Canadian Money Forum banner
1 - 20 of 336 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
The people in Hong Kong had an obsession with wearing masks and they are having a big run on covid. So bad that the government is testing everyone and major restrictions have been imposed.
Masking was an important early defense and it worked, to the extent it was used.

In the early days, New York covid nurses were catching covid at a lower rate than the general population.

Omicron is different. It is far more virulent. Omicron BA2 variant is far more virulent still. As well, everyone who wants vaccine has had the opportunity. It's time to open the flood gates.

There is a lot of covid science based in Europe. There is some but very little in North America.

Science means open, published, and peer reviewed.

None of the covid vaccine trials have been published. The FDA approval process is also not published. CDC has published almost no data.

The earliest access to information is expected to be from moderns. They have said they will accept requests for trial information by the end of 2022 and will try to fulfill those requests by the end of 2023. That is years between trial and shared data.

mRNA vaccine was engineered, no doubt by some very clever people, but it is not based on science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
For you pro-vax folks, here is something to think about.

Pfizer released a couple of statistics from the first three months of case study of their vaccine. They did this under court order and they appear to have obfuscated as much as possible (with some redaction and a custom written document to fulfill the court order).

There were 1223 "vaccine related" deaths in the first three months of the vaccine trial. They do not indicate how many doses were given. This is now on the public record.


So, the narrative of "it's totally safe" has been proven to be a lie. The conclusion is likely that the vaccine has a strong risk/reward benefit but it cannot be concluded that it is "totally safe", on account of 1223 deaths and 158,893 reported "events" from the vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
What vaccine do you know (or researched) that has 0 fatality and 0 side-effects?
I am not under scrutiny here, as I did not decide to administer it to two or three hundred million people, knowing that 1223 people died during the test, and claiming it is "totally safe".

I'm open to criticism with regard to the data I have presented or the integrity of the source. In this case, it is a document that was produced under court order by the producer of the vaccine so I think trying to undermine this document to fit into your world view is going to be some infertile soil.

For my part, I'm glad to have taken three doses but would have preferred a scientific approach. Science requires open and peer reviewed data. This vaccine was engineered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
I don't know any vaccine where they are hiding data.......do you?
You seem remarkably outspoken given your acute lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Actually, this is the whole point of my post.

None of the trial studies or follow up studies from any company are available.

The company most forthcoming is Moderna, who offer to field freedom of information requests, starting at the end of 2022. That's the end of this year. They indicate it will take them up to 12 months to process these requests. That is the end of 2023.

Pfizer has said they will consider requests starting at the end of 2023 and I seem to recall JNJ is also at the end of 2023. Again, this is when they will accept requests, not when the information will be provided.

The FDA has also not published their study which was used to approve the vaccine.

I understand why they did it. Any information would be twisted, misrepresented, and weaponized. At the end of the day, however, a lie is a lie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
No it wasn't. It was 1,223 deaths between December 1, 2020 till February 28, 2021. TomB16 mentioned they were from the trial in error.
My post is not worded well. The main info in the video (I linked the video because it contains all of the other links) comes from a study taken just after the emergency approval and these deaths were not disclosed until ordered by a court. Even then, it is far from a complete set of study data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
All the trial studies for the vaccines were published publicly.
No they were not and still are not. Most of the data has not been published and is not open for peer review, as required to be scientifically valid.

Cherry picking data to prove a point is specifically not science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
So, let's try not to lose our heads and let's review the data scientifically and unemotionally and leave our skeptical minds out of it...for once, or at least let's try to do that.
No.

I think I know why the CDC/FDA/etc has not been open with us. Any information would be misrepresented and used as a weapon.

The issue is, this places the health of North America in the hands of a few decision makers because they don't want anyone else to scrutinize their work.

Dr. Campbell and some other sources (primarily outside of North America) have the appearance of being far more objective, from my point of view. I prefer data sources that have the credibility of being actual science.

This makes me pro-science, hesitantly pro-fax (hesitant because my position is based on speculation), and profoundly against the North American politcal manure pile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
The full submission to the FDA for approval of the vaccines was published publicly even before the vaccines were approved and used.
Sure. There was a submission. It was full in that it was submitted.

