Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Options
1…389390392394395…419

Comments

  • Options
    #11732
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,084 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119999454#Comment_119999454

    the "hummm" was in response to the thinly veiled "VACCINES ARE KILLING PEOPLE" post that youre known for.

    what do you suggest the 1/3 of 13% of excess deaths are applicable to?

    are you one of these "Do Yer OWn reSeaRCh" types ???



    how about this for an answer?

    https://theconversation.com/thousands-more-australians-died-in-2022-than-expected-covid-was-behind-the-majority-of-them-196281


    Long COVID and interactions with other serious health conditions

    A previous COVID infection can cause later illness or death. We know COVID is associated with higher risk of death from heart disease, cancer and other causes.

    But a doctor tasked with completing a death certificate may not identify a link between the death and a COVID infection months earlier. Therefore, it seems likely some deaths were due to late COVID effects.


    Delayed deaths from other causes

    Deaths from respiratory disease in 2020 and 2021 were lower than expected. This is presumably due to public health measures like mask wearing. While those measures were in place, people caught fewer respiratory diseases. Some people may have died earlier had their systems been stressed by respiratory disease during this time. So, some of the reported non-COVID excess deaths may be due to the catch-up effect of those people succumbing to underlying illnesses.


    Delays in emergency care

    Around Australia, our health systems are under pressure, with staff absences due to COVID, ambulance ramping, and bed blocks in our acute hospitals.

    Unfortunately, there have been cases of people dying while waiting for an ambulance. It could be that people with conditions such as heart disease, cancer or diabetes may not be getting lifesaving emergency care due to these factors.


    Delays in routine care

    Over the pandemic period we have seen delays in people seeking routine health care or attending screening tests for breast and cervical cancer.

    There have also been delays in elective surgery. And people may have been avoiding health-care settings due to fear of catching COVID. These delays in routine care may have led to deaths that would have been prevented in previous years.


    Pandemic lifestyle changes

    There is evidence in Australia and the United Kingdom a higher proportion of people made less healthy lifestyle choices during lockdowns, such as drinking more alcohol and exercising less. Higher risks for childhood obesity were also noted. We could be starting to see the impact of these changes.


    Undiagnosed COVID

    It is almost certain some of the excess deaths are from unidentified COVID. Unfortunately in Australia, we have no firm data on the percentage of undiagnosed COVID cases, and even less on how that percentage might have changed over time.

    So, the good news is the ABS excess death estimate of 17% more deaths in the first eight months of this year is likely an over-estimate, with the true rate closer to 13%. Of this 13%, some 7% are deaths from COVID, 2% are deaths with COVID, and much of the remaining 4% is likely to still be COVID-related in some way.

    Last week, there were 219 COVID-related deaths reported. If the actuaries’ analysis is accurate, then the true number of COVID-related deaths last week was closer to 250 – a sobering thought as we approach the festive season.


    or maybe you think its the covid vaccine thats killed these people because of some paranoid ghoulish mental capacity you employ?


    so again.... you make it SO EASY to debunk any of your fantasy conspiracy thoughts




  • Options
    #11733
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119999454#Comment_119999454

    And there are countries with high vaccination rates not experiencing high excess deaths.

    Correlation isn't necessarily causation and this isn't even correlation.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #11734
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,084 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119999531#Comment_119999531

    Correlation isn't causation and this isn't even correlation

    you're holding CTer capacity to understand this at a much higher level that i do.

    in my opinion they simply do not understand what that sentence means, let alone grasp the concept.



  • Options
    #11735
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119999531#Comment_119999531

    Your American study cited as evidence that there are indicators death tolls from heatwaves have been previously underestimated is surely just showing correlation without proving causation?

    What do you see in that study that suggests causation?



  • Options
    #11736
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120000222#Comment_120000222

    I don't know what you see in the study to ask that question.

    These are its findings:

    "In summary, our results suggest that the number of heat-related deaths that occur each year in the United States is substantially larger than has been previously reported."

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #11737
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120000302#Comment_120000302

    I ask the question because their results suggest deaths have been underreported because of a correlation. Nowhere do they prove causation.

    I am wondering how you see it differently. You clearly believe there is causation in this instance and I am wondering why. Are you able to quote the part where they prove causation?



  • Options
    #11738
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120000331#Comment_120000331

    I don't see it "differently".

    These are the findings of the study.

    "In summary, our results suggest that the number of heat-related deaths that occur each year in the United States is substantially larger than has been previously reported. This finding highlights the continued importance of interventions to protect public health during hot weather, particularly in light of projected increases in temperature in future decades resulting from continued climate change."

