Back in October, when the critics rounded on the UKHSA for publishing vaccine data that didn’t fit the narrative, front and centre of their complaints was the claim that they were using poor estimates of the size of the unvaccinated population, and thus underestimating the infection rate in the unvaccinated. Cambridge’s Professor David Speigelhalter didn’t hold back, writing on Twitter that it was “completely unacceptable” for the agency to “put out absurd statistics showing case-rates higher in vaxxed than non-vaxxed” when it is “just an artefact of using hopelessly biased NIMS population estimates”.
To the UKHSA’s credit, while it conceded other points, it never gave in on this one, sticking to its view that the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) was the “gold standard” for these estimates. It pointed out that ONS population estimates have problems of their own, not least that for some age groups the ONS supposes there to be fewer people in the population than the Government counts as being vaccinated.
How can we know which estimates are more accurate? A group of experts has applied analytical techniques in order to estimate the size of the unvaccinated population independently of ONS and NIMS figures. Using three different methods, experts from HART found that estimates from all three methods were in broad agreement with the NIMS estimates, whereas the ONS estimate was a much lower outlier.
The first method involves recognising that people not within the NHS database system still catch Covid and still get tested. Assuming these people have the same infection rates per 100,000 people as the unvaccinated, you can calculate how many people there are outside of the database system and add these to the NIMS totals.
The second method involves looking at the rate of growth of people with an NHS number, which has been remarkably steady at around 2.9% per year. If you assume that people who are not yet registered in the NHS will sometimes become sick enough to seek healthcare, and thus a record will be created for them, applying this growth rate to the 2011 ONS population estimates give another figure for the total population.
The third method involves assuming that, in low-Covid weeks, deaths within an age bracket should occur at a similar rate in vaccinated and unvaccinated, allowing the size of the total population to be inferred from the percentage of deaths in the unvaccinated.
The results in terms of reported infection rates according to the five different estimates are depicted in the chart above. They show that the ONS is a clear outlier, its estimates sitting far too low, and NIMS is likely to be much more accurate. The ONS puts the unvaccinated population at around 4.59 million whereas NIMS puts it at 9.92 million, a difference of 5.33 million. That’s a lot of people not to be included in estimates, and suggests, among other things, that the ONS has not adequately estimated the magnitude of illegal immigration into the country.
As well as vindicating the UKHSA in its decision to stick with NIMS over ONS, HART’s analysis also indicates that, contrary to the assertions of Prof Spiegelhalter, the UKHSA data showing infection rates higher in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated is not a mere artefact of using the wrong population estimates. There may be other biases in it, but this is not one of them.
Here is the weekly update on unadjusted vaccine effectiveness based on the raw data in the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report. The unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates against infection have remained low in all adult age brackets this week, particularly in those aged 40-70, though there is little sign of further decline; in the older age groups (over 40), the recent vaccine effectiveness revival continues, possibly as a result of the third doses. There is also a sign of a rise in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation in the over-70s.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Stop the Shot: Caught on Tape’ conference will expose doctors, hospitals that deny care to COVID patients
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/stop-the-shot-caught-on-tape-conference-will-expose-doctors-hospitals-that-deny-care-to-covid-patients/
The explosive press conference will present shocking recordings of hospital executives discussing coordinated plans to restrict fluids and nutrition for hospitalized COVID patients, suppression of all visits for COVID patients while in hospital, denial of vital medicines, and more……
….. join the peaceful resistance …..
Wednesday 27th October 11:30am
Yellow Boards Event – Stand by the Road
(If we start at 11:30am some people might join on their lunch break.)
Tesco Superstore
17 County Ln, Warfield, Bracknell RG42 3JP
Saturday 30th October 2pm
SPECIAL STAND WINDSOR with Yellow Boards
Alexander Park (near Bandstand) Stand in the Park
Barry Rd/Goswell Rd
Windsor SL4 1QY
Meet in the Park 2pm followed by walk to
Stand in the Town Centre By the Castle
About 2 hours in total.