Tell me, what was the death rate from taking the vaccine? You know... from the studies. Any study that came from either Pfizer, CDC or FDA will suffice.

While you're there, how about citing the odds of having one or more side effect(s).

I've had three injections of Phizer. I wish to know the risk I was under and will be under again, should another shot come around and I choose to take it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Why are you asking me? Do you feel dead?
I'm asking you because you "saw them". At least, the studies of the initial trial.

That information just published is not the original trial data that was used to approve the vaccines. The vaccine trials were done a very long time ago and as I said, the reports submitted to the FDA were published publicly even before the vaccines were approved. I saw them.
At this point, the FDA was sued under the freedom of information act. This court victory caused Phizer to publish the number of vaccine related deaths during the period of December 01, 2020 and February 28, 2021. The vaccine wasn't given emergency approval until December 11, 2020 (link below).



That information just published is not the original trial data that was used to approve the vaccines. The vaccine trials were done a very long time ago and as I said, the reports submitted to the FDA were published publicly even before the vaccines were approved. I saw them.
Incorrect. It does include a very small segment of data from the trial period. See above.


The full submission to the FDA for approval of the vaccines was published publicly even before the vaccines were approved and used. It contained mega pages of info on the numbers of trial subjects and placebo subjects, their ages, races, genders, and known commodities.
What does "full submission" mean? It clearly does not mean that all available data was published, as above.


You call that cherry picking data. Come on Tom??? If you find something that we should actually be worried about please let us know. So far this is not it.
So, what is the death rate?

We know there were 1223 vaccine related deaths during the period of December 01, 2020 and February 28, 2021. We know there were 42086 related medical cases. We don't know what the cases were or how many people were in the study.

FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock MD has said, "...millions of people have already safely received COVID-19 vaccine...". I understand she said this sometime around the end of this study. She made no mention that 1223 people did not receive their COVID-19 vaccine safely.

Don't you think a safety study of a vaccine ought to include the number of people under study and the number of deaths? If they had done so, we could have used long division to calculate the death rate.

If we don't know the death rate, what do we know? This was a safety study.

You know what I would call that? Cherry picking of data.


Look, you can use dismissive language all you want but science, by definition, requires open and peer reviewed data. We simply do not have that here. What we have is some data voluntarily published and some other surprising but incomplete data issued only under court order.

I prefer science. That's why I follow European studies of the virus and the vaccines. That's why I am pleased to have had Omicron. That's how I knew the vaccine booster is likely only effective for a couple of months. That's how I knew the original two doses of vaccine was all but ineffective after six months. That's how I know that Omicron has very likely provided strong (but not completely invulnerable) immunity against COVID for many years. Science.

I wish the conspiracy theorists were 100% wrong, so I could point at them and laugh. OK, I still point at them and laugh but they have been correct about a couple of things. Ivermectin is one of the things they were right about. Ivermectin has been shown to significantly reduce mortality rate in COVID patients and yet physicians who prescribe it in the US were in danger of loosing their licenses for doing so. That doesn't sound all that objective to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Speaking of Ivermectin...

There was a study of an entire city in Brazil (Itajai). This is not the study but an analysis of the study posted on nih.gov.


Someone posted a rebuttal to the study, mentioning that most of the Invermectin recipients did not take all of the pills they were given. I'm not sure what that means. It's hard to imagine they followed up on the 159,561 people in the study and "most" is not quantified or justified.

In support of the study, the city is home to 223,128 people and my understanding is they selected the highest risk people for the 159,561 study sample set.

Anyway, it was found that a tiny dose of Ivermectin reduce the chance of getting COVID by 44%, reduced the chance of hospitalization by 56%, and reduced the mortality rate by 68%.


And yet, CNN calls it a "pet deworming drug" and the FDA continues to recommend against it's use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Check this out.

Pfizer's PAXLOVID was fast tracked for approval based on initial positive findings. It appears to be an important tool in the fight against COVID. This is great.

Meanwhile, positive findings on Ivermectin have been dismissed in wholesale fashion, despite several credible studies (and admittedly a bunch of garbage non-science), and yet, Ivermectin continues to be recommended against.

So, PAXLOVID initially shows 89% death rate reduction.

A lot more data shows Ivermectin having about 68% death rate reduction. Not as good but more credible.

The reasons Ivermectin remain relevant are three fold.

1) PAXLOVID has not had several studies by peers recreating the results, as Ivermectin has.

2) The efficacy of COVID vaccines was shown to be not as good as initial, maker based, studies indicated. Perhaps PAXLOVID will have the same maker study bias?

3) Ivermectin is off patent and made in India for a ridiculously cheap price. It is can easily be made available in 3rd world countries for perhaps less than $1 for an entire treatment regimen.

[Note: auto-correct has moronically caused the mis-spelling of ivermectin. I've had to correct this post manually. Another conspiracy? Perhaps.]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
A lot of scientific evidence and public disclosure of results, side effects, adverse events. Everything that you keep saying they are hiding. That was my point.
That's odd. Perhaps they have revised that info?

Or, it does occur to me a possibility that you have no familiarity but continue to run your keyboard. You would not be the first person to myopically entrench themselves in a position without having any real data. I apologize in advance if this turns out to not be the case but you have been ankle biting your way through an argument without providing a single statistic while I have cited several credible sources.

FDA approval memorandum.


If you click on the link to "safety and effectiveness data", it takes you here.


Here is the analysis of the available safety data.

"FDA Evaluation of Available Safety Data

Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a series of two doses, three weeks apart. The available safety data to support the EUA include 37,586 of the participants enrolled in an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled international study, the majority of whom are U.S. participants. These participants, 18,801 of whom received the vaccine and 18,785 of whom received saline placebo, were followed for a median of two months after receiving the second dose. The most commonly reported side effects, which typically lasted several days, were pain at the injection site, tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain, and fever. Of note, more people experienced these side effects after the second dose than after the first dose, so it is important for vaccination providers and recipients to expect that there may be some side effects after either dose, but even more so after the second dose.

It is mandatory for Pfizer Inc. and vaccination providers to report the following to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine: all vaccine administration errors, serious adverse events, cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS), and cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death."

Does this look like, "A lot of scientific evidence and public disclosure of results, side effects, adverse events." to you?

What about the death rate? That seems to be safety related. We were able to learn that 1223 people died in a three month period but only by court directed disclosure. Let's have a look at vaccine death rates. As a vaccine recipient, death rate is relevant to me. They specifically state they will collect that info. Why not disclose it?

Here is a link to Pfizer's "landmark trial"


This page has a lot of links.

Here is the study protocol.



Herre is the "Data & Results" page on Pfizer's web site.



I will provide a synopsis.

"We don't publish this data openly but we have a DUA (data use agreement) you can sign which will provide limited access to the information we wish to share but we specifically do not have a peer review process which would make this study scientific in nature." - TomB16


Meanwhile, at the CDC, their published "studies" are so obfuscated with jargon, they are not intelligible to me. I am not a physician but I do understand statistics. The only legitimate reason I can think of for them to write their studies to be so incomprehensible is incompetence.


So, OptsyEagle, please help me find published data from the FDA or Pfizer. What is it that you read that has "A lot of scientific evidence and public disclosure of results, side effects, adverse events."?

Just saying data is there does not make it so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
I know that some data has been published but it is very limited. We know that Pfizer and the CDC have great masses of data from publicly funded studies of their vaccines.

The points I have made are:

1) The data has been published selectively. I don't know if this is a cover up of corruption. What I do know is that it is not science since it is neither open nor peer reviewed.

2) These medications were publicly funded and yet the public is not open to scrutinize the results. How come we have to learn of the Pfizer caused deaths by court order? That is a form of corruption in itself.

