Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"



User avatar
JockCovidiot
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:20 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by JockCovidiot »

thinksaboutit wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:24 am
Which group do those, who choose to misrepresent adverse reaction data and discourage people from taking the vaccine?


Which group do those belong, who say there is no evidence of efficacy?

Which group do those belong, who say vaccines are genocide, or mass murder?

There are plenty of these people here.
What are the motives of such people?
Say's the one who doesn't misrepresent the adverse reaction data but flat out denies it altogether PMSL :lol: :lol: :lol:

You really are somthing special ain't ya can you just not comprehend the bullshit you write? :lol:

What exactly is your motive here thinksabout(nuffin)?

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by thinksaboutit »

jmc wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:11 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:24 am Which group do those, who choose to misrepresent adverse reaction data and discourage people from taking the vaccine?

Which group do those belong, who say there is no evidence of efficacy?

Which group do those belong, who say vaccines are genocide, or mass murder?

There are plenty of these people here.
What are the motives of such people?
The adverse reaction stats are from officials sources. The under-count of these official monitoring systems is well documented in the published literature going back two decades. By those trying to improve them.

The US system has the only multi-decade datasets were we can do comparative risk analysis. Flu shot 150 M per annum, 30 to 50 deaths. SARs Cov2 vaccines 100M+, almost 5,000 deaths so far. Same methodology, same system.

For 70% of the population the PSI/PORT score risk is higher for Influenza than for SARs CoV2. And for the rest the main risk factor is a Hospital Acquired Infection.

The one country were we had a real time controlled experiment on immediate adverse reaction mortalities, care homes in Ireland, showed a doubling of mortality rates during the vaccination period. Those people were under strict lockdown and isolation.

Those were real deaths. Or actual old people. Five hundred of them. In one small country.

There are lots of dead people from adverse response. Lots of them. According to official statistics well over 20K by this stage and rising quickly.

What is your motivation for ignoring the official statistic ? Which undercount the actual numbers. Do you want all those mostly old people to die for no measurable health benefit?

As for efficacy the only numbers we have published so far are what is called Science By Press Release. There are no accurate efficacy numbers and it will be a long time before there are. 12 to 18 months.

Here is the simplified version of why those efficacy numbers mean nothing. Its mathematics. SARs Cov 2 has a low R0. Its not very infectious. This means that there has to be quite a few exposure events before the probability of getting infected goes above 50%. Add to that a low prevalence number. Maybe 3 people in 1000 thousand have an infection at any given time. Now add to that the serious reduction in the stranger interaction rate due to the severe lockdown disruption of close quarter exposure.

So with those kind of initial conditions the minimum sample size needed to produce any kind of statistically reliable efficacy numbers in a short time period (< 6 months) is of the order of 100K. Because you are trying to accurately gauge the effect on what is a very rare event. The published numbers so fare are based on much smaller samples. So small as to make the probable infection exposure events count so low as to be of low accuracy.

Now what makes the published efficacy numbers so far even more suspect is the test used. They do not use antigen/ antibody tests. Which actually test for the presence of current infection or past infection. They use a proxy test, RT/PCR, which given the low prevalence is not a clinically valid test in this scenario. The lower sensitivity of antigen/ antibody tests can be validly adjusted for. The RT/PCR as an invalid test cannot be reliable used in this situation.

So what is your motivation for denying what is very basic mathematics? Is it simply that you dont have the intellectual wherewithal to understand what is being discussed so dismiss it out of hand. As beyond your comprehension.

I'll agree that the rhetorical hyperbole of "genocide" is a bit extreme but based on the numbers of dead old people, and the utter disregard shown for them in most countries last year, a compelling cases (at least legally) could be made for a charge of Geronticide / Sinicide against a whole bunch of governments. In these cases you dont have to show deliberate intent, just the result of actions taken. Or not taken.

I get the distinct impression that you still have a naive belief in "authority". That you have still to realize that the world you grew up in, your formative years, is long gone. Sure there were lots of idiots in positions of power back then. But there were also a lot of competent dedicated people who got things done and made things work. But those kind of people are long gone. Either retired or dead.

