COVID-19 Vaccines Unsafe For Use In Humans

expos4ever · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Nearly a third of recent ‘Covid deaths’ were not caused by Covid
Covid-19 was not the underlying cause of nearly 30 per cent of officially recorded Covid deaths over the summer.

Another poster beat me to it.

Your headline, of course, misrepresents the truth.

This headline tries to trick the reader by ignoring an important distinction that the article makes - the difference between Covid being identified as the "underlying cause of death" and that of Covid being "a significant condition contributing to death but not the underlying cause".

In short, as Gene has mentioned, mentioning Covid on death certificate does not imply that a claim is being made that the death is caused by Covid. Since this is the case, it is to be expected that a significant number of death certificates will list covid, but as not the underlying cause.

So, naturally enough, this headline is engineered to deceive.

JustSomeBloke · Jun 22, 2021

Gene2memE said:
Those aren't COVID deaths though. Do you not understand your own reference article?

Mentioning COVID-19 on the death certificate is not the same as attributing a death to COVID-19 (the "underlying cause") when it wasn't.

This is just basic reading comprehension at this point. Sheesh!

Why are you saying that? From the article:

Nevertheless, these deaths still feature on official government tallies of the Covid death toll.

How is that not a serious error in covid deaths reporting?

sesquiterpene said:
This might resemble comedy gold, but instead it's just incredibly obnoxious. After all, it's you that has been repeating antivaxx falsehoods without any apparent understanding of vaccines, viruses, or even basic mathematics. And it's been @expos4ever who has exposed some of these falsehoods, in particular your insinuation that ~1400 people have been killed by vaccines in the UK. Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate your expertise by explaining why the data reported in VAERS and the yellow card systems don't mean that the events that were actually caused by vaccines.

We don't know for sure. I think the vaccinations should be paused, while the death toll and adverse effects on Yellow Card and VAERS are properly investigated. Once that is done, the risk/benefit ratio can be evaluated for each age group. Just ploughing on regardless seems like madness to me, totally ideological, and not at all science-based.

JustSomeBloke · Jun 22, 2021

expos4ever said:
Another poster beat me to it.

Your headline, of course, misrepresents the truth.

This headline tries to trick the reader by ignoring an important distinction that the article makes - the difference between Covid being identified as the "underlying cause of death" and that of Covid being "a significant condition contributing to death but not the underlying cause".

In short, as Gene has mentioned, mentioning Covid on death certificate does not imply that a claim is being made that the death is caused by Covid. Since this is the case, it is to be expected that a significant number of death certificates will list covid, but as not the underlying cause.

So, naturally enough, this headline is engineered to deceive.

What part of these statements do you not understand?

1. Covid-19 was not the underlying cause of nearly 30 per cent of officially recorded Covid deaths over the summer.

2. Nevertheless, these deaths still feature on official government tallies of the Covid death toll.

expos4ever · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
What have you been doing for the last 18 months?

One thing I have not being doing is posting misrepresentation after misrepresentation. In this area, I acknowledge that you clearly have me beat.

JustSomeBloke said:
Clearly you haven't been reading very widely on the topic of covid,

You know its funny. I, and others, call you on the misleading information you post.

And we are the ones with the problem?

JustSomeBloke said:
Your failure to read widely, and investigate what any of the counter arguments are, is causing you to get into a terrible mess.

If by "reading widely", you mean reading unreliable sources, I again acknowledge that, yes, you read unreliable sources much more than I do.

expos4ever · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
What part of these statements do you not understand?

1. Covid-19 was not the underlying cause of nearly 30 per cent of officially recorded Covid deaths over the summer.

I understand that this statement is a misrepresentation as I have already explained. If you actually read the article you cite, it is clear that such a statement is not what the article is claiming.

JustSomeBloke · Jun 22, 2021

expos4ever said:
I understand that this statement is a misrepresentation as I have already explained. If you actually read the article you cite, it is clear that such a statement is not what the article is claiming.

Hmmmm. You are selectively quoting my post now, to exclude the second statement. And for the record, the second statement was:

JustSomeBloke said:
2. Nevertheless, these deaths still feature on official government tallies of the Covid death toll.

expos4ever · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
What part of these statements do you not understand?

1. Covid-19 was not the underlying cause of nearly 30 per cent of officially recorded Covid deaths over the summer.

Here is truthful headline in terms of what the article is actually saying:

Covid-19 was not the underlying cause of nearly 30 per cent of officially recorded deaths over the summer where Covid appeared on the death certificate, either as underlying cause or as contributing factor.

Your version blurs this critical distinction and dupes the naive reader into thinking there has been overcounting. More specifically, the phrase "recorded Covid deaths" (in the actual headline) tricks you into thinking these must be deaths where covid was deemed the underlying cause. And if you think that, of course, you will think there is overcounting.

You are being played like a fiddle. And in this case, you are not to blame - the headline is very deceptive.

expos4ever · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Hmmmm. You are selectively quoting my post now, to exclude the second statement. And for the record, the second statement was:

Doesn't matter. Once it has been shown that the headline is effectively a falsehood, the second quote becomes irrelevant.

