Forum menu
This any good to you?
Dorect from the German Health Minister
No actually, that says sae's at 1 in 5000 and ae's at 1 in 2000. Nothing about hospitalisation, and an sae does not automatically result in hospitalisation.
Got a better reference?
No 1 in 800 hospitalisation figure in what you linked. Not even close.
Any update on your claims about the BHFs funding sources?
He's moved on from that. And we should too, out of respect for the principle that it was only said for a bit of impact, rather than having any facts backing it up.
No 1 in 800 hospitalisation figure in what you linked. Not even close.
The figures are up for debate. This is exactly why it needs investigating properly. But the evidence is stacking up against the 'safe and effective' narrative we have been spun. Which ever way you look at it, it's not looking good for the vaccines or the vaccinated.
The figures are up for debate. This is exactly why it needs investigating properly. But the evidence is stacking up against the ‘safe and effective’ narrative we have been spun. Which ever way you look at it, it’s not looking good for the vaccines or the vaccinated.
roger melrose
Free Member
The figures are up for debate.
So, currently non-existent then?
How can figures be up for debate? Either 1 in 800 folks ended up in hospital, or they didn't.
This official report from Australia tells you all you need to know about the efficacy (or lack of it) of the vaccines.
Scroll down to Page 4 for the table by vaccination dose where you can compare the numbers:
Funnily enough, this was the last report NSW health published including vaccine status. I wonder why?
Roger - please. what is your expertise as in the posts above?
We need to know to judge the validity of your posts.
roger melrose
Free Member
This official report from Australia tells you all you need to know about the efficacy (or lack of it) of the vaccines.
I for one feel like I'm on holiday!
Ive just been to Sweden, America, Germany and now Australia!
Lucky I'm vaccinated so I can go to all those destinations.👍😂
My understanding of the 1 in 800 figure is that it is Adverse Events of Special Interest from the trials. Note this can include non-serious. This has morphed into hospitalisations, often quoted by Bridgen etc.
I had adverse effects from my vaccination. I had a sore arm and spiked a temperature for a few hours. dunno if that counts as "of special interest" Are folk like me are in that 1;800 number?
<Shifts argument to efficacy rather than safety>
No comment on what the German Health minister said theotherjonv
I did post but had a 502 error. Reposting now, but others have said similar
Just out of interest, why do you edit your links in that way. Your Lauterback link is to "Unherd", why do you seem keen to hide that point?
There's nothing in that link supporting your 1/800 per dose claim. The numbers say adverse effects totalling 300,000 (prob true - I had an advesre effect - a runny nose and sore arm) at a rate of 1/500, and serious adverse effects 1/5000. Not hospitalisations, and not at a rate of 1/800?
Where are these extra 2.8M people being hospitalised. No comment on that from you?
[edit - ah, the figures are now 'up for debate' are they! They're certainly something up IMHO - made up]
Roger – please. what is your expertise as in the posts above?
We need to know to judge the validity of your posts.
What are you doubting about the Australian report I posted?
Are you saying that this is not a valid report by default - that the data is somehow not valid?
Or are you trying to say that this is not valid because someone without a PHD in whatever you deem an acceptable subject happened to have posted the data on this form?
Can someone explain to me why there was a conspiracy to lock down the country and inject everyone with a useless and dangerous vaccine?
What was the point? For shits and giggles? To "control" us? To start the New World Order?
if it wasn't to control the spread of a dangerous virus what was it for?
For clarity. The claim that is 'up for debate' is not a 1/800 people hospitalisation. It's 1/800 doses; as most people have 3 or 4 doses by now that's 1/200 to 1/300 people. In massive secret hospitals that no-one seems to have noticed?
What was the point? For shits and giggles? To “control” us? To start the New World Order?
if it wasn’t to control the spread of a dangerous virus what was it for?
Christ, don't offer him an invitation like that. <cries in 5G>
Scroll down to Page 4 for the table by vaccination dose where you can compare the numbers:
And what does that tell us? What do you know about the vaccination status of the population and how the proportion of admissions relates to the proportion (and demographics) of the population with each vaccination status. What does 'unknown' status entail - is it likely to be a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated? Is that time period typical of the whole pandemic? This is basic critical thinking, it's not difficult
What does the nsw data have to do with vaccine injury?
Anyone with half an brain would think you are making shit up. Is your name Boris and you are wasting time after getting a kicking yesterday
Scroll down to Page 4 for the table by vaccination dose where you can compare the numbers:
Okay so where can I see the vaccine takeup numbers and also who was eligible to what?
Can someone explain to me why there was a conspiracy to lock down the country and inject everyone with a useless and dangerous vaccine?
Because the science has been corrupted by vested interests in the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Government, that's why. Basically, it has become politicised. Just follow the money or opportunity for power/influence and you are pretty much there.
It's all unravelling fully now in the US at the Congressional hearings. Faucci is well and truly on the ropes. But no doubt you are not even aware of this?
if it wasn’t to control the spread of a dangerous virus what was it for?
One of the better ones I have seen is that its population control. A non dangerous virus was spread and then the "killer" vaccine used to start killing people.