Stand in the Park Wokingham Sundays 10am
Make friends – keep sane – talk freedom and have a laugh
Howard Palmer Gardens Wokingham RG40 2HD
behind the Cockpit Path car park in the centre of the town
JOIN Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Health-Fascist running NZ risks 40% of NZ workers with dangerous side effects
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-10-zealand-vaccine-mandate-workers.html
Once again Jabinda making policy pronouncements as though they are lawful. These plans under the “Traffic Light System” still have to be backed up with legislation. She omits this tiny little detail in proclamations from the Podium of Truth. She also seems to have a short memory and has forgotten that in September last year, prior to the election, she assured the New Zealand public that these covid jabs would never be mandatory and there will be no penalties for those who decide it’s not for them. Despite it being fairly ineffectual, we do have Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand under which we are protected from such discrimination unless a statement is made that there is a “justified limitation” on people’s rights. No doubt they will do this again as they have done with the mandates for border workers, health workers and anyone who enters school grounds. But there will be legal challenges and judicial reviews which will hopefully overturn some of these abhorrent policies which erode the rights we have under NZ legislation and international covenants to which NZ is signatory. Our former prime ministers, David Lange and Norman Kirk must be turning in their graves that such acts are being perpetrated by a prime minister under the Labour Party umbrella.
Excellent, more medical and scientific evidence for Boris Johnson to ignore when he consults the court astrologers for next month’s health policies.
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/london-firefighter-43-left-paralysed-20946027
A London firefighter has been left unable to work after contracting a rare illness that’s left him paralysed from the neck down.
Dave Elson, 46, a firefighter based at Greenwich Fire Station, was said to be previously fit and healthy according to his close friend and former colleague, Rob Hyde who spoke to My London.
Rob said he had received the news on June 12 that Dave was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare and serious condition that affects the nervous system.
“We’re not 100 per cent sure but two weeks beforehand he had his first coronavirus jab,” Rob said.
Absolutely baffling. Damn these infernal mysteries.
sounds like a job for Scooby and the gang
Local chap, mid 60s, fit as a flea, no previous symptoms suddenly developed prostate cancer 2 months after AZ. The scans showed what I understand to be a hugely enlarged prostate, as in if it had been a quarter or half the size for any time previous he would surely have noticed. The nhs will have the data, “they” know how many ops they do in any hospital of particular types.
A step forward that this is appearing in The Times, I suppose. And that it fingers the Pfizer “vaccine” which has mostly escaped the attention of the regulators and media to date.
https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
AstraZeneca *at least* 1101 TOTAL FATALITIES.
Pfizer *at least* 564 TOTAL FATALITIES.
We must stick with official figures, but I will not be surprised if a proper investigation, presumably under a new government, puts vaccine injury numbers massively higher than those we currently see.
I doubt it. Unless that new government is none of the current parties. Where would an entirely new batch of MPs come from?
“Icebergs are a rare event,” said the captain (on being given the report of a tip of ice seen in the water).
Good analogy. Icebergs are what, about 10% visible?
For such a huge tip, how much must the iceberg underneath really be?
The opening paragraph has got the vaccines/side effects the wrong way round.
From the opening paragraph of The Times article (all I can read) it reads:
Scientists found that for every million first doses administered of the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine there were about four extra cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a neurological condition in which people can experience numbness, tingling and muscle weakness.
For every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, there were six cases of haemorrhagic stroke, bleeding on the brain, although there were uncertainties about this finding.
Prof Sheikh is Director of the Usher Institute that partners with the MHRA – a body known to be actively suppressing the registering/reporting of adverse events. The Usher institure just produced a ‘finding’ that said “No serious pregnancy-related adverse events have been reported following vaxination”. Prof Sheikh co-authored a paper that said catching Covid 19 incurs a greater risk of bloodclots than the injections. Can we all now see where Prof Sheikh is coming from?
Thought it was odd to find this in MSM and in The Times too, the elite’s preferred sewage outlet. I know the “covid-19 causes worse heart problems than the vaccine” argument was made by monkeying around with the denominator, not sure about the clot one though.
Elderly member of my family died of a bleed on the brain this year. You couldn’t say that it was temporally linked to her 2 AZ jabs, the bleed occurring a few months after the second jab. But I do wonder whether there is a delayed link, weakening of the blood vessels in the brain.
When the emergency doctor rang to find out what the circumstances were for the bleed, he kept on saying “are you sure she didn’t have a fall? Because bleeds on the brain are usually from a fall. So she didn’t fall, you’re sure?” Seemed to puzzle him.
In the end, they put it down to being on blood thinners and having had a previous stroke and so that’s what went on the death cert.
I wonder if there will be a pattern this year for extra people dying of bleeds on the brain, which are not being linked to the vaccine on the face of it.