I strongly suggest you read the article carefully.

JustSomeBloke · Jun 22, 2021

expos4ever said:
Doesn't matter. Once it has been shown that the headline is effectively a falsehood, the second quote becomes irrelevant.

I strongly suggest you read the article carefully.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true, although I understand that method was favoured by Joseph Goebbels.

If you can't understand something in the article as basic as this:

JustSomeBloke said:
Nevertheless, these deaths still feature on official government tallies of the Covid death toll.

then there is no point continuing, because you are clearly either incapable of understanding basic statements, or in complete denial.

You are also ignoring the fact that the same article says that this wasn't the first occasion when the UK government was caught committing serious errors in covid reporting:

Back in August, over 5,000 deaths had to be removed from the official total – well over one in 10. This was because, under Public Health England’s original definition of a Covid-19 death, anyone who tested positive for the virus who later died was counted as a Covid death. In theory, this would therefore include someone who tested positive but was later hit by a bus.

All of these incidents only point in one direction, and that direction is serious covid reporting errors by the UK government and its agencies.

expos4ever · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true, although I understand that method was favoured by Joseph Goebbels.

Here is the link to the actual article and not from the distorting headline:

Death certificate data: COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Now then: Where, in this article (it is the article your own source purportedly drew on), is there anything to suggest that there has been any over-counting of deaths due to Covid that suggest intentionality of any kind?

In particular, where does this article saying anything like this:

Nevertheless, these deaths still feature on official government tallies of the Covid death toll.

expos4ever · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
This was because, under Public Health England’s original definition of a Covid-19 death, anyone who tested positive for the virus who later died was counted as a Covid death. In theory, this would therefore include someone who tested positive but was later hit by a bus.

All of these incidents only point in one direction, and that direction is serious covid reporting errors by the UK government and its agencies.

There is, methinks, something very subtle going on here. While I disagree with JustSomeBloke, I will say that I understand why he thinks something fishy is going on here even though I suspect there isn't.

Let me assume that, yes, the government did count anyone who tested positive for Covid, and then died within X days of testing positive, even if hit by a bus, as a Covid death.

And although it may seem counterintuitive, I believe this approach may indeed be "fair" in the sense that it may be the best practical way to fairly tally Covid deaths.

Obviously, it is not correct to count someone (who tested positive) and was then flattened by a bus as a Covid death. But, and this is the crucial point, this "over-count" of the guy flattened by the bus will be offset by the fact that the counting mechanism will not count someone who factually died of Covid but who never was tested, or died after X days have elapsed since they tested positive.

See what I mean? I am no doctor, but I bet that even in normal times, it may be difficult to assign a single cause of death in some cases. And with the crush of deaths during the pandemic, I bet that made it even more difficult. In short, a pragmatic (i.e. very fast) approach to determine what counts as a covid death was likely needed - an approach that does not require a detailed investigation that no one has the time to do.

So maybe simply counting any death of a covid + patient within X days of testing positive is the best compromise - the idea being that over-counting (i.e. of the guy flattened by the bus) will, on average, be offset by true Covid deaths that are not counted as such, especially due to (a) somebody factually dying of Covid without testing positive; and (b) somebody factually dying of Covid after X days have elapsed since testing positive.

This is why it is misleading to talk about the guy being flattened by the bus - yes, this is an over-count.
But, of course, there will be under-counts as well.

Gene2memE · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Why are you saying that? From the article:

Nevertheless, these deaths still feature on official government tallies of the Covid death toll.

How is that not a serious error in covid deaths reporting?

It's not a serious error in COVID-19 death reporting from the UK Health Service. It's a serious error in understanding from the journalist at the Telegraph*. If you ignore the journalist, and read the actual research, then you can comprehend the error.

To quote the actual research:

"This allowed us to address the question of whether COVID-19 is the underlying cause of death when it appears on the death certificate.

What did we find

While we found that roughly one in thirteen (7.8%) deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate did not have the disease as the underlying cause of death, this proportion has risen substantially to 29% (nearly a third) for the last eight weeks of reporting."

And further on:

"While death certification is rightly regarded as a gold standard for the ascertainment of cause of death, it is important to be able to distinguish between deaths where COVID-19 was a contributory cause from those where COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death. It appears that, over the course of the epidemic, a change to the respective composition of deaths in this regard has taken place.

The distinction between the underlying cause of death and any other mention on the death certificate will be increasingly important as we enter the autumn and winter months, where increases in respiratory illness are observed annually."

In other words, they found that the number of death certificates that mentioned COVID-19, but did not have it has the underlying cause of death, had increased from 7.8% to 29%. COVID-19 may have been a contributory cause, but it was not the underlying cause and was not listed as such.

*I spent several years working as a junior journalist with a global news organisation, and now I work as a content editor for a specalist business to business publishing firm. In my professional life, this sort of mistake is depressingly common.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
What part of these statements do you not understand?