I havent seen a good explanation yet as to why they didnt just use a more dangerous virus instead. The vaccine as the lethal agent seems a rather pointless additional step.
Can't wait to see who is cited next!
Scooby Doo?
Batfink?
This is fantastic stuff.
Now it is bingo.
Table 4
The vast majority of people KSI in road accidents are wearing seatbelts. Far more than aren't.
Is that because
a/ seatbelts are not effective in preventing KSI
or
b/ Virtually everyone wears a seatbelt nowadays.
Should we get rid of seatbelts, the numbers seem to suggest you're far more likely to be KSI in a crash when you're wearing one?
[edit - when are you going to answer the question about where all these excess people are being hospitalised?]
For clarity. The claim that is ‘up for debate’ is not a 1/800 people hospitalisation. It’s 1/800 doses; as most people have 3 or 4 doses by now that’s 1/200 to 1/300 people. In massive secret hospitals that no-one seems to have noticed?
You tell me, but the official data as presented by Andrew Bridgen MP in parliament is showing at least 1 serious adverse even per 800 doses.
That's what he said. Do you disagree with this? If so, where is your evidence that this is not the case.
I know 2 people who have suffered vaccine injuries, and two, both under 40 who have died unexpectedly this year. And I don't even know 800 people! Coincidence, perhaps? Unlucky, perhaps - but it is certainly not normal.
I havent seen a good explanation yet as to why they didnt just use a more dangerous virus instead. The vaccine as the lethal agent seems a rather pointless additional step.
Providing we can have a vaccine with very high effectiveness 99.999% i would be inclined to support the release of a more dangerous virus. But only as long as everyone who needs and wants the vaccine can get it. (Being sarcastic before anyone gets stroppy)
Clearly the gene pool needs some bleach
Just follow the money or opportunity for power/influence and you are pretty much there.
So was it for money or power?
Roger- Can I ask you some genuine questions?
Did Trump win 2020?
Who killed JFK?
Did Hitler escape the bunker and went to South America?
Did NASA land on the Moon?
I had adverse effects from my vaccination.
I actually had more symptoms which were a side effect of my first vaccine than I did from the two occasions that I have had covid. I used the covid yellow card to report the adverse reaction.
I was actually very pleased to have a strong immune response to my first vaccine, I knew that older people were less likely to have a strong response to the vaccine due to a weaker immune system compared to younger people. I had very little or no reaction to subsequent boosters.
I am asking you what your expertise is that you can be so sure the scientific consensus is wrong. You have already shown you do not really understand this stuff so are either accidentally or deliberately misrepresenting what the data shows as in the 1:800 claim
Now someone like TiRed - he has real clear expertise. I listen to him. I do not have the expertise to challenge him
Dr John Campbell appears to have expertise so I had a look into his stuff - but when I looked into it my knowledge which is of a similar level to his allowed me to understand the basic flaws in his argument
someone with no scientific or healthcare knowledge like say Bridgen can be happily ignored
Now do you have any expertise in the area? Understanding medical research is tricky stuff. I have been trained to honours degree level in understanding medical research and still find it tricky to be sure of the validity. I rely on those with a greater degree of expertise in some cases
Now if you have expertise in epidemiology and / or understanding medical research and / or statistics it would add greater validity to your argument
Not all views are equal
IE a well trained scientist and a lay person have differing viewpoints. The well trained scientists view is in accordance with the scientific consensus. the lay persons view is not. The two viewpoints are not equally valid
so once more - what is your expertise?
1
theotherjonv
Full Member
Now it is bingo.Table 4
The vast majority of people KSI in road accidents are wearing seatbelts. Far more than aren’t.
Is that because
a/ seatbelts are not effective in preventing KSI
or
b/ Virtually everyone wears a seatbelt nowadays.
Should we get rid of seatbelts, the numbers seem to suggest you’re far more likely to be KSI in a crash when you’re wearing one?
[edit – when are you going to answer the question about where all these excess people are being hospitalised?]
Utterly irrelevant when the data from the Pfizer vaccine trials showed just a (less than) 1% Actual Risk Reduction for Covid against mild to moderate symptoms.
You tell me, but the official data as presented by Andrew Bridgen MP in parliament is showing at least 1 serious adverse even per 800 doses.
Erm, are we travelling in circles here?
I was expecting Kazakhstan next.
What gives?
Are you saying that this is not a valid report by default – that the data is somehow not valid?
Its not valid because it doesnt contain all the relevant information.
A quick google gives the Australia takeup.
Now I havent bothered checking the timeframes so it might not completely match the results you have but as a rough guide its informative.
Note pretty much everyone has 1 jab and most people have 2.
Then 3 and 4 does drop but we have the "is eligible" caveat. Looking at their recommendations its roughly the same as in the UK where only higher risk people have the booster jabs (especially the 4th). Therefore I would be expecting them to be more likely to end up in hospital since they are preselected as having worse health.
You tell me, but the official data as presented by Andrew Bridgen MP in parliament is showing at least 1 serious adverse even per 800 doses.
