had better-than-vaccine immunity), but yet was denied visiting rights to his child by a New York judge ranting against “anti-science (!!!) vaccine deniers” presented himself in court as personally vaccine-hesitant, so may be described by that term, even though he (and the law) fell victim to a fanatic pro-vaxmandater.

    Others are genuinely suspicious of this vaccine as such (it was after all developed hastily without the usual checks). Others again were suspicious of vaccines before all this blew up. And some, of course, are just scientists (“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Feynman) who weigh what we know about the virus’ and vaccine’s statistics – and what we don’t know.

    If Shlomo, or anyone else, can propose a one-size-fits-all word, please share. FWIW, I offer vaxmandate, with all its verb, noun and adjectival derivates, but that issue interacts with general doubts of vaccine efficacy and the specific doubts of individuals who know their own personal medical history.

  • Jon Eds

    To be fair, there are probably lots of “vaccine hesitant” individuals. That is, they might wish to take it but are concerned (rightly in my view) of potential side effects.

    Personally I’m ‘health confident’and also ‘data confident’ so haven’t had the vaccine.

    In Natalie’s defense I would also say that presumably she had her vaccine sometime ago, before it became a litmus test for those of us on this side of the political divide.

  • I could lay my hands on a study that demonstrated that the flu vaccination has absolutely no effect, I’ve probably posted a reference to it already on Samizdata. (APL, October 21, 2021 at 12:00 pm)

    I recall a study reporting that the flue jab in the UK had 60% efficacy in a good year and 10% efficacy in a bad year – but do not offhand recall the ratio of good to bad years.

  • John Lewis

    No-one in the US (media at least) will admit that a significant proportion of the vaccine hesitant were heavily influenced by the likes of VP Harris loudly proclaiming last year that she wasn’t gonna take no Trump vaccine.

    If such people have now seen Kamala’s 180 degree circle-back on her initial fear-mongering without providing any context for this change other than “just do what I tell you” is it any wonder that they’re still cautious?

    She is far from the only culpable hypocrite here but, rather like AOC, her statements stick in the mind albeit not for the reasons intended.

  • APL

    Niall Kilmartin: “you did not provide a suggested alternative.”

    how about, ‘odium mendax’?

    Given that nearly all the vaccine advocates are either politicians or in the pay of politicians.

  • My sister, who is in her seventies, got the vaccine. (I think it was Pfizer, but haven’t checked with her.) The first shot made her feel bad for a day or two, but vaccines do that. The second shot put her in the hospital, with doctors scratching their heads. They suspect her muscle tone will never go back to where it was.

    Now the government is starting to demand we get a booster shot. I think I’ll give it a pass, for valid reasons. At this point, the politicians are just seeing how long and elegantly they can make us march to their tune.

    I suppose that makes me a denier. There’s a long and honorable history behind that word

  • In Natalie’s defense I would also say that presumably she had her vaccine sometime ago, before it became a litmus test for those of us on this side of the political divide. (Jon Eds, October 21, 2021 at 12:45 pm)

    I think (UK commenters qualify me if you wish) that is a noticeable UK/US difference, which it is worth commenters keeping in mind. That the UK government showed some competence in speedily offering the vaccine to the public (competence it could not have managed without Brexit freeing it from EU control) is granted widely, even by those who were later unimpressed with how slow and slight was the amount of freedom granted in exchange (but the unimpressed in England should try visiting Scotland, then return counting their relative blessings 🙂 ).

    By contrast, from the pre-election incident that John Lewis (October 21, 2021 at 1:07 pm) reminds us of to the recent ruling that is the point of the OP, a slower and less competent deployment has interacted more strongly with the yet grosser prostitution of alleged science to current political convenience.

    [SIDE REMARK, IGNORABLE BY NON-DICTIONARY FREAKS: I first wrote of the “yet more quaquaversal” Dem politicisation, but, checking less I be too opaque, discovered that Mirriam-Webster have nouned the adjective in a (slightly strange, to me, though I kind of see what they mean) way that does not help clarify my meaning.

    Does anyone have a good single word for expressing the idea that a certain politician, like a weathervane, can be made by the slightest pressure to spin round to point at absolutely any of the 360 degrees of the political compass?]

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Niall,

    Shlomo (Shlomo Maistre, October 21, 2021 at 3:33 am), while you are right that vaccine-hesitant is a poor way to describe you and many others, you did not provide a suggested alternative. Trying to do so would not alter your valid point but might have given you more sympathy for Natalie’s not delaying her post to work that one out. A comment thread is good place to see if we can find a good general term.

    How about “people who have decided to not take the COVID-19 vaccine”.

    It’s not succinct, but it is accurate.

  • bobby b (October 21, 2021 at 1:07 am), thanks for the useful legal clarification. My understanding is that the Biden administration, aided by the MSM, is pretending Biden has issued the mandate and it must be enforced, while delaying the formal legal issuance of said mandate because only after the latter can its constitutionality be tested in court (or at least, it is easier then). IIUC, your analysis is of a side-effect of this “It’s an order – obey it (but I’ve not quite yet finished all the paperwork)” approach to deferring constitutional challenges.

  • How about “people who have decided to not take the COVID-19 vaccine”. (Shlomo Maistre, October 21, 2021 at 2:11)

    1) It boldly splits infinitives no UK commenter dared split before! 🙂 – but I guess that is not an objection in the US, and in the UK it could be altered to ‘decided not to take’ (as the BBC wrote “Boldly to go” in their summary of the programme when StarTrek first appeared).