1. Covid-19 was not the underlying cause of nearly 30 per cent of officially recorded Covid deaths over the summer.

So over 60 percent, That died from COVID-19 had no underlining issues. That's a huge percent.

2. Nevertheless, these deaths still feature on official government tallies of the Covid death toll.

Click to expand...

Those 30 percent of COVID-19 victims might still be alive if they didn't get COVID-19.COVID-19 weakens the system/organs. If my dad, dad , brother, doctors and specialist didn't wear a mask, social distance and proper hygiene. And get COVID-19 vaccination. My dad could have been in this group of people to die. Everyone that I know has had COVID-19 vaccinations no issues with the vaccination. vaccination.

Toynbee · Jun 22, 2021

JustSomeBloke · Jun 23, 2021

Gene2memE said:
It's not a serious error in COVID-19 death reporting from the UK Health Service. It's a serious error in understanding from the journalist at the Telegraph*. If you ignore the journalist, and read the actual research, then you can comprehend the error.

To quote the actual research:

"This allowed us to address the question of whether COVID-19 is the underlying cause of death when it appears on the death certificate.

What did we find

While we found that roughly one in thirteen (7.8%) deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate did not have the disease as the underlying cause of death, this proportion has risen substantially to 29% (nearly a third) for the last eight weeks of reporting."

And further on:

"While death certification is rightly regarded as a gold standard for the ascertainment of cause of death, it is important to be able to distinguish between deaths where COVID-19 was a contributory cause from those where COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death. It appears that, over the course of the epidemic, a change to the respective composition of deaths in this regard has taken place.

The distinction between the underlying cause of death and any other mention on the death certificate will be increasingly important as we enter the autumn and winter months, where increases in respiratory illness are observed annually."

In other words, they found that the number of death certificates that mentioned COVID-19, but did not have it has the underlying cause of death, had increased from 7.8% to 29%. COVID-19 may have been a contributory cause, but it was not the underlying cause and was not listed as such.

*I spent several years working as a junior journalist with a global news organisation, and now I work as a content editor for a specalist business to business publishing firm. In my professional life, this sort of mistake is depressingly common.

I have absolutely no idea why you are saying:

'It's a serious error in understanding from the journalist at the Telegraph*.'

At no time did I quote the Telegrah, or link to it.

expos4ever · Jun 23, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
I have absolutely no idea why you are saying:

'It's a serious error in understanding from the journalist at the Telegraph*.'

At no time did I quote the Telegrah, or link to it.

I believe the point is that all the statements you cited as indicative of over-counting Covid deaths are from journalists, not the source article put together by medical experts.

As I have pointed out, the article from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) does not appear to support any of your claims - you are basing your claims on erroneous interpretations of that article by journalists.

JustSomeBloke · Jun 23, 2021

CDC safety group says there’s a likely link between rare heart inflammation in young people after Covid shot

Most of the people affected experience this adverse effect after two doses, it's mostly young men affected, and very few young people have had two doses, so the numbers are sure to keep increasing unless vaccinations are halted.

Of course they're saying that people are still better off getting the vaccines, and that the benefits outweigh the risks. I'm sure they'll be saying that right up until the day before all the vaccines are totally banned for this adverse effect, another adverse effect, or a whole raft of adverse effects. But by then it will be too late, because the damage will be done. This is what can happen when you rush a vaccine development.

JustSomeBloke · Jul 8, 2021

sesquiterpene said:
The vaccine manufacturers have made clear claims, you simply didn't list them. Do you consider that being honest? The vaccines are indeed effective at reducing all of these. Try reading this:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/m...des-2021-05-12/09-COVID-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf

expos4ever said:
Well, if a treatment (in this case a vaccine) is available that can greatly reduce deaths (as this vaccine is doing) and get life back to normal (as is happening in large measure due to the vaccine), this is indeed something to celebrate and embrace.

For some time now, I have been wondering if the vaccines really work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Perhaps the reduction in deaths is simply a seasonal variation, as you would expect for a respiratory virus, same as flu deaths vary dramatically according to the season. Certainly a large reduction in deaths was seen last summer, and nobody had been vaccinated back then.

This is an old article, but I think it's worth posting it here. It's published by the BMJ, and peer reviewed, so I wonder what excuse or logical fallacy sesquiterpene and expos4ever will come up with this time ........

Covid-19 vaccine trials cannot tell us if they will save lives
None of the current trials are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalisations, intensive care use, or deaths

“None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalisations, intensive care use, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus,”

“Hospitalisations and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people,”

sesquiterpene · Jul 9, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
For some time now, I have been wondering if the vaccines really work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

KCfromNC · Jul 9, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
For some time now, I have been wondering if the vaccines really work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Perhaps the reduction in deaths is simply a seasonal variation

New cases are 3-4x lower than this time last year.

Golly gosh gee, I wonder what could be different.

COVID-19 Vaccines Unsafe For Use In Humans

Well-Known Member

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

Trump Won

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads