Scotland folded; UKHSA next?
"The vaccine ...is so safe and effective, that it does not need no stinking reporting." Hallelujah!
I don't repeat what I wrote here: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/public-health-scotland-discontinues/comment/5117601?r=q9aex
But I stress it again: these aren't vaccines. These are weapons of mass infection and bioterrorist tools. What happens in Romania, which is a veritable "control group" inside EU, fully proves it.
Instead of analyzing data regarding vaccine efficacy, or why boosted individuals are getting reinfections, this article is celebrating a teen going against his parents' decision and getting vaccinated in another city. Do you think the author will acknowledge him if he ends up with myocarditis? https://khn.org/news/article/teen-traveled-to-philly-to-get-vaccinated-against-his-parents-wishes/
Have you considered that the two shot numbers are so poor because those that get boosters and then get sick in the 14 day period after the booster end up in the two shot category versus the booster one? This would have the effect of hurting the two shot data and helping the boosted data.
I assume the "per 100,000" stats are total population? In a group that is predominantly vaxed, an ineffective vax should show proportionally higher probability of infection among the vaxed group. If 80% are vaxed and 10 get sick, 8 per 100,000 would indicate ineffective vax. Less than 8 would show there's some protection, more than 8 would be negative effectiveness. Seems like we should normalize case stats to account for the different relevant population sizes.
My concern with case counts is most are asymptomatic, or mild symptoms, therefore irrelevant in any practical sense. Only a small fraction of any population gets seriously ill from covid. Similarly, only a small fraction of vaxed people get significant vax injuries. Analysis should focus on relative risk of vax versus virus. And virus risk should focus on why a few are vulnerable while most aren't.
In a rational world, those who don't need the vax wouldn't take it. Those with vulnerabilities to covid that can't be treated successfully should decide based on analysis of those unique risks, not one size fits all. The vax is a reasonable risk for those who need it.
We need evidence of the crime of demanding the vast majority who don't need protection are coerced to assume the additional risk of the flawed vax.
The biggest crime is the prohibition of treatments. That alone accounts for almost all of the death count. That prohibition was a necessary facade to legalize the emergency vax authorizations. Vax injuries are a minor addition to that gruesome count.
Gosh Igor, when are you going to stop "fuel[ling] global vaccine myths"? :)
The surprising thing to me is that UK and handful of other generally quite provax governments have been publishing accurate data at all. I suppose we in the U.S. are leaders in public health corruption, so our data has sucked from the getgo. Our officials knew better than to ever publicize (or maybe even collect) data that could potentially reflect badly on their policies (which they are fully aware are based on agenda more than science). Other countries' officials perhaps naively figured the data would undoubtedly make the vaccines look good?
Sure they will. That's how they operate Deception and truth hidden in plain sight - in their own documents.
Pfizer Documents Show FDA Knew of Death Risk
mRNA "Vaccines" Are Gene Therapy. May cause Undesirable Side Effects That Could Delay Or Prevent Their Regulatory Approval According To BioNTech SEC Filing https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-are-gene-therapy-may
They are not even hiding that the entire pandemic was fake:
According To The BC Government Records Hospitalizations and ICU admissions in BC During the Covid-19 Pandemic Did Not Increase Compared to the Previous Years
A Pandemic of Deceit
Well, since authorities have decided to lie through their as-of-yet inkicked teeth we're left with the old stand-bys of anecdotes and word of mouth. (I mean clerks and other functionaires inside agencies, not politicans - as professionals the former tended to reject the politicans' reflexive lying.)
Spoke to an oncologist today, off the record. He's unvaccinated and will stay so, due to him keeping a close eye on side-effects, waning protection and possible weaking of the immune system.
Me, I'm no doctor. I'm not a natural scienctific anything - my forte is the fuzzy subjects. So who am I going to trust? A professional giving his view on the matter in private, or a governement bureaucrat with far less education than myself and no medical training what so ever?
It should be, trained professionals put the data together with the aid of stat-heads, and let the bureaucrat handle the communication side of things. I mean, how a virus or an injection of artificial mRNA works isn't a political question. Even if a minister in charge of national health was briefed by a top level scientist of the appropriate kind, how is that minister to judge the information?
It's all so depressingly stupid.
'Whilst the booster still provides “death protection”
I find this highly unlikely given that the Pfizer 6 month trial data showed 50% higher all cause mortality than placebo along with 5x risk of heart attack death in vaccine over placebo.
They had to kill the phase 3 trial after six months in order to hide how bad things were getting and how much worse they would be if things were allowed to run for the full three years.
Nature admits reinfections are soaring: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00438-3
They've gone back to greying out the numbers, so one step there!
Without the non covid death data we really only get part of the story . What if we took all categories ( hospital , icu, death) and had covid positive and non covid ? Then we might be able to observe if the vaccinated are dying and being hospitalized more with non covid illness as well . This is the missing contextual data
Sad but its too late for those who volunteered.
This is the way information is going to be hidden from the world, now.
I can't read the article linked below as it is behind a firewall but I think the plan is to scrap the ONS data and I believe that is the UKHSA data you are referring to?
If the flu data was published each year based on how many people get flu and how many end up in hospital etc showing vaccinated/unvaccinated I doubt people would bother to go get a flu jab either. Waning immunity has been known about for years with decreased effectiveness YOY. What is more I have read that even with updating the vaccine for the latest flu strain at best it is 40% 'effective' this then falls to zero within 3 months so by the time most people are exposed to the virus they have no protection . I read that the vaccine didn't even match this years strain but everyone was still told to have it, I guess because what else would the vaccine manufacturers do with it!? So yes of course, as it becomes apparent just how ineffective the vaccines are, what can governments do other than hide the data as they have already have a lot of boosters on order! The last thing governments want is data showing people just how ineffective vaccines are, after all how else will they control the population and covid or any other pandemic in the future, without vaccine passports etc.. This is what surprises me about India /Africa/ South America, I am surprised the vaccine companies weren't right in there to make sure there weren't any stats coming out of unvaccinated countries that would lead to people Q the effectiveness of all these mRNA vaccines. Gates et al are on a roll. Gates wanted vaccine passports for all EU travel long before covid and got the WHO on board and as has been seen they will go to ANY lengths to hide just how ineffective and damaging vaccines are. I read back last year that the covid vaccine had done more damage to public confidence in vaccine than 25 years of anti vax. The UK JCVI said last year that they were worried that public confidence in all vaccines would be damaged by the c19 vaccine. :