    2) It is, as you say, not succinct. What would be: intentional non-vaxtakers, decided non-vaxtakers, … , confirmed non-vaxtakers 🙂 , … ? Maybe vaccine-refusers is the clearest shortest term.

    3) It excludes Natalie and many others who have taken the vaccine, in part because no-one ordered them to, but who object strongly to anyone being forced to take it. One may argue ‘vaccine-hesitant’ does too – it at least implies those so hesitant that they themselves have not taken it, but not so strongly.

    Just my 0.02p FWIW.

  • Exasperated

    The institutions of public health have really compromised themselves, undermining trust in the medical profession (profession? hah, I use the term loosely) and in vaccines.
    I am a supporter and donor to the FLCCC (Front-Line Covid Critical Care Alliance). I routinely watch the Wednesday night updates. Last night’s, Oct 20th, was very disconcerting and discouraging as Dr Kory discussed the array of forces that are lined up in favor of patented products only and against repurposed drugs. The smear campaigns have been bizarre and grotesque. OSHA is just more of the same. This is in light of expectations that this winter is likely to be bad. I’d post a link but it is not up yet.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Niall,

    It boldly splits infinitives no UK commenter dared split before! 🙂 – but I guess that is not an objection in the US, and in the UK it could be altered to ‘decided not to take’ (as the BBC wrote “Boldly to go” in their summary of the programme when StarTrek first appeared).

    Originally, I did type it out as “decided not to take” but I switched it to “decided to not take” because I thought it sounded more intentional, haha. Personally, I’d be happy with either phrasing. 🙂

    It is, as you say, not succinct. What would be: intentional non-vaxtakers, decided non-vaxtakers, … , confirmed non-vaxtakers 🙂 , … ? Maybe vaccine-refusers is the clearest shortest term.

    I think appending COVID-19 is so important. “COVID-19 vaccine-refusers” is much more accurate than “vaccine-refusers”.

    I have all the other vaccines. I believe in vaccines, I’m pro-vaccine.

    It excludes Natalie and many others who have taken the vaccine, in part because no-one ordered them to, but who object strongly to anyone being forced to take it.

    Yes, but that is by design. Me not taking the magic COVID-19 jab is a personal, private medical decision.

    Mixing the purely scientific merits a personal, private medical decision with the politics of the day is a dangerous game that plays right into the hands of the totalitarians.

    And if you are objecting to the use of the phrase “people who have decided to not take the COVID-19 vaccine” or “COVID-19 vaccine refusers” on the grounds that either one excludes people who got the magic COVID-19 jab and object to coercion being used to cause others to get the magic COVID-19 jab, then that dangerous game is exactly the one you are playing.

  • FedUpLabRat

    Presently, we have many employers mandating vaccination because Biden seemed to require it, but Biden didn’t really require it. No exec order was promulgated even after Biden announced his mandate.

    Biden did issue some mealy-mouthed executive order on September 9 requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to be fully vaccinated by December 8.

    State universities in the US do get federal money to operate, and so are trying to use this executive order to mandate vaccines for all faculty, staff, and students. Some researchers at state universities do have federal grants, and I guess could legitimately be considered federal contractors and their student employees on the grant subcontractors, but the uni presidents want to make it a blanket requirement for everyone.

    I don’t see how it is legal to force you to put something this newly-created into your body. When the FDA, known for its foot-dragging for other drugs, because the US is lawsuit-happy, fast-tracks some mealy-mouthed approval that can be trumpeted to the nation, I am skeptical. Supposedly there are religious exemptions you can apply for, but it’s not a guarantee they will be granted.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Niall,

    It excludes Natalie and many others who have taken the vaccine, in part because no-one ordered them to, but who object strongly to anyone being forced to take it. One may argue ‘vaccine-hesitant’ does too – it at least implies those so hesitant that they themselves have not taken it, but not so strongly.

    I want to focus on the second sentence now.

    You are right that whether the phrase “vaccine-hesitant” includes or excludes “Natalie and many others who have taken the vaccine, in part because no-one ordered them to, but who object strongly to anyone being forced to take it” is debatable, and subject to interpretation.

    Just the fact that the term “vaccine-hesitant” is subject to such divergent interpretations in this critical respect should be reason enough by itself to give all of us pause. And this is just one of many valid objections.

    This is a profoundly dangerous and insidious phrase.

  • Exasperated

    It would be wonderful, if some law firms started running ads looking for clients to sue employers for mandated vaccine injuries.

  • Nemesis

    ‘Jabby Dodgers’

    Not vaxed btw, but need an injection of humour to put up with all the BS.

  • Exasperated

    Apologies for a slightly off topic question regarding COVID, EARLY AND CORRECT TREATMENT?
    Does anyone know?

    Are there any citizens in industrialized or first world countries, (the Danes, the Germans, the Poles, the Slovaks, the Russians) receiving early and correct Covid treatment with therapeutics, Ivm, HCQ, z pack, steroids, famotidine, fluvoxomine or are they sent home til their lips turn blue like the UK and here? Did all of these countries submit to the leverage of the Pharma cartels? I’m not blaming anyone, it would be difficult to be punished and cut off from treatments for chronic diseases, MS, Chron’s, RA, Lupus, cancers…..etal. Just wondering, if anyone has come across any information, on this topic.

  • Rudolph Hucker

    Here’s an excellent video from Dr John Campbell, who explains (with simple common-sense) why the way vaccines are injected may itself be a cause of side-effects. As the vaccines are designed to be intra-muscular (injected into muscle), if the injection misses the muscle and goes directly into the blood stream, there can be side-effects, in maybe one in a thousand people (depending on local techniques and how closely people follow guidelines).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgVsd6qoyU4

    He patiently explains that aspiration is the old-school way of injecting, then pulling back to see if blood appears. If it does, withdraw and try again. This used to be simple best-practice, but is now being ignored, especially in places like USA and Australia. Now using a “JFDI” approach maybe?

    Ironically, the reason that some fit young people are showing proportionally higher adverse reactions might be exactly because they are fit and young, and muscles are still developing, therefore have proportionally bigger blood supply – that is, the needle is more likely to go into the blood stream in fit young people.

  • Rudolph Hucker

    Apologies, just realised the link above was a follow-on from Dr John Campbell’s original video on the problem, and the scale of it.

    Here’s the first video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBaIRm4610o

  • Fraser Orr

    @Perry de Havilland (London)
    the evidence is now fairly compelling that for people not in a high risk group, the vaccine’s risks outweigh the benefits

    What evidence are you referring to? I am not asking rhetorically, but simply because I am thinking about getting the vaccine, so I would like to know what I am getting into.

    The thing I find interesting is that the “vaccine” is lumped into one when there are several vaccines, all a bit different. My plan is the get the J&J vaccine which is basically a conventional vaccine (it is a modified adenovirus) and has only one shot, but, apparently, is 100% protective against hospitalization and death based on the fairly large study they did.

    So I am honestly curious to know.

    I take LLamas point about the low likelihood of infection, I run the calculator and am definitely on the low end, but I guess what prompted me to think about this more is that a long time friend of mine, a couple of years younger than me and in similar health to me (probably better, because he is outside working all day and I sit on by butt), just died of Covid in a pretty horrible way. So I guess the reality of it was brought home to me a little by that. I know that data is not the plural of anecdote, however, reality sometimes bites.

    @Niall
    I recall a study reporting that the flue jab in the UK had 60% efficacy in a good year and 10% efficacy in a bad year – but do not offhand recall the ratio of good to bad years.

    Right that is because the influenzas virus is very variable. But the studies of the vaccines put the protection rate of Covid vaccines much higher, in the 95% range (and 85% for J&J). That is the big studies they did last year, I don’t know if these numbers have changed. And I think the other thing is that the vaccinated even if they do get the infection seems to have a vastly higher survival rate than those who don’t.

    BTW, “Jabby Dodgers” surely takes the prize…. Love it. Nice one @Nemesis.

  • llamas

    I’m very-pleased to see Dr John Campbell referenced here. I’ve been watching his podcasts for well-over a year, and I can’t say too much about the quality of his data and his analysis. His willingness to confront confusing and contradictory data, and to follow promising lines of inquiry, even when they deviate from the “official” line or his own conclusions, is very refreshing. Best COVID resource on the Intertubes, IMHO.

    @Fraser Orr – while I am very sorry to hear about the death of your friend, I have to observe that his death tells us precisely nothing about either relative or absolute risks – which is (or should be) the basis for deciding what to do in cases like this. In making your decision about whether or not to get vaccinated, I have to ask – what good reason do you have for doing so? It looks like the only clear benefit may he that, if you should become infected, the symptoms may be less-severe – but death rates for the vaccinated are now similar as for the unvaccinated in many populations, vaccination is not reducing the spread of the disease as it would/should be expected to do, and more and more evidence tends to suggest that the whole vaccination effort has had little or no impact on the course of the disease.

    Based on the data I’m seeing today, I think we may come to bitterly-regret the headlong rush to mass vaccination, which appears more-and-more to be prolonging the course of the disease. Coupled with the mixture of apathy and active resistance to therapeutic and palliative measures which Paul Marks has so eloquently described, we may look back on this and rue the day that we let politicians take over the response to what is, in the end, a fairly common-or-garden respiratory disease.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Shlomo Maistre

    I think we may come to bitterly-regret the headlong rush to mass vaccination, which appears more-and-more to be prolonging the course of the disease

    yes this is true for many many many different reasons. Here’s the latest from earlier today:

    According to the British Government:

    “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.”

    Source – page 23 of the following:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf

    Of course, this is just one more drop in the “reasons to never take the magic COVID-19 jab” bucket that has been overflowing for some months now from hundreds of such drops.

    Hat tip to Alex Berenson, a former NYT reporter whose Substack aptly named “Unreported Truths” has become one of the key avenues to obtain real information about what the fuck is actually happening.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    In my comment on October 21, 2021 at 10:33 pm I listed 9 links. Each and every one of those 9 links is crucially important.

    The sixth link that I listed is an excellent full length 1 hour 45 minute interview with Dr Peter McCullough conducted by author John Leake.

    I first learned of Dr Peter McCullough from a post on Samizdata on March 12, 2021 entitled “The most informative 20 minutes of your time that you really need to spend today”. That Samizdata post simply contained an embedded video of Dr McCullough’s testimony before the Texas State Senate. It was important testimony.

    The video of Dr Peter McCullough’s interview with author John Leake that I linked to is probably the most important video on COVID-19 I have ever seen… and I’ve watched more than a few dozen.

    But really, all 9 of the links I provided are so important. So important. And I hope that everyone who can spare a couple hours to briefly skim each one does so.

    “The ignorance of the oppressed is strength for the oppressor.”

  • Fraser Orr

    @Shlomo Maistre
    Some good places to start:

    Giving me ten thousand pages of data to sort through seems more like a smoke screen than an honest attempt to convince. But I’ll have a look at a few of the links.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Giving me ten thousand pages of data to sort through seems more like a smoke screen than an honest attempt to convince. But I’ll have a look at a few of the links.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to COVID-19, the lies are simple and the truths are complex.

