Omicron now

[Robbie Barrett]

I already gave out the stats to Terrance you must have seen them. Looking at the link you posted I would have to point out that in Canada 87 percent of the eligible pop. is vaccinated and 83% are fully vaccinated. The unvaccinated 13% generating that number of ICU patients is shocking.
Here is one of the Links I posted previously.

Taken from this article.



If judged by the raw data (left), the gap between the numbers of unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients in Ontario ICUs seems to be narrowing. But when the size of the province's fully vaccinated population – now more than four times the size of the unvaccinated population – is taken into account, along with the fact that the unvaccinated population skews young, it's clear that the occupancy rate of unvaccinated people in ICUs is almost 15 times higher than that of fully vaccinated people.

Anyone with basic math skills understands what you're saying. The 17% that aren't fully vaccinated are more than 50% of the icu patients in their cherry picked data, that still shows vaccines clearly work. In the vast majority of other parts of the world the unvaxxed disproportionally getting sick is even greater.

[Madison Boxing]

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits. Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects. Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy

guess what happened after they published their findings, the study got 'retracted'

[Robbie Barrett]

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits. Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects. Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy

guess what happened after they published their findings, the study got 'retracted'

Cool story bro.

"To draw their conclusions the authors used data from the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center (Lareb) to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects in every 100 000 vaccinations. The retraction statement said that data from Lareb were “presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate.”

As with the UK’s Yellow Card reporting system, anyone can report su****ions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. A reported adverse event does not imply causality. The journal also highlighted several other inaccuracies, including that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists."




The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy [], cited above.
Serious concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding misinterpretation of data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.
The article was evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief with the support of several Editorial Board Members. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the findings.
These include, but are not limited to:
The data from the Lareb report () in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report su****ions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree.

[Madison Boxing]

Cool story bro.

"To draw their conclusions the authors used data from the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center (Lareb) to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects in every 100 000 vaccinations. The retraction statement said that data from Lareb were “presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate.”

As with the UK’s Yellow Card reporting system, anyone can report su****ions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. A reported adverse event does not imply causality. The journal also highlighted several other inaccuracies, including that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists."

its bull****, they pick apart any study that doesnt say the jab is the most amazing thing thats ever existed.

[Robbie Barrett]

its bull****, they pick apart any study that doesnt say the jab is the most amazing thing thats ever existed.

I agree and so did they, that study is BS, using unconfirmed/inaccurate data. Thanks.

Lets also look at the history of the guy doing the "study"

"Walach has advocated for revision of the concept of , promoting holistic and homeopathic alternatives in his publications.

Starting in 2001, along with theoretical physicists and Harald Atmanspacher, Walach developed a model of "weak quantum theory" or "generalised entanglement" that attempted to explain anomalous phenomena, such as non-specific therapy effects and . This was not taken seriously by other physicists, and referenced mainly in the fields of homeopathic medicine and consciousness studies.

In 2012, Walach received the negative prize "" from Austrian skeptics, an annual award for the "most astonishing pseudo-scientific nuisance" of the year. The prize was awarded in part for a masters thesis about the conducted under his supervision, which was widely regarded as unscientific.

Walach is on the scientific advisory board of a blog called "CAM-Media Watch", which is run by the alternative medicine company . The blog describes itself as a "spin doctor" for promoting Complementary and Alternative Medicine ("CAM"). In 2012, it was reported that the blog had been paid to smear , a scientist critical of homeopathy.^"

The "professionals" the anti vaxxers use always have a history of being conspiracy theorists or anti science wackos. Why is that?

[Madison Boxing]

I agree and so did they, that study is BS, using unconfirmed/inaccurate data. Thanks.

Lets also look at the history of the guy doing the "study"

"Walach has advocated for revision of the concept of , promoting holistic and homeopathic alternatives in his publications.

Starting in 2001, along with theoretical physicists and Harald Atmanspacher, Walach developed a model of "weak quantum theory" or "generalised entanglement" that attempted to explain anomalous phenomena, such as non-specific therapy effects and . This was not taken seriously by other physicists, and referenced mainly in the fields of homeopathic medicine and consciousness studies.

In 2012, Walach received the negative prize "" from Austrian skeptics, an annual award for the "most astonishing pseudo-scientific nuisance" of the year. The prize was awarded in part for a masters thesis about the conducted under his supervision, which was widely regarded as unscientific.

Walach is on the scientific advisory board of a blog called "CAM-Media Watch", which is run by the alternative medicine company . The blog describes itself as a "spin doctor" for promoting Complementary and Alternative Medicine ("CAM"). In 2012, it was reported that the blog had been paid to smear , a scientist critical of homeopathy.^"

The "professionals" the anti vaxxers use always have a history of being conspiracy theorists or anti science wackos. Why is that?

barrett you have no idea what you are talking about. do you know how much money these pharma companies, have? how much they put into developing these jabs? i was reading up on moderna, they gambled everything on their jab and put all their resources into it. do u really think they are going to just let some scientists tell them that their jab isnt needed, billions of money, years of effort for nothing. of course not, they are going to go through their studies with a fine tooth comb, nit pick, dish up some dirt on those who criticise the jab. anyone who doesnt support jabs, artificial solutions for everything, medicines for things you dont need is 'anti scientific'. if you read the study it was a damn good one. its a trillion dollar industry with people inserted at the highest levels of government, they can do what they want. they did the same thing with hydroxy, looking good, early studies showing it worked, lots of patients swearing by it then they discredited it so people have to have the jabs. it would have been a ****ing disaster for them if there was something cheap that already existed that worked

[Robbie Barrett]

barrett you have no idea what you are talking about. do you know how much money these pharma companies, have? how much they put into developing these jabs? i was reading up on moderna, they gambled everything on their jab and put all their resources into it. do u really think they are going to just let some scientists tell them that their jab isnt needed, billions of money, years of effort for nothing. of course not, they are going to go through their studies with a fine tooth comb, nit pick, dish up some dirt on those who criticise the jab. anyone who doesnt support jabs, artificial solutions for everything, medicines for things you dont need is 'anti scientific'. if you read the study it was a damn good one. its a trillion dollar industry with people inserted at the highest levels of government, they can do what they want.

Cool conspiracy theory bro. But where's your proof? You creating a story doesn't make it true. Now lets move back to actual facts shall we?

[Madison Boxing]

Cool conspiracy theory bro. But where's your proof? You creating a story doesn't make it true. Now lets move back to actual facts shall we?

you know what, you are a lost cause. done with talking about this ****, take all the boosters you want, antivirals and keep thinking that big pharma are trying to keep you nice and safe, im done, i will get through this thing just fine without your expert medical knowledge

[PACnPBFsuck]

Why isn't this a main talking point for the media? 75% of deaths in people with 4 or more health issues.

75% with 4 comorbidity

94% with 1 morbidity

[TonyGe]

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits. Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects. Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy

guess what happened after they published their findings, the study got 'retracted'

It got retracted because its clearly false. As far as I know they do not use the AstraZeneca vaccine in the US and Canada because of the rare possibility of side effects. Numerous countries around the world also don't use it. The side effects are extremely rare but you would have us believe that they would allow the use of vaccines with much higher rates of dangerous side effects. No...