    Nowhere have I expressed a view different to the above.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #11739
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120000367#Comment_120000367

    That's the second time you've quoted the findings. Or suggestions as they put it.

    No point in asking you again why you think this instance of correlation proves causation.

    Kind of ironic though given the reasons you cited the study in the first place.



  • Options
    #11740
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    More findings of correlation and causation. Whatever next?!

    We studied millions of adults and found that COVID vaccine hesitancy was associated with significant increased traffic risks.

    https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2822%2900822-1/fulltext




  • Options
    #11741
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Dr Kerryn Phelps is a former Australian MP, former City of Sydney councillor, former Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney and a past president of the Australian Medical Association, so i think it is fair to assume she is neither a grifter or a conspiracy theorist.

    She recently made a submission to the Australian Parliament Long Covid enquiry claiming both she and her wife suffered a vaccine injury.

    Of greater note was her highlighting the censorship that the Australian medical profession has faced:

    She revealed she had spoken with other doctors “who have themselves experienced a serious and persistent adverse event” but that “vaccine injury is a subject that few in the medical profession have wanted to talk about”.


    “Regulators of the medical profession have censored public discussion about adverse events following immunisation, with threats to doctors not to make any public statements about anything that ‘might undermine the government’s vaccine rollout’ or risk suspension or loss of their registration,” she said.

    One of the most common arguments in favour of vaccinating every man, woman and child irrespective of individual risk profile is that the consensus is the vaccines are "safe and effective". No doubt censorship of any other view helps bolster that consensus.

    https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/dr-kerryn-phelps-reveals-devastating-covid-vaccine-injury-says-doctors-have-been-censored/news-story/0c1fa02818c99a5ff65f5bf852a382cf




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #11742
    CruelSummer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,237 ✭✭✭CruelSummer


    Interesting anecdotally the amount of people that took the new booster and ended up with Covid shortly after.

    The failure to report, investigate or acknowledge vaccine injuries will destroy the trust in this vaccine and future vaccines. The authorities and pharmaceuticals have shot themselves in the foot not showing due diligence investigating the many many side effects reported. Thus a vacuum is now left for all sorts of wild accusations to be made.

    I’m concerned at the lack of investigation of side effects - does this mean Governments and organisations will attempt the same Covid passport blueprint in the future with little concern for side effects? I really hope not.



  • Options
    #11743
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120019624#Comment_120019624

    Well said, and it is amazing how few of the vaccine fanatics realise how much harm to vaccine confidence their fanaticism is doing.

    Initially I think the reluctance to acknowledge that there might be any issues whatsoever with the vaccines was simply due to a well intentioned concern about vaccine hesitancy.

    At this stage though it is a total farce, and the longer the blinkered "safe and effective" mantra is trotted out repeatedly the more damage is being done not only to confidence in the covid vaccines but all healthcare in general.



  • Options
    #11744
    flexcon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭flexcon


    I saw a great one on twitter the past few days that's flowing around. Relates to the US

    "52% of all deaths from covid are from the vaccinated"

    It's like the hospital admissions all over again.

    So US having near 81% vaccination rates, does that not mean 19% of the US population is taking up 48% of the deaths due to covid? And 81% are taking up 52%? meaning near 3 times more likely to die of covid unvaccinated than vaccinated? (Gotta love back of hand math)



  • Options
    #11745
    patnor1011
    Registered Users Posts: 2,964 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020692#Comment_120020692

    That is all fine and math checks. Until you start digging deeper and find that when they talk about number of vaccinated they count everyone who got even single dose and then when reporting deaths only people with second booster already in for some time are counted as vaccinated. Then your math is completely different.



  • Options
    #11746
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    A recently releases study puts the effectiveness of vaccines now at only 30% and also states that the effectiveness declines the more jabs you have.

    Really time to call a halt to the whole charade.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf

    "This study found that the current bivalent vaccines were about 30% effective overall in protecting

    against infection with SARS-CoV-2, when the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 lineages were the predominant

    circulating strains. The magnitude of protection afforded by bivalent vaccination was similar to that

    estimated in a recent study using data from the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) national

    SARS-CoV-2 testing program [16].


    The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher

    numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected."



  • Options
    #11747
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025097#Comment_120025097

    This is a misrepresentation of the study. Nowhere does the study say it is "almost useless". It talks of "modest protection" - against infection.

    But the real elephant in the room is that you continue to make unqualified statements about the vaccine's effectiveness - but excluding any reference to its effectiveness versus severe covid and hospitalisation. This is misinformation.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #11748
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    "Modest protection" but we were told that they were "safe and effective" is that not the case anymore?