    What you view as a smokescreen I view as the most rudimentary and elementary introduction to a subject that I could literally write books on.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Giving me ten thousand pages of data to sort through seems more like a smoke screen than an honest attempt to convince.

    An honest attempt to convince? Bro, if I were trying to convince you of something, you’d know it. I’m not trying to convince you because I don’t have that kind of time. I gave you some links and resources to learn for yourself. You are welcome.

  • bobby b

    Fraser Orr
    October 21, 2021 at 10:02 pm

    “I am not asking rhetorically, but simply because I am thinking about getting the vaccine, so I would like to know what I am getting into.”

    I’d get it.

    Don’t get it to keep from getting Covid, or to keep from spreading Covid. It doesn’t seem to do these things. Get it because it makes the illness less severe and less dangerous to you if you do get the virus. This it does do. Get it for this purely selfish reason, because this truly is the only valid reason to get it.

    I also get a very small, safe number when I take llama’s survey/test, but . . .

    I had Covid back at the beginning of this mess, before the panic started. Didn’t feel horrible, just felt totally exhausted for two weeks, slept probably 18-20 hours out of every 24 for that time. Some congestion, small fever, no other serious symptoms, but unable to function except to sleep and shower and then go back to sleep. For two weeks. Really kills productivity. (Tested pos back then.)

    Now I have it again, almost two years later. Strong vertigo – interesting experience! – the same fatigue, and a few other symptoms, and the doc says it’s Covid. Again.

    My point is, the odds don’t always work out. You can’t depend on them. The shots do show some value in lessening the seriousness for (at least) people like me – 60+, slightly overweight, no other co-morbs . . .

    I’m at an age where the dangers of future harm by the vax are a bit ameliorated by the fact that there’s more behind me than ahead. If I were twenty, I’d not go anywhere near the vax. But, too, the real Covid risks are higher at my age, and the real vax dangers are less important, so in balance, if I hadn’t had the virus, I’d get the vax.

    (But I’d be damned if I’d ever show anyone any proof that I’d done so. That’s just a bridge too far.)

  • APL

    bobby b: “Get it because it makes the illness less severe and less dangerous to you if you do get the virus. This it does do. Get it for this purely selfish reason, because this truly is the only valid reason to get it.”

    We started of with,

    “Get vaccinated, it will stop you catching COVID-19”: It doesn’t.
    Next it was, “As a result of getting vexxed you won’t give COVID-19 to any one else”: False.

    Two things everyone expects from a vaccine ( Even though this therapy is not a vaccine ).

    Both of those assertions are easily testable, and when tested both turn out to be untruths.

    Don’t forget how those who refused to adhere to the increasingly insane mask mandates, were told “You are socially irresponsible and are likely responsible for killing your best friend, spouse, grandma.”, But today, get vaccinated and it doesn’t matter that you are carrying a higher viral load and might be passing it on to your grandma. This year we don’t care.

    So here we are, with the least plausable, but most difficult to test:- when you’ve got COVID-19, you’ll feel a lot better with the vaccine ( it’s not a vaccine ) than you would if you hadn’t contracted COVID-19.

    It’s an almost untestable assertion. But suppose it were, there are no trials to assist us to apply some metric around, “you’ll feel better because you got Vexxed”.

    So, you’re just taking Anthony Faucci’s word.

    Why at this stage in the game anyone would take Anthony Faucci’s promise as worth anything, is beyond me.

  • APL

    “So here we are, with the least plausable, but most difficult to test:- when you’ve got COVID-19, you’ll feel a lot better with the vaccine ( it’s not a vaccine ) than you would if you hadn’t contracted COVID-19 hadn’t got vexxed.”

  • Shlomo Maistre

    APL,

    it’s not a vaccine

    Legally, the CDC changed the definition of the vaccine over the last few years. So, technically, the COVID-19 vaccine is a vaccine under the current definition. According to the 2014 definition of a vaccine, though, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) are certainly not vaccines.

    Definitions from CDC as of October 2021:
    Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
    Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.
    Source:
    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
    https://web.archive.org/web/20211017070308/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
    https://archive.md/x5hch

    Definitions from CDC as of 2014:
    Vaccine: A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.
    Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.
    Source:
    https://archive.md/lo5Ne
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140301002258/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

    The mRNA vaccines do not “produce immunity therefore protecting the body from disease”. The mRNA vaccines do “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases”. The former would not require boosters every 5/6 months. The latter requires boosters (or top-offs as I think they are called in the UK) every 5/6 months.

  • llamas

    I’m watching for the inflexion point in the US, when the PTB determine that the vaccine, on balance, is doing them more political harm than good – they don’t give a s**t about the public-health aspect, because COVID-19 is now 100% a political issue. I’ll know when it happens to a precision of minutes – it will be the moment when all of the legacy media, in unison, begin to refer to it as the ‘Trump vaccine’. I’m guessing, right now, that it will be before the end of this year.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Shlomo Maistre

    In reference to my last comment, there is an important distinction between “producing immunity” and “producing protection” (the latter of which is included in the 2021 definition of vaccination, though not in the 2021 definition of vaccine).

    Artificially boosting immune system for a few months by stimulating the body’s immune system (this is what the mRNA vaccines do): does produce protection from a specific disease, but does not produce immunity from a specific disease.

    In contrast, teaching the immune system how to fight a specific disease (this is what most vaccines except for the magic COVID-19 jab) is a way of “producing immunity”.

  • bobby b

    “It’s an almost untestable assertion.”