3) The extreme right are clearly nut-jobs and it breaks my heart that they are right, with regard to the lack of transparency on this global health issue. I don't stand with them, because they all have COVID and refuse to wear masks, but they are not as wrong as left and centrists, like myself, seem to generally believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Anyway, I am always happy to hear about any developments or new information pertaining to the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, but I don't really want to spend much time on whether the government is lying or telling the truth.
It sucks this was politicized but it became so the moment the government stepped in with a bunch of restrictions and punitive measures that are only explainable if they were trying to force people to get vaccinated. It also doesn't help that vaccine death rates and incidence of side effects were not provided to people receiving the vaccine. In fact, these rates don't exist in relevant form. My wife is an RN, worked a ton of vaccine clinics, and was shocked to learn of the 1223 deaths already very early in the vaccine roll-out. I am confident a lot of people would not have taken the vaccine, had they known, so perhaps this is why the information is difficult to access.

As I have said before, I would have been OK with a decision of universal, forced, vaccinations to achieve herd immunity if the situation had warranted it. Certainly, I don't advocate that and I wouldn't like it but we could have an event in the future in which everyone will need to get vaccinated to save the entire population. I'm glad this wasn't one of those times because it will trigger a civil war.

Meanwhile, the Ivermectin study I cited yesterday was "retracted" yesterday, not long after I cited it. This is odd, as it had been published for something like six weeks. There are tons of Ivermectin studies showing positive results but the others I've read have been very, very small.

There is a study underway to investigate Ivermectin as an anti-viral that is partially based on the Itajai study. I wonder if this derivative will continue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
I'm glad I had a booster of Pfizer at the very end of December and Omicron at the end of January. Omicron was no big deal at all. It was a matter of occasional dry cough, sore throat, and fatigue for a few days. I could have pretended I was OK and doubt anyone would have noticed. Actually, that's about how it went. We just hung out in a hotel room and had food delivered for 10 days.

We had the initial Wuhan strain in January 2020. This is before the public health folks claim it came to North America. It was no joke. The symptoms were extremely severe, went on for weeks, and went away very slowly. I can easily see that it could kill someone. Of course, there was no vaccine at that time so I speculate that factors into the deep impact, as well.

Speaking of COVID strategies, how is it a good idea to take a vaccine booster that appears to have about two months of efficacy and then try to avoid infection? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the vaccine and then expose yourself to the virus, a few weeks later, when the vaccine is at it's peak efficacy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Obviously if you give a drug to many billions of people and cannot find any overwhelmingly conclusive problems with it, it can certainly be put on the list of fairly benign drugs. My best evidence of this is that I took a couple shots of it and I feel absolutely fine.
While true, billions of people had not been given the vaccine in February 2021.

If I am going to take an injection, I'd like to be appraised of the risks and statistics associated with it. I would like to believe it was evaluated in an open, peer reviewed, process. I do not blindly trust, unless there is no alternative.

I'm also aware that if you asked 2M people to drink a glass of water, there would be a ton of issues and some deaths. If you asked a million people to line up, single file, there would be an unexpected death or two.

Non disclosure of risks is an ethical violation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Then why didn't you read the vaccine trial study reports BEFORE you took the vaccine.
It turns out, your hypothesis that I did not read vaccine trial publications prior to taking the vaccine is incorrect, so there is no need to read the rest of your myopic bashing.

They had all the safety data and efficacy data pertaining to them and they were published for everyone to read in December of 2020.
They published something but it was incomplete, to say the least. Still is.

If you are able to cite a death rate for the vaccine, I will continue to exchange with you. Not the number of deaths, which was revealed by court order, but the death rate (deaths / # of people given the vaccine) Otherwise, I will leave you to put your hands over your head and hum.

Surely the death rate is a key piece of safety data? I am not a physician but I think I'm on solid ground thinking death avoidance is part of safety. We certainly know this information is being collected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Thank you, Spudd.

There are also death statistics available from Europe and Australia (probably others but I haven't looked into it).

Unfortunately, like all of these studies, that does not cite the number of people vaccinated. I might speculate an average of 2.1 doses per person, giving us about 38.5M people. The 2.1 number is based on gross speculation on my part.

A little long division later.....

death rate = 308 / 38,500,000 = 0.00000795%

This number, based on speculation by a non-physician, is not safety data but it is data-adjacent.
 
1 - 20 of 336 Posts
Top