  • Options
    #11749
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025536#Comment_120025536

    How about responding to my previous points?

    You continually ignore any reference to protection against severe covid in your posts about vaccine effectiveness, deliberately omit in fact. This is a crucial aspect of their effectiveness.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #11750
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    All

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025097#Comment_120025097

    It confirms what rela world data has been suggesting for a while, as well as many other studies which have glossed over/ignored some inconvenient findings. This one tells it like it is:

    The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19.

    So we have a vaccine which provides such modest protection against infection that wanes so quickly regular boosters are required.

    The problem is the more vaccines shots you get the higher your risk of contracting the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent.

    Yet this is considered to be "safe and effective".

    And those who consider it safe and effective are on the right side of intelligence, reason and logic?!

    It's like a Monty Python sketch.



  • Options
    #11751
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120027264#Comment_120027264

    Boosters are given to health care workers and those most likely to have other medical issues... so more likely to have be tested. At risk groups.

    You have entirely failed to show that such factors were controlled for.

    The people who got boosters are not a random group.

    You are making a statement of fact re causation without foundation.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #11752
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120027282#Comment_120027282

    The study is making a statement of their findings.

    They found the more shots you receive the higher your risk of COVID.

    I am simply commenting on their findings.



  • Options
    #11753
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120025567#Comment_120025567

    I have to ask you , just how much faith do you have in the claims that the vaccines have significantly reduced severe illness, bear in mind the fact that by the time the vaccines were released, the virus had undergone several mutations and was far less pathogenic than the original Wuhan strain. That implies that simply doing nothing would have achieved a similar outcome.



  • Options
    #11754
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120027324#Comment_120027324

    Its not a matter of 'faith'.

    It is based on the available evidence which demonstrates this.

    Vaccines were released starting early 2021.

    The evidence includes the proportionate risk of severe covid subsequent to vaccine rollout comparing ICU and hospitalization risks for vaccinated v unvaccinated. That data, cited numerous times on this thread, demonstrably refutes your implication.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #11755
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,288 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120027306#Comment_120027306

    Important to point out its a pre-print study.

    They found an 'association' that the group of people who had the most shots had the highest risk.

    But the difference in risk based on this factor is slight as far as I can determine. And such a slight difference could be due to confounding factors.

    The key questions is whether they have successfully controlled for a priori risk or testing behaviour or failed to consider a confounding factor. For example the study was not actively testing participants but relied on self reporting. It does not appear to distinguish between symptomatic v asymptomatic infection. Is there possibililty that people with more doses are also testing more.

    Because what the data is based on is people who reported a positive test.

    Which is where peer review comes in.

    And if the study does stand up to review, and confirmed by other studies - then the findings need to be balanced out by the relevant authorities versus the 30 percent effectiveness 'boost' from the extra dose and considreration of how the booster affects severe covid protection.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #11756
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120027497#Comment_120027497

    Ah yes, the infallibility of peer review.

    The process of peer review has been described as "unjust", "usually ignorant" and "frequently wrong" by no less than the editor of the eminent British journal The Lancet.

    Writing in this week's Medical Journal of Australia, Richard Horton said that editors and scientists alike portrayed peer review as a "quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller".

    "But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong," he writes.

    And this was long before COVID and Science 2.0!

    https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/02/23/102612.htm




  • Options
    #11757
    CruelSummer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,237 ✭✭✭CruelSummer


    Imagine taking advantage of flu season and pushing the booster on healthy adults, knowing the bad side affects its causes. And worse still, babies?! Under severely compromised trial ‘data’ and zero evidence of anyone in either group needing those shots.



  • Options
    #11758
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,483 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120044362#Comment_120044362

    No one is pushing anything. People have the choice.

    Also, you nor any other conspiracy theorist has even attempted to show how dangerous the vaccine is compared to getting the virus itself. All ye guys point to Individual deaths that usually have nothing to do with the vaccine.



  • Options
    #11759
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120044402#Comment_120044402

    I posted a link to a coroner's report up thread that stated categoricity that the vaccination was the cause of death.



  • Options
    #11760
    Spiderman0081
    Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Spiderman0081


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120044362#Comment_120044362

    And at the very same time as these recommendations, one of the biggest advocates for mass vaccination is now asking for a halt to that he so enthusiastically encouraged for so long.

    I never figured Dr. John Campbell for a conspiracy theorist, but there you go.

    https://rumble.com/v22ugd2-time-to-pause-covid-mass-vaccination.html



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #11761
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,483 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120044532#Comment_120044532

    Well done. You did exactly as I said. One individual case.



Advertisement