    I believe the ratio of “deaths” to “cases” goes down for the vaxxed.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    There are new strains of influenza every year. The reason we need a new vaccine each flu season is mainly because the new strain is unlike the one from previous year.

    The COVID-19 vaccines were designed and tested to “produce protection” against the original strain. That was zillions of mutations ago. Given that it is more transmissible than the flu, it mutates much faster.

    The original strain of COVID-19 has not even existed in the general population for many months now.

    Why would we need a different vaccine for different strains of influenza but not for different strains of COVID-19?

    Now, I have read various answers to this question. It’s a complicated matter. I’m not saying that there are no government-paid scientists providing what they claim are valid answers to this question. I’m saying that I have not been convinced that this question has been answered adequately.

    It is interesting that the Fake News Media was never even pretending to ask this question, let alone answer it.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    bobby b,

    I believe the ratio of “deaths” to “cases” goes down for the vaxxed.

    I’m ok that these vaccines were made available as quickly as they were, because I think that certain high-risk groups (over age of 70, or the immuno-compromised, or those with cardiovascular medical conditions) should be legally permitted to take the vaccine without a bureaucrat standing in their way.

    In the olden days, before the era of COVID-19, we used to run multi-year, large-scale, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled long term clinical trials over many years before introducing new vaccines or medicines into the general population (let alone healthy people under the age of 60 years old).

    There are many good reasons we used to do that. I do wonder how many of those good reasons you are able to name.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    I believe the ratio of “deaths” to “cases” goes down for the vaxxed.

    This is touted all the time. There are so fucking many problems with this.

    Two examples:
    1. PCR test. So many issues with it, I don’t even know where to begin. Any claims or conclusions based on the PCR test are suspect, to say the least.
    2. How is “vaccinated” defined? In many (most?) jurisdictions one is not legally vaccinated until two weeks after the second dose. So if person XYZ dies from COVID a week after the second dose or a day after the first dose, then he or she is legally classified as an “unvaccinated death”. Of course, a person’s immune system is particularly weak in the period of time starting from the first magic jab and ending 2 weeks after the second magic jab. So this is, indeeed, a convenient definition. There ought to be three groups: 1. those who have never taken one magic jab 2. those who are at least two weeks AFTER the second magic jab and 3. those in between. No studies have been done comparing deaths to cases among those three groups. I’d be interested to see the deaths/cases ratios when:
    A) the semi vaxxed are included with the vaxxed.
    B) And if the semi-vaxxed were excluded from both groups

  • bobby b

    “I do wonder how many of those good reasons you are able to name.”

    Someone above mentioned that “(a)rtificially boosting immune system for a few months by stimulating the body’s immune system (this is what the mRNA vaccines do): does produce protection from a specific disease, but does not produce immunity from a specific disease.”

    Seems to be almost exactly what I said earlier.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    bobby b,

    “I do wonder how many of those good reasons you are able to name.”

    Someone above mentioned that “(a)rtificially boosting immune system for a few months by stimulating the body’s immune system (this is what the mRNA vaccines do): does produce protection from a specific disease, but does not produce immunity from a specific disease.”

    Seems to be almost exactly what I said earlier.

    Yes I’m the one who said “(a)rtificially boosting immune system for a few months by stimulating the body’s immune system (this is what the mRNA vaccines do): does produce protection from a specific disease, but does not produce immunity from a specific disease.”

    What you said is “I believe the ratio of “deaths” to “cases” goes down for the vaxxed”. There are many plausible scenarios in which my statement is true and your statement is false.

  • APL

    bobby b: “I believe the ratio of “deaths” to “cases” goes down for the vaxxed.”

    OK, but that would assume the only variable is the vaccine status of the patient.

    In this insane world in which we find ourselves, where your vaccination status is being touted as a sufficient reason not to treat other unrelated condition, or in the case of a divorse judgment in New York, a sufficient reason to deny visiting right of the father, is it beyond the realms of possibility that an unvexxed COVID-19 sufferer, might get less effective treatment in hospital than his or her vexxed counterpart?

    It was known how to treat this condition back in April last year, everyone who died of COVID-19 since, were allowed/encouraged to die by those who are charged with their care or by their political masters.

    Successful treatment for COVID-19 was demonstrated in Toledo Spain with trivial ‘off the shelf’ medications. I’m not even thinking of Ivermectin. Although, Ivermectin appears to have stopped the ‘scandemic’ in its tracks where it was used in India.

    By the way ‘cases’ is bullshit anyway, the PCR tests are notorious for producing whatever desired result. And the ‘lateral flow’ test can be trivially spoofed.

  • Gingerdave

    Possibly important data. From the ONS. It doesn’t format very well here, so the source is here. It’s from 2nd January to 2nd July.

    Vaccination status Deaths involving COVID-19 Non-COVID-19 deaths COVID-19 deaths as percent of all deaths
    All deaths regardless of vaccination status 51,281 214,701 19.3
    Unvaccinated 38,964 65,170 37.4
    Deaths within 21 days of first dose 4,388 14,265 23.5
    Deaths 21 days or more after first dose 7,289 66,533 9.9
    Deaths within 21 days of second dose 182 11,470 1.6
    Deaths 21 days or more after second dose 458 57,263 0.8

    Of course, if you believe the numbers are made up, this isn’t useful.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Gingerdave,

    Thanks for providing that link to data. I do have some questions about it and I will do more research later.

    For now, I’d just point out some facts:
    1. The section of the report that the data you provided is from is prefaced with the following:

    “This report does not cover deaths “due to” vaccination

    2. The section of the report that the data you provided is from is prefaced with the following:

    The number of deaths where an adverse reaction to the vaccine was mentioned on the death certificate can be found in Table 12 of our Monthly Mortality Analysis dataset.