What we have now is the classic Third Generation Syndrome. Most of the people in positions of power or authority are the grandchildren (or more) of the people who actually built our modern society. Or else those who conform totally to the system in order to build a career. The people who built our modern infrastructure rose on merit. Their children had a leg up in the game but still had to show some merit to flourish. But the current generation, mostly hereditary one way or another. Advancement having tittle to do with merit or abaility but all to do with playing the system.

And everything goes along swimmingly until the first huge crisis, when real ability and merit are needed to navigate the raging storm. Then the utter nullity of those at the top of the governing class is shown in all its grotesque glory.

The reason why this current catastrophe did not happen back in the 1980's or 1950's is because back then there were more than enough people in all walks of life with real ability to make responsible, sane and pragmatic decisions for the county. Which they did. Many times.

So why do you still have such faith in "authority" when they have so spectacularly failed on so many levels in the last year? The problem is not so much the government itself but the hollowing out of real ability and merit from the top levels pretty much all parts of modern society. The Britain of 50 or 70 years ago would have responded very differently, much better, because the people in charge back then actually knew what they were doing. Most of the time at least.

The system has failed and failed badly. Maybe it is time you acknowledged that.
OK lets examine some of your reasoning and the "facts" that you quote.

Adverse reaction data in the US.
You say 150M annual flu shots, with 30 to 50 deaths. Given that all deaths close to a vaccination are supposed to be reported to the VAERS database.
Let's assume that 1% of those 150M people would naturally die in one year, so 1.5M. So in a week, there would be ~29,000 deaths within a week of a flu vaccination. This isn't being reported (according to your numbers), so something must explain this, such as these deaths are not being reported, the data is filtered, or something else. This doesn't fit with your decades-old under-reporting statement.

Now with Covid vaccinations, there have been 291M doses given and there is great scrutiny on vaccine safety and all sorts is being reported, into the system, including obvious unrelated incidents. In any case the same principle applies, as with flu shots. If operating properly, there would 10's of thousands of deaths reported close to vaccination. They are not being reported, so the system isn't working

So we are left with 2 sets of unreliable data, based on very different disease circumstances and political pictures.
It isn't reasonable to calculate a relative factor and draw a conclusion as you do. Not very scientific from someone who claims to be a scientist!
Brushing off the CDC's analysis, requires more justification than your private theories on the evil establishment.

On efficacy, you seem to reject all the phase 3 trial results, based on your home made rationale. This looks like mere distraction and you don't take the trouble to actually criticise the methodologies of the trails, their data or conclusions. They efficacy results are being confirmed by real world studies all over the place and there is no merit in saying it is wrong, just because you have your own half-baked rationale.

Your rationale seems to rely on the trial sample sizes are too small for low prevalence rates, without justification. The waffle you write about this isn't actual mathematics, you know. The comments PCR test issues, meaning possible false positives is void, because the effect would apply to both the vaccine and placebo groups in a trial.

If you have some real technical argument about trial methodologies, then write a focussed review of the papers and publish. We all know you can't and won't.

The rest of your post is just insults and anti-establishment ranting, so not worthy of further comment.

Nobody
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by Nobody »