My attitude is always ‘take them down with their own facts’, so I am cautious about anecdotal, friend of a friend stories. But I wouldn’t mind getting a fiver for all the “the doctors did various tests but couldn’t really say what it was” episodes I have heard of, or all the “after a short illness” death notices I’ve read, in the last six months.
Yes it’s already happening. Excess deaths, especially in the younger age brackets.
The younger and healthier cohort are dropping from heart conditions all over the place.
That’s the problem or cleverness of the vaccine. It damages cells and causes all sorts of effects at different times influenced by the fact we are all individuals with subtle differences. It won’t be clear how many this kills until many years into the future. Meanwhile, you make any half plausible claim because unless the person was tested just before and then autopsied after there can be little certainty.
In the same way they have manipulated covid deaths up, they will spend the next ten years manipulating the vaccine deaths down.
Just overhear someone on the street his doctor thinks he’s got long covid.
Tired and his right leg does not feel right.
All together now:
Suggest that his right leg is amputated. See how long before he recovers from his ‘long covid’.
The problem with this study is that so many people (young and healthy) are dying now “suddenly” “unexpectedly “ after collapsing etc. These are probably related to the micro clotting that occurs following the clotshots spreading through the body in the bloodstream and damaging the heart.
These are not getting studied snd aren’t being attributed to the poisons.
This study is a whitewash.
Just do a search on “suddenly” or “unexpectedly died…”
Runners, footballers, rugby players, mountain bikers. All these fit and healthy young men dropping down dead.
Totally normal.
To be fair (The Telegraph also covered this story), the ‘study’ also said that the instances of this disease was higher in those who caught COVID.
The problem I have is with all of these so-called ‘scientific’ studies – many thus far during the pandemic have been shown to be either complete bunk or sufficiently flawed in their premice or how they were conducted to raise serious doubts as to their worth.
As an engineer, I wonder why so many so often laud ‘science’ as something akin to The Messaih, when it is at least as deeply flawed as many professions.
Science is lauded because it is made that way by the media, any scientist worth their salt will accept scepticism as a way of life. Engineering tends to be more robust from that point of view because if the engineering is wrong then that can be immediately catastrophic.
It’s irrelevant if “instances of this disease was higher in those who caught COVID.” because being jabbed doesn’t lower your risk of getting COVID!
You get the risk of COVID
PLUS
the risk of the jabs.
I’m also an engineer.
I also fail to discern any sensible explanation for the ongoing data/politics/ situation – other than so called Conspiracy theories
ONS excess deaths tells the story. And just this weekend we had yet another fit and healthy young mountain biker die “of heart failure” on the peak near us, it’s becoming a regular event
That is a very misleading statement as Heart failure is a specific chronic condition. Surely they mean sudden cardiac arrest. Yes it could be related to SARS-CoV-2/vaccine but it may not be.
A fit, probably super fit, mountain biker dies on the peak of a hill from sudden cardiac arrest, could be due to any number of causes including electrolyte imbalance; like my paramedic colleague a few years back who would have died had he not been at work where he was visible to a lot of people, and was resuscitated with a defibrillator, he too was an avid, very fit, cyclist.
Yes. Jumping to conclusions on single cases is what the MSM does. It’s not a great idea.
Perhaps, it was considered a chronic condition pre 2021, and post 2021 it will be considered acute ie endless fit youngsters get AF from the jab, unbeknownst to them and the AF causes a heart attack on exertion – heart failure inducing a heart attack?
Could you send a link to that story?
The conclusion is the key point :
“Sheikh said that it was up to individuals to weigh up the risks,”
As to the rest … again, I have to say, we are into a lack on the part of the sceptical cause – an undue focus on unstandardized VAERS/Yellow Card data and the citing of individual cases rather than focusing on rates.
I think the methodology of this study may be highly questionable.
My belief is most of this “analysis” misses the point. Possibly on purpose.
All mortality data for specific causes relies on a diagnosis by a Doctor.
Most illnesses have multiple, overlapping symptoms. They are genuinely hard to diagnose and western medicine potentially even misses the point with its fixation on unique illnesses caused by alleged external pathogens anyway.
The data on Covid deaths with or without the vaccine cannot be trusted.
My suspicion is that doctors are less likely to diagnose Covid like symptoms as Covid if they know the patient was vaccinated.
This effect has been noticed in the past for other illnesses.
You then end up with circular reasoning.
The overall mortality from Covid is also so low that it requires very little of this to have a significant effect.
The macro data is possibly more trustworthy.
Country level excess deaths / mortality rates seem to be largely independent of vaccine rates, masks, lock downs and all the other Covid theatre.
“My suspicion is that doctors are less likely to diagnose Covid like symptoms as Covid if they know the patient was vaccinated.”
That would be a really interesting topic for investigation.
There’s a case study in the Eurosurveillance Journal of 30 September 2021 on nosocomial outbreak in a highly vaccinated population.
The case involves a patient admitted to a hospital in Israel with symptoms deemed part of the patient’s health problems (including fever and cough). It was not until day 4 in hospital that a test was carried out. This resulted in an outbreak involving 42 people – only 3 of whom were unvaccinated.
Although the study says the symptoms were mistaken and that is why there was no corona test, it doesn’t touch on the fact whether the symptoms would have been mistaken had the patient not been fully vaccinated.
The lie is still being peddled that the vaxxed are not symptomatic nor do they get ill, I can well imagine this is a not uncommon event.
I agree, interesting as would be a formal redefinition/renaming of the disease where there are symptoms associated only with the spike as is suggested here: Type II Covid 19 – https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/inventor-of-the-mrna-vaccine-platform
Couldnt be bothered to ‘read in full’. Does it mention anywhere that reports to the yellow card system are likely to be around 10% of the actual numbers?
As an interesting aside to my post on this scientific paper (side effects after vaccination), the authors published a paper about a month ago on the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination. They failed in their statistical analysis (IMO), but they did look very hard in the hospitalisation data for the myocarditis — they found 15x more cases compared with those present in the yellow card data for the same time period.
I found it remarkable that this wasn’t enough for a paper in itself!
I’d suggest that this factor (fifteenfold) seems about right for any side effect that isn’t part of the official list at that time (myocarditis wasn’t considered a side effect for the period covered by their analysis).
Yet another study that uses the case-control methodology. There is a fundamental flaw in these recent papers that is both glaringly obvious yet hidden in the detail:
The detail of a case-control study is that the ‘control’ (that is, the definition of ‘normal’) is made up of data from vaccinees both before vaccination (fine) and beyond 28 days after vaccination.
The detail is that is it vitally important to check that the incidence of whatever aspect you’re looking at actually does return to ‘normal’ levels — if you don’t there’s a risk that your definition of ‘normal’ actually includes higher incidence of problems in the longer term after the vaccination. This leads to two serious problems:
So, does the data show a ‘return to baseline’ within the 28 days following vaccination, or are the side effects maintained, suggesting that they’d be present in the control data?
Well, a quick look at their data suggests that for their covid infection data there is a return to baseline, but for many of the side effects following vaccination it isn’t clear that there is a return to ‘normal risk’ — that is, even though side effects are low, they’re not dropping back over the month. This then suggests that the risks might be maintained for some time after the 28 day period is up. This is most definitely visible for the Guillain–Barré syndrome data after Oxford (ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccine in table 3) — for this symptom there is clear increased risks over baseline (twofold by their assessment), but the risk hasn’t returned to even their own (contaminated) baseline at days 21-28. Thus there will very likely be rater a few Guillain–Barré cases after the 28 day period which will be mixed in with their ‘baseline data’, which will in itself make it look as though the risk even in the 28 day period is lower than it actually is (it is already 2x baseline — who knows how bad it actually is).
For any case-control study done in this way there is a need to check the assumption that their post-treatment (vaccine) risks reduce to zero during their risk period (28 days in this example). That they haven’t done this is incompetence — it shouldn’t have been published in any journal in this form, let alone Nature. I’ve no idea what has happened to reviewer quality, because this is a beginner’s mistake.
Oh, but incredibly, they did check for ‘return to baseline’ in their sensitivity analysis — and found that for at least one condition (Guillain–Barré syndrome) the incidence rate following vaccination didn’t drop to baseline! This is just mentioned in passing in their analysis, but it is a fundamental finding that can only mean that they should shift their ‘risk window’ until they don’t find it. Absolutely incredible.
The authors have form in this area — Hippisley-Cox et al made exactly the same ‘mistake’ in her prior paper on myocarditis risks after vaccination. I keep looking for that paper to be retracted because of this glaring mistake, but it keeps on being referenced as ‘truth’ instead.
Here’s the paper for people that want to have a look: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01556-7.pdf
tldr; there is a significant problem in this paper. Its results cannot be relied upon as a measure of the vaccine side effect rates. It is very likely that the side effect rate, particularly Guillain–Barré syndrome, is significantly greater after vaccination than they estimate.
Thanks for the detailed analysis.
I’ve only glanced at it so have probably got this completely wrong.
But are they simply comparing the percentage of those with a positive test for SARS-C0V-2 who subsequently get diagnosed with Guillane Barre afterwards with the proportion of those who are experimentally vaccinated and then get Guillain Barre syndrome afterwards?
And if so, isn’t there extreme selection going on?
Those who encountered the virus asymptomatically are much less likely to have been tested for SARS-C0V-2 and may have never tested positive and would be very unlikely to get Guillain Barre sydrome following their unevidenced encounter with SARS-C0V-2 as a result. However they will have de facto immunity. Whereas someone who has tested positive might be disproportionately likely to have severe covid symptoms and Guillain Barre syndrome.
The additional extreme assumption would then also be that all those left who had never encountered SARS-C0V-2, would subsequently have tested positive at a future date but for vaccination and then been diagnosed with Guillain Barre syndrome at the same rate as those who had already tested positive for SARS-C0V-2. Otherwise the compare would be invalid.
And presumably it assumes that those who are vaccinated never test positive post vaccination for SARS-C0V-2 and so never get Guillain Barre in the future as a result of covid? Or more accurately at least the assumption is that vaccine induced immunity is as good as natural inmmunity. Or else similarly the compare would be completely invalid.
Well, that’s a fair point.
Essentially, you’re suggesting that their incidence rate of certain side effects (eg, Guillain–Barré syndrome) is an over-estimate, possibly a significant one, based on the assumption that very mild (asymptomatic or paucisymtpomatic covid) is far less likely to result in any noticeable side effects. This seems reasonable to me.
And, because everyone will catch covid eventually, you have to add the covid side effect rates to the vaccine side effect rates to get a full estimate of risk for the vaccine cohort. This also seem reasonable.
The problem I have with the paper exists at a fundamental level — they’ve (deliberately) chosen a method that’ll suppress the suggested incidence of post-vaccination side effects.
Ie, they’ve overestimating covid risk and underestimating vaccine risk. IMO this is probably rather a significant effect — they’re probably out by at least a factor of two (difficult to be sure, because they’ve not released their raw data).
Thanks for that and thanks for your earlier analysis.
It makes sense what you are saying.
No, the paper compares those who are vaccinated, don’t test positive Covid19 and then get the range of illnesses investigated with those who are also vaccinated, who do then test positive for Covid19 with the same diseases. In other words there is no reference to those who aren’t vaccinated and the incidence of those diseases. They refer to baseline which is presumably from earlier years. However there is no real control. The take home message seems to be, being vaccinated is risky. If you’re unlucky enough to get Covid19 after vaccination (and we know the risk is higher among vaccinated than unvaccinated) then it is 3 x as risky. But the benefits of vaccination outweigh the harms – really?
A few random thoughts, apologies if there is no cohesion.
Looking at SARS-CoV-2/covid19 first, there is clear evidence that this infection can induce side effects.
For instance
Chow et al report on a 60 year old presenting with acute transverse myelitis some 10 days after being diagnosed with covid19 (symptoms plus positive PCR so a real case).
d’Orsi et al report on a 62 year old presenting with symptoms of GBS for 20 days worsening over the last 3 days. He was tested for SARS-CoV-2 only, which was positive. No causal link established.
Werner et al report on a 62 year old male presenting with problems with his gait that had developed 24 hours post resolution of CoVid19 that had been diagnosed with symptoms.
Sriwastava et al have a comprehensive literature review looking at reported neurological side effects of covid19.
As far as I can ascertain acute transverse myelitis and Guillain Barre are the result of an abnormal response of the immune system. The ataxia is probably due to the virus itself getting into the brain.
If GBS and transverse myelitis are the result of an immune system response, then their appearance being associated with the vaccines should not perhaps come as a surprise in some ways. That is not to say that these adverse effects should be written off, they shouldn’t; but it does mean that further testing must be undertaken.
This is basically a can of worms that needs proper investigation.
If you hadn’t guessed by now I am looking into all of these aspects.
“The Times has the story”. UK Column News were on to this last year and were banned from YouTube for exposing the very same.
Sheikh said that it was up to individuals to weigh up the risks, but that in his view the benefits of the vaccines still easily outweighed any potential side effects.
Ah. Tell us what research he has done on the Benefits. Or is he just mouthing government propaganda because he wants to keep his job?
Exactly. I have attached a more detailed risk chart that includes the covid risks by age from ONS weekly data for 2020. It is clearly not suitable for anyone under 50 in the short term.
And in the long term, who knows? But we know the so-called ‘vaccine’ loses its effectiveness (if there ever really was any) over time. And if more jabs are given, more risk ensues.
How comforting to be told that 80% of people recover completely from Guillain-Barré syndrome. Unfortunately 5% do not recover because they die.
5% seems higher to my maths than 0.2%
The same thought did occur to me, but occasioned a train of thought that I suspect is not approved. Perhaps we should hand ourselves in for remediation.
OK, let’s have some simple jab comparisons.
As quoted from MHRA Yellow Card Reports in comments to another article on these awful jabs, there are 536 unknown deaths out of a total of 1,715. That is ‘Death’, ‘Sudden death’ with no description, no explanation and no investigation.
On the attached table, we see that AstraZeneca is more lethal than Pfizer. But the ratio is exactly the same for all categories of death as it is for the unexplained categories of death. It is 1.7 times worse. This is immediate death, of course, not long-term death.
On this very simple comparison, one would not be able to draw many conclusions as to the relative failings of each. The bottom line is, of course, that nearly one third of all deaths need an explanation. And it is reasonable to assume they are strokes from micro-clotting. The onus is on MHRA to prove otherwise.
And don’t forget that these are immediate deaths. Long-term adverse effects and fatalities are unknown. And how could they be known? This is an experiment on the general public and they are the lab rats providing the Phase 3 trial results.
I’m convinced there are way more than is being admitted / reported. I just hear of too many for it to be a couple per million.
This Sunday I went to a new Stand In The Park group
Ten people there
Everyone reported at least one,and typically more than one, case of serious or fatal post jab injuries. Some absolutely clear cut , some “coincidental”
I get this is not an unbiased sample, but even so
At the same time, apparently the local undertaker has only ever dealt with 1 Covid death
The Testimonies Project was created to provide a platform for all those who were affected after getting the covid-19 vaccines, and to make sure their voices are heard, since they are not heard in the Israeli media.
https://www.vaxtestimonies.org/en/
So “The Times” reported that and we are to believe everything it says? Or this is another psychological trick using omissions?
What about J&J and Moderna? Don’t they also have life threatening side effects?
Just wondering why this wasn’t the lead article today and everyday?
That rare, over 1 million side effects in the UK alone. That rare, nearly 1800 deaths in the UK. That rare over 17 thousand deaths in the US. Yip, these side effects are rare all right.
My wife is a prescribing pharmacist with over 25 years experience said that the jab would have been pulled with just one death in normal times. In fact she has seen many drugs pulled with just side effects, never mind deaths.
The whole thing smells like a pile rotting corpses. People need to be held to account for murder and genocide. Will it happen, will it f@ck!
That is some clever wordplay right there. Severe sid effects usually are meausred in such high numbers. However, 1 in 1000 isn’t rare. Also they mention bleeding on the brain and then don’t come back to it.
How is the risk of GBS or bleeding on the brain worth it for protection against something the vast majority allegedly have and dont know about.
Your chance of winning the lottery is miniscule. Yet your chance of getting a severe side effect may be one in a million. But that’s if it were a one of jag. Israel has given four jags, so chances of a severe reaction increase and still more likely than winning the lottery.
When ANY scientist, Doctor, politician, or media talking head say that sentence…”the benefits outweigh the risks”…can someone, ANYONE, please ask them to explain exactly what those risks are to any relatively healthy under sixty year old?
From March 2020 to March 2021- during apparently the worst health crisis since the First World War! And with no vaccines in that age cohort only 689 people under 60 with no co-morbidities died. (According to NHS England) I would say that deaths from Covid were ‘rare’ in this age group.
According to the UK Yellow Card Data there are currently over 1,600 deaths recorded, over 16,0000 cardiac events recorded, and over 19,000 vascular events recorded.
And over 1,200,000 vaccine adverse reactions in total recorded.
While I appreciate these are not all in the under 60 age group, they are also not ‘rare’ either…..
Sorry one too many 0s….on the cardiac…should read, 16,000.
A study “has uncovered that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are linked to serious and potentially life-threatening side effects.”
My favourite phrase in current circumstances… NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
So They needed to do a study to see what anyone with a brain and the ability to click on a mouse pointer has known for months?? Even visiting establishment websites such as Yellow Card or VAERS.