    3. The Glossary defines how “deaths involving COVID-19” is defined. The definition includes the following three statements.

    For this analysis we define a death as involving COVID-19 if either of the ICD-10 codes U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) or U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified) is mentioned on the death certificate.

    In contrast to the definition used in the weekly deaths release, deaths where the ICD-10 code U09.9 (post-COVID condition, where the acute COVID-19 had ended before the condition immediately causing death occurred) is mentioned on the death certificate and neither of the other two COVID-19 codes are mentioned are not included, as they are likely to be the result of an infection caught a long time previously, and therefore not linked to the vaccination status of the person at date of death.

    Deaths involving U10.9 (multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19) where U07.1 or U07.2 are mentioned are also excluded. This is a rare complication affecting children, and there are no such deaths in our dataset for the data released in Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 2 July 2021.

    4. Note 3 immediately below the table the data you provide is from:

    Deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) are defined as those with an underlying cause, or any mention of, ICD-10 codes U07.1 (COVID-19 virus identified) or U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified). Please note, this differs from the definition used in the majority of mortality outputs.

    5. An interesting nugget from the report:

    85.7% of the deaths involving COVID-19 of vaccinated people (10,556 deaths) and 84.5% of those for unvaccinated people (32,910 deaths) have at least one positive PCR test result.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Regarding the first part of #3 above:

    For this analysis we define a death as involving COVID-19 if either of the ICD-10 codes U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) or U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified) is mentioned on the death certificate.

    This is what U07.1 and U07.2 mean:

    U07.1
    COVID-19, virus identified
    Use this code when COVID-19 has been confirmed by laboratory testing irrespective of severity of clinical signs or symptoms. Use additional code, if desired, to identify pneumonia or other manifestations.

    U07.2
    COVID-19, virus not identified
    Use this code when COVID-19 is diagnosed clinically or epidemiologically but laboratory testing is inconclusive or not available. Use additional code, if desired, to identify pneumonia or other manifestations

    Source:
    https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/U07.1
    https://archive.md/yI3ip

    So the following are two examples of categories of deaths that would be included in “deaths involving COVID-19”:
    1. when someone tests positive for COVID-19 and displays no symptoms of it
    2. when someone tests negative for COVID-19 but is diagnosed by the doctor

    I wonder how many of each are included among the unvaccinated deaths and also the unvaccinated deaths. Would be helpful to know this information, right?

  • Gingerdave

    Deaths due to vaccination – if you follow the links it does provide this (table 12). 9 involved, 5 of these due to (England only).

    It would be interesting to see the numbers of “tested for” covid deaths and “diagnosed” covid deaths. I’d also like to see the number of deaths where the clinical diagnosis and the test are positive.

    In the olden days, before the era of COVID-19, we used to run multi-year, large-scale, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled long term clinical trials over many years before introducing new vaccines or medicines into the general population

    Pre-covid, a vaccine trial consisted of a lot of waiting. Wait for funding, ethical approval, to hire new staff, get new equipment, to recruit test subjects …

    Covid vaccines: everything was at the top of everyone’s list. So it was done first. Staff and equipment were retasked.
    Part of my work is in bioscience – when we got covid work to do in March 2020 we didn’t hire new people (6 months delay), we just retasked existing staff to the work (1 day).

    Another reason the trials were fast:
    You recruit 20,000 subjects, give half the vaccine and half the placebo.
    You wait for enough of them to get the disease so you have statistically significant results.
    You unblind the subject IDs and see how many are in each group.

    In a rare disease, it could take years for enough people to get the disease. In the middle of a global pandemic, it only takes a few months for enough people to catch the disease.

    Compare this with the polio vaccine trials. Started 25th April 1954, results announced 12th April 1955.

    Not taking their gene re-writing crap

    How does the vaccine re-write someone’s genes?

  • Gingerdave is propagandist. Totally covid-cultist. And yes, the numbers are increasingly being jumbled to suit whatever narrative is being pushed.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Sorry this is so long. I tried to quote only the important parts… but basically all the parts are important.

    Not one single thing mentioned in the letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from Israel’s Professional Ethics Front shocked me.

    The only genuinely surprising thing to me is how many Israeli doctors, lawyers, scientists, and researchers have risked their livelihoods and careers by stating the facts publicly. Brave and courageous. History will remember them, I hope.

    I wonder how many of the problems pointed out by Israel’s Professional Ethics Front also exist in the UK, thus invalidating the credibility of the data Gingerdave cited above. I have my suspicions, but I’d be a happier person if instead of suspicions I had faith like Gingerdave.

    https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/2/frontlinenews/breaking-israeli-physicians-scientists-advise-fda-of-severe-concerns-regarding-reliability-and-legality-of-official-israeli-covid-vaccine-data/

    An independent Israeli group of physicians, lawyers, scientists, and researchers called the Professional Ethics Front today advised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the upcoming FDA discussion on administering COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5-11, expressing “severe concerns” regarding the reliability and legality of official Israeli COVID vaccine data.

    From the letter from Israel’s Professional Ethics Front to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:

    We thus see it of utmost importance to convey a message of warning and raise our major concerns regarding potential flaws in the reliability of the Israeli data with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, as well as many significant legal and ethical violations that accompany the data collection processes.

    We believe that the significant failures underlying the Israeli database, which have been brought to our attention by numerous testimonies, impair its reliability and legality to such an extent that it should not be used for making any critical decisions regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.

    […]

    This document briefly outlines the main failures that lead to this unfortunate, albeit inevitable, conclusion. We emphasize that we can expand and clarify further, as well as provide references, in relation to each of the failures described below:

    1. Lack of a Public and Transparent Adverse Events Reporting System: The first prerequisite for granting a permit for use of any new medicinal preparation is the setup of adverse events (AEs) collection systems that would allow appropriate management of risks and generation of alarm signals. All the more so when it concerns a mass vaccination campaign of a first-in-human use of an experimental preparation to the citizens of an entire country, which serves as a global model. Despite the advanced technological systems available to the Israeli HMOs, and contrary to common standards in Western countries, there exists no proper and transparent AEs reporting system in Israel, such as the US VAERS system, that is accessible to the public, and thus no appropriate tracking of AEs occurring after the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.

    “Healthcare professionals or citizens in Israel, who wish to submit reports of AEs following vaccination, are unable to do so. As such, there is no possibility for either of these populations to also search through the data, rendering impossible the examination of the reported AEs by other citizens, physicians and independent researchers. Instead, there is only an online AEs reporting form available on the MOH’s website. This form, however, was for many months not useful, since it did not allow the inclusion of personal contact information. The free text field intended to describe the AEs comprised a limited number of characters and the symptoms list available to choose from was limited as well and included only mild AEs terms.

    “A petition to the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice has led the Ministry of Health (MOH) to implement the above-mentioned necessary improvements to the form. Unfortunately, the modification of the form was made very late, after the majority of the adult population had already been vaccinated. Furthermore, since the report is not publicized in a transparent manner, the MOH is the only recipient and thus the sole owner of the data and the decision-making authority on the utilization and distribution of it.

    “Moreover, no tracking and monitoring of even the most sensitive populations, such as pregnant women and the elderly, is taking place. For example, as part of the ‘National Senior Population Protection from the COVID-19 Program’ in Israel, a reporting system was activated in April 2020, which presented detailed reports almost daily on COVID-19 eruptions, on hospitalizations and on mortality in nursing homes. However, on December 29th, 2020, the very day the vaccination campaign commenced in nursing homes, the publication of these reports was abruptly discontinued, and has never been resumed since.

    “2. Severe Impairments in Healthcare Professionals’ Adverse Events Reporting System: We reveal that physicians and medical teams in Israel encounter great obstacles when attempting to report AEs following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination to the MOH. We have testimonies of physicians, who attest to the complexity of filling the AEs reports to the MOH, claiming that reporting is almost impractical in the incredibly stressful working conditions of medical teams in Israel during this period. As a result of these tremendous difficulties, there is an immense underreporting of AEs by healthcare professionals in Israel, and AEs are only rarely reported in exceptional cases. The physicians’ testimonies that we have obtained also show that reported AEs are not openly publicized, or made available to the healthcare professionals themselves.

    “Even more disturbing is the fact that the few reports, which the Israeli MOH does publicize about the AEs observed after receiving the Pfizer-BIONtech COVID-19 vaccine, are not consistent with the testimonies of physicians regarding severe adverse events (SAEs) that they themselves have reported to the MOH. Thus, for example, in a discussion before the Advisory Committee of the FDA on September 17th, 2021, the head of the Israeli Health Services, Dr. Alroy-Preis, claimed that only one case of myocarditis was observed after the 3rd vaccine dose out of three million people who received the 3rd vaccine dose in Israel. This claim does not reconcile with research findings from all over the world, including findings from Israel, that were published in the medical literature, according to which the rate of myocarditis observed after receiving the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine stands at 1:3,000-6,000. The claim of Dr. Alroy-Preis also stands in contrast to reports given by a handful of brave Israeli doctors about cases of myocarditis and other SAEs observed in close proximity to the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine.

    “One of these physicians, Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli, who was among the founders of the Israeli Outbreak Management Team, wrote on his Facebook page that he personally treated in his clinic a 17-year-old boy, who suffered from myocarditis several days after the 3rd vaccine dose, and he knows of two additional cases among the boy’s classmates. Dr. Yoav Yehezkelli added that he reported the myocarditis case that he treated (and additional SAEs cases) to the MOH through the online reporting system, as well as via personal reports to MOH officials, but his reports were quickly dismissed as having no link to the vaccine, without thorough examination of the cases. Dr. Yehezkelli also mentioned that he encountered other patients in his clinic, who were hospitalized after suffering from AEs in close proximity to receiving Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines, and the hospital supposedly failed to report said AEs to the MOH. We have affidavits from nine other physicians, who have also treated cases of myocarditis or know of such cases, but have abandoned their attempts at reporting to the MOH having tackled immense difficulty or, alternatively, reported to the MOH and did not get any response. It is statistically improbable that a small cohort of physicians should witness these many COVID-19 vaccine injuries if Dr. Alroy-Preis’s claim was accurate.

    “3. Data Distortion: Recently, two serious incidents in which data presented by the MOH was distorted have been revealed.

    “The first one was the deletion of thousands of citizens’ responses to a post by the MOH. In response to an MOH post that read ‘Let’s talk about the adverse events’, and claimed that the vaccine is completely safe and that SAEs are extremely rare, tens of thousands of responses from the public were posted, with many reporting AEs, including SAEs, which they suffered after the vaccine. But instead of examining the responses and addressing them, about half of them were deleted.

    “The second event occurred about two weeks ago. Based on MOH dashboard data, an analysis conducted by members of the Israeli Public Emergency Council for the Corona Crisis (PECC) demonstrated that the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 3rd vaccine dose effectiveness is much lower than that claimed in the New England journal of Medicine study presented by Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis to the FDA panel on September 17th, 2021. Within 24 hours of the release of the PECC analysis, the relevant dashboard data history was completely re-written. The PECC released screenshots of both the original and “rectified” data.