I think you overlook that we are not specialists who weigh these kinds of evidence. We are people who practically perceive what might be occurring in reality. We cannot know the actual institutional machineries behind what becomes manifest in the public sphere, this is often how it is for powerless people, this is how social reality occurs, but we can listen to others who have insightful experience and we can weigh that evidence. We can know basic facts: pharamaceuticals companies are corrupt, criminal organisations, we also know the history of regulation of corporate interests and we can have some awareness of the problems, so, we can be suspicious when governments globally remove freedoms in order to manipulate us with access to the conditions that were once our basic rights. It is not merely the science you allude to, which is all too technical for us. It might make a good essay in Epidemiology or Virology but what you say is irrelevant to me as someone who has to decide whether they should take a vaccine or not. You only have to look at the state response to know that something malign is occurring and then look at the qualities of the agents involved in the public drama. Who seems to care? If people like Yeadon, Cahill and Bhakti warn us, then I will defer to their expertise. What you consistently overlook is a very significant moral principle: they seem to care. I do not believe any of the state agents care at all. I judge the moral qualities manifest by the actors. Dispositions live on in the manner via which they are manifest and born in the world. The politicians look like two-faced, deceitful scum that I would not piss on if they were on fire whereas I don't doubt the sincerity and moral qualities of those contesting this. I see absolutely no reason to trust this vaccine nor do I trust anything else about the pandemic. It has no reality to me beyond the coercive force of the way the virus has been rendered meaningful by state agents who have used representational forms to enforce behavioural routines that function as vehicles via which people experience cognitive content arising via the coercion. The virus has no reality to me beyond its representation. The lockdown, anyway, prevents us being exposed to its reality, that, also, is a very good strategy to cover up a massive con because you remove individuals from the phenomenal data of the reality. If the virus disappeared we would never know and they could keep telling us of new variants and showing us pictures, etc, forever, enforcing new vaccines, this can go on forever. Better to attend to the conditions required for people to live meaningful lives and access the grounds of human fruition and then deal with the virus practically, spending whatever is needed and adapting rather than forcing populations into conditions that remunerate the corporate interests constituting this reality using coercive institutional forms.

StPiosCafe
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:00 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by StPiosCafe »

yeah, you tell those lurkers straight, nobody!

Nobody wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 9:23 am I think you...We are people...We cannot know ...we can listen to others ...We can know basic facts:...It is not merely the science...You only have to look at the... I will defer to ... I do not believe .. I judge the moral qualities .. I don't doubt….
That'll teach those lurkers a lesson!

huxleypiggles
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:30 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by huxleypiggles »

send for fon :D

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by thinksaboutit »

Speedstick wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 4:20 pm What motivates people anti the vaccination programme?
Those anti the vaccination programme are true empaths, acutely aware of the very real damage 'Big Pharmas Master Plan' is and will be to our children and humanity in general.
I gain nothing from my stance, other than the ridicule of its evil promoters and cheerleaders, all I truly and genuinely want is for my granddaughter to grow up in a world where she is allowed to express her personality with freedom and choice, and not be subject to repeated guesswork of mad scientists promoting unnecessary vaccination programmes, which benefit nobody but the owners and shareholders of those big pharma programmes, whilst be allowed to do immeasurable harm to healthy people, as has already been witnessed by the excess deaths attributable to this Covid vaccination.
In short, what motivates me is veracity and integrity, with doing and saying what is right and just.
Where is your reliable evidence of "excess deaths attributable to this covid vaccination"?

For this number to be positive, you will need to show evidence of deaths caused by vaccines and subtract deaths prevented by vaccines.

As you will fail to do this, you may start to understand that your stance is just a belief and not based on actual knowledge.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by thinksaboutit »

RichardTechnik wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 11:56 pm Well summarised Jock.

Frankly I feel sorry for the people who share the 'thinksaboutit' account and a few others. Just dweebs who have been wound up and instructed to oppose whatever truth is posted here.

Sad pieces of humanity they are. Realising they will ultimately lose.

I agree - stay sceptical - think for yourselves.
Truth...not really, just opinions, rarely backed by anything factual.
Perhaps you should itemise the various strands of your perceived reality, then look at what backs them factually.

halfhearted
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by halfhearted »

JockCovidiot wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 5:04 pm Any who frequent this site can clearly see two opposing camps at play on the forum.

1 - The ardent vaxx nazi's who take great pleasure from trolling those who for whatever their reason wish to discuss concern wrt the covid vaxx.

2- Those who are pro choice and are here to discuss the UNTHINKABLE ie to question the official narrative..........
I think you're wrong about the site being focused on the pro-vaccine & anti-vaccine debate. There's a lot more to it than that. The title of the site reflects doubt over the use of lockdowns specifically but I believe the owners intended all aspects of the government's response to be up for debate here. One of the first indications of a fundamental difference in approach was the Great Barrington Declaration which certainly wasn't "anti-vaxx". Interestingly it seems that Johnson himself might well have been sympathetic to the Declaration before his Leftist pals and "advisers" panicked him (judging by Cummings' testimony). There's still no good evidence that Sweden's low key approach resulted in greater loss of life and suffering.

Post Reply