That’s what he said. Do you disagree with this? If so, where is your evidence that this is not the case.
That's not how this works. And, as has been explained to you quite patiently, 1 SAE does not equal 1 Hospitalisation. So, why don't you either withdraw that claim, or pop back when you can provide evidence for it?
1% Actual Risk Reduction
I think you mean Absolute Risk Reduction, but why are you focusing on this rather than more commonly used RRR - do you know the difference between the two, and what they actually mean?
Now someone like TiRed – he has real clear expertise. I listen to him. I do not have the expertise to challenge him
From seeing his posts, he is an expert in a very narrow field only, and associated with the much discredited (appallingly inaccurate) computer modelling of this pandemic that influenced so much of our disastrous response. I see it all the time in work. Scientists so focussed on their little area of expertise that they loose complete perspective of the bigger picture. A complete unawareness of how science influences the real world.
so once more – what is your expertise?
It doesn't matter what my expertise is. You need to evaluate the data in the links I posted.
If Andrew Bridgen said that the world was round would you question what his expertise was, or would you look at the actual real world data? Actually if Andrew Bridgen said that the world was round - I'd expect you would claim it was flat, on some daft point of principle.
vested interests in the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Government, that’s why. Basically, it has become politicised. Just follow the money or opportunity for power/influence and you are pretty much there.
So the pandemic has given governments across the world the opportunity to make lots of money and increase their power by introducing a vaccine programme?
How much do you think the UK government made out of introducing the UK's vaccine programme, and how much greater power do you think it gave the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson?
Ooh, he's heading off on another tangent!
It's TiRed's fault... Something to do with his PC... then its back to Bridgen!
Seriously, get a room you too.😂
I think you mean Absolute Risk Reduction, but why are you focusing on this rather than more commonly used RRR – do you know the difference between the two, and what they actually mean?
Yes I know the difference and that was a typo, hard to keep up when it's 10 against 1 on this thread. But the government and media latched onto the Relative Risk Reduction because it sounded far better, when for balance then should always quote both figures.
Perhaps that's because a 1% Absolute Risk Reduction is pretty much **** all. Hardly the great efficacious vaccine we were promised was it?
Provide real evidence and we will listen to you.
Real evidence means peer reviewed or official stats and data that support your viewpoints.
To date you have provided none of those, i would suggest you go away, do your research properly and come back later.
Otherwise you are not going to get anything other than pulled apart on here. There are enough people in this site involved in medicine, trials, vaccines and research that you are not going to get away with vague statements and bs
No comment on what the German Health minister said
I'll comment.
The viral video was edited from a segment of the heute journal (Today’s Journal) show by the German television network, ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), that was posted on 13 March 2023.... start at 3:54 for the full segment on vaccine injuries, which lasts for over 11 minutes. The viral video lasts only 45 seconds <snip>
the viral video was edited to frame Karl Lauterbach’s words out of context. In this part, he pointed out that severe vaccine injuries are very rare.
"To avoid any false impressions, I would point out here that, according to the latest research data, severe vaccine injuries are very rare. The incidence is less than one in 10,000 vaccinations. So it’s not like injury is common.
But because our understanding of adverse events is now getting clearer and clearer, it should be possible to more quickly identify those who are affected, so we can help them more quickly."
from https://www.techarp.com/facts/karl-lauterbach-vaccines-dangerous/
I actually came on to say it should be okay to challenge what appears to be a pro-lockdown orthodoxy on here, this is complex, nothing's absolute, arguments from authority are not persuasive, suppression tactics etc have huge downsides etc etc.
But no, what we have is someone peddling antivax conspiracies not very effectively. Hey ho. I'll go away again
It doesn’t matter what my expertise is.
It really does given you are arguing against expertise
From seeing his posts, he is an expert in a very narrow field only, and associated with the much discredited (appallingly inaccurate) computer modelling of this pandemic that influenced so much of our disastrous response.
Well yes - I wouldn't give him more credence on advice on lawns than my brother in law who is a gardener. But when it comes to his area of expertise I would
I do love the way yo make value judgements about his skills as well from a position of ignorance
so you actually have no relevant expertise then? right. You can be safely ignored
Andrew Bridgen said that the world was round
In this analogy, Andrew Bridgen is saying the world is flat. As this is a significant departure from scientific consensus, he (and you) are expected to fully evidence such a claim.
So the pandemic has given governments across the world the opportunity to make lots of money and increase their power by introducing a vaccine programme?
How much do you think the UK government made out of introducing the UK’s vaccine programme, and how much greater power do you think it gave the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson?
You need to look past national governments and look at the global bodies that influence them. Our parliament is little more than a puppet show at the moment. On both sides of the house.
Now someone like TiRed – he has real clear expertise. I listen to him. I do not have the expertise to challenge him
From seeing his posts, he is an expert in a very narrow field only
How would you know? You only registered on stw 2 days ago and as far as I am aware TiRed hasn't posted on this thread for quite a while.
Have you gone through reading all 988 pages on this thread?
You need to look past national governments and look at the global bodies that influence them.
Which ones are these?