    “4. Legal and Ethical Violations in Data Collection Processes: Not only is the data coming from Israel regarding the safety and efficacy of the PfizerBioNtech COVID-19 vaccine apparently unreliable, but also the collection method is controversial, and claimed to be neither legal nor ethical. The Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccines are administered to the Israeli population without their informed consent, which is required by the GCP chapter of IHC-6 and carried out in other countries. This is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code Rules, the Patient’s Bill of Rights, and the Israeli MOH directives for clinical trials on humans. Moreover, the Israeli citizens are under tremendous pressure to get vaccinated, almost to the point of coercion.

    “Should the ‘Outbreak Management Team’ decide on a 3rd dose of the vaccine to the immunocompromised patients, it is not clear how many we can vaccinate, and it requires approval of the Helsinki committee (medical trial approval committee) and Pfizer’s approval. We are committed to Pfizer, to vaccinate only by the vaccination regimen established by them”. This is a statement made by Prof. Hezi Levi, former CEO of the Israeli MOH on July 5th, 2021. The evident conclusion is that the 3rd vaccine dose operation is an experiment requiring approval of the Helsinki Committee in charge of approving human medical experiments in Israel. Such an approval has never been issued. Moreover, the 3rd vaccine dose operation refers only to the immunocompromised population, and thus is even more unethical in healthy individuals, especially in young healthy individuals, shown to be at a higher risk for myocarditis.

    “We are deeply concerned with the failure of the Vaccine Safety Committee (VSC) to fulfill its designated role. The VSC is responsible in Israel for vaccine safety and the official arm designated to monitor and collect safety data. It has not issued a single position paper on its behalf or raised a single red flag to raise wareness/bring attention to SAE cases and has never gathered in full assembly. Additionally, one of the public representative, who is a pediatrician (allergist, immunologist), never knew that he was appointed and did not attend any of the meetings, even when they did take place.”

  • Shlomo Maistre

    The full definition of U07.2 is as follows:

    U07.2
    COVID-19, virus not identified
    Use this code when COVID-19 is diagnosed clinically or epidemiologically but laboratory testing is inconclusive or not available. Use additional code, if desired, to identify pneumonia or other manifestations

    Excl.:
    Coronavirus infection, unspecified site (B34.2)
    COVID-19:
    confirmed by laboratory testing (U07.1)
    special screening examination (Z11.5)
    suspected but ruled out by negative laboratory results (Z03.8)

    The logical deduction is that “excl.” means that any person tagged with B34.2, U07.1, Z11.5, or Z03.8 cannot be tagged with U07.2. I have searched for and found no evidence to the contrary of this logical deduction.

    Z11.5
    Special screening examination for other viral diseases

    Source for both quotes:
    https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/U07.1
    https://archive.md/yI3ip

    So if someone is screened (tested or examined) for a virus disease other than COVID-19, then regardless of the result of such screening that person is excluded from U07.2.

    Is this a fucking joke? Is Gingerdave going to claim that the decision to screen for a virus disease other than COVID-19 is not significantly related to a person’s vaccination status, whether intentionally or unintentionally? LOL.

    What would make his position even more incredulous is that he would have to argue that the decision to screen for a virus disease other than COVID-19 is not significantly related to a person’s vaccination status specifically among people who die.

    Anyway, the data presented in Gingerdave’s link have been produced by a series of protocols, processes, and definitions. That series of protocols, processes, and definitions are not transparent and what I have looked at is only the tiniest tip of an iceberg that is barely visible to the general public.

    There should be calls for transparency regarding the exact protocols, processes, and definitions used by coroners, medical examiners, hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, the WHO, medical boards, government agencies, the NHS, etc. Instead of hearing such calls for transparency and skepticism, I mostly hear rebukes of the pious against skeptics like me, such as:

    Of course, if you believe the numbers are made up, this isn’t useful.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Well, this is fun:

    Article explains how vaccine manufacturers have used relative risk reduction to determine that vaccine efficacy is ~90+%, however they should have used absolute risk reduction which would tell us that the vaccines will only reduce total Covid cases by ~1%:

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

    Addendum to the above information. This video from 2013 explains the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction in a very simple way:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K30MGvOs5s&ab_channel=TerryShaneyfelt

    Source (one of one of the nine essential links in my comment in this thread at October 21, 2021 at 10:33 pm):
    “COVINFO: Ten Problems with the Vaccine”
    https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/28729218/Covinfo1999.Ten_Problems_by_N3MC_1.1.pdf

    “The Lancet” is one of the most highly regarded scientific journals in the world, generally considered the second most prestigious after “Nature”.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Article explains how vaccine manufacturers have used relative risk reduction to determine that vaccine efficacy is ~90+%, however they should have used absolute risk reduction which would tell us that the vaccines will only reduce total Covid cases by ~1%:

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext

    Addendum to the above information. This video from 2013 explains the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction in a very simple way:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K30MGvOs5s&ab_channel=TerryShaneyfelt

    Source:
    https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/28729218/Covinfo1999.Ten_Problems_by_N3MC_1.1.pdf

  • APL

    “The Lancet” is was one of the most highly regarded scientific journals in the world, [ until recently ] generally considered the second most prestigious after “Nature”.

    Fixed that.

    After their ‘women are just bodies with vaginas‘ apology (non apology), following on from their recent prior retraction. The Lancet is just another ideological rag, pushing the latest leftist clap trap fad.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>