CORONA VIRUS

Discussion in 'Health' started by RJM, Mar 18, 2020.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    So our 5-year-old grandson got a positive test this morning.

    His mum did a phone round and an anti-vax mum in their school group said one of her kids had a high temp last week and then her other child was sent home with a high temp as well. "Did you test?" she was asked. "No, didn't bother as we've run out." So a mum says, "I've got a spare, I'll drop it off to you" and she says "No problem, we're all meeting at the park later, you can give it to me then." Not surprisingly, every other parent in the group bailed out of the meet-up!

    Here's the thing: We've been planning the family Xmas, everyone comes to us, so 8 adults, 3 kids, from Xmas Eve to Boxing Day. Now one of my daughters with her hubbie and 2 kids will be isolating at home ... and the G-kids miss out on the family Xmas again. Grand-daughter is 3, so she's no experience of a family Xmas.

    In all this talk about 'my rights and freedoms of choice', get's complicated when it poses a health risk to others. Now a group of families is testing, facing the prospect of a number of families cancelling gatherings. I endorse your right not to vax if you don't want to. Just isolate yourself somewhere, and don't put the rest of us at risk. We have our rights, too, and one of them is not being infected by others we consider irresponsible.

    Cases in London are rising exponentially, wards are filling up, the number of unvaxed in ICUs speaks for itself, the deathrate is falling, (thank you vaccine) and hospitals are suffering a significant number of staff absentees due to infection and isolation... Meanwhile Mrs Unvaxed doesn't think it fair to keep her kid indoors for a couple of days, and so she has infected his peer group the week before Christmas ... thanks ...
     
  2. RJM

    RJM God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    But vaccination does not block transmission, or even prevent against getting covid. As with the flu vaccine it helps prevent the symptoms becoming serious or deadly?

    In other words vaccination helps prevent those most susceptible to serious covid (overwhelmingly the over 65s) from blocking ICU beds needed for cancer patients and heart sufferers, etc.

    Is that right, so far?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2021
  3. RJM

    RJM God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Seems we are going to have to wait until 2096 before being allowed to view the entirety of the half-a-million pages of Pfizer safety information around the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.

    Younger people, themselves unlikely to suffer serious covid damage, have a justified case to avoid taking a drug with unknown long-term and sometimes short-term effects, unless they can be persuaded that it is really necessary. However it does NOT prevent transmission. So what purpose does it really serve them? It does not make them flat-earth anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists.

    It is true that most doctors accept these vaccines -- to mitigate the covid symptoms becoming serious or deadly -- but the long term effects cannot be known. It is the first part of the article below that is important, imo, and not the figures of numbers deaths etc, posted without statistically linking them to the number of jabs:

    https://trialsitenews.com/fdas-forced-hand-drops-pfizers-bombshell-safety-document/

    FDA’s forced hand drops Pfizer’s Bombshell Safety Document
    SoniaElijah
    December 14, 2021


    The highly confidential Pfizer documents, which have been synonymous with the extreme lack of transparency revealed by the actions of pivotal governmental agencies, over the past 20 months, lead critics of the official narrative to demand “show us the data,” is finally being revealed–well sort of, the first few hundred redacted pages out of a trove of 451,000.

    What led to the disclosure?

    The crack in Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) iron dome-style data safeguarding, arrived in the form of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release with the request filed on August 27, 2021, to access all the Pfizer documentation that the FDA had relied on to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use authorization. An agency that has received a FOIA request is required to ‘determine within 20 business days after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request,’ as set out by the 1967 FOIA law. It took the FDA though three months to release the first 91 redacted pages, on November 20.

    The FOIA request was issued by a group of over 30 scientists and academics who filed a civil action lawsuit against the agency because they failed to fully comply with the request, since less than 1% of the documentation was released and with the FDA taking the position that all the data would be shared by 2076. Subsequently, the governmental agency had the audacity to push the date back even further to 2096. This was due to their recent disclosure of the existence of thousands of additional pages, totalling 451,000 versus the originally stated 320,000 pages. However, the rate at which the FDA is willing to release the documentation has not changed and remains at 500 pages a month. It’s worth noting that it took the FDA only 108 days to review all of Pfizer’s documentation before authorizing the Pfizer BNT162B2 vaccine for emergency authorization use on December 1, 2020.

    The scientists, public health officials, and academics, led by Dr. Peter McCullough, formed the plaintiff group, PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency), and are being represented by the law firm of Aaron Siri, of Siri & Glimstad LLP.

    In an exclusive interview with Trial Site News, Aaron Siri, managing partner of the firm, who has extensive civil litigation experience, stated:

    “The court has not ordered a single page to be produced yet. For the most part, when our firm submits a FOIA request, they [the agency] will produce documents but the FDA wants to do it at a pace that’s incredibly slow, not commensurate with the needs of the request. The fight is not whether they’ll produce it -- they’ll produce it. The fight is how long it will take and then the fight once we get it will be the redactions they put in.“

    When I asked him whether FOIA requests will be made to obtain Moderna and Janssen’s (a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson) documentation supplied to the FDA to secure emergency use authorization, he responded:

    “You can’t make a request until a vaccine has been licensed. Authorization for emergency use is not the same as licensure or approval. The Pfizer vaccine is the only vaccine that’s been licensed/approved as “safe and effective” according to the FDA on August 23rd 2021.”

    The first several hundred pages of the newly released Pfizer documents were shared on the PHMPT’s website.

    The focus of this investigative report centres on the 38-page document, entitled, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 February 2021.” The report was prepared by Pfizer, between the time of December 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021. The adverse events reports originate in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, and ‘56 other countries.‘

    It’s interesting to note that the artifact represents an amended analysis provided by Pfizer, a response to their failings associated with the incomplete submittal of a safety data package to the FDA, which the agency commented on. A reference is made to the FDA’s March 9th request to Pfizer ‘We are most interested in a cumulative analysis of post-authorization safety data to support your future BLA submission. Please submit an integrated analysis of your cumulative post-authorization safety data, including U.S. and foreign post-authorization experience, in your upcoming BLA submission.

    Please include a cumulative analysis of the Important Identified Risks, Important Potential Risks, and areas of Important Missing Information identified in your Pharmacovigilance Plan, as well as adverse events of special interest and vaccine administration errors (whether or not associated with an adverse event). Please also include distribution data and an analysis of the most common adverse events. In addition, please submit your updated Pharmacovigilance Plan with your BLA submission.’


    The many unknowns

    In the short three-month period in which the data was ‘reported spontaneously to Pfizer,’ 42,086 cases were recorded with 158,893 events. According to the data, one can interpret that the average person (case) would have suffered from just under four symptoms (events). Particularly troubling, the FDA opted to protect Pfizer’s interests by redacting the total number of doses to (b) (4), hindering the ability to calculate the incidence rates and provide a meaningful analysis of the data.

    Another deeply concerning fact centres on important limitations cited by Pfizer: ‘the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.’ In relation to this topic, investigators leading a prominent Harvard study conducted from 2007-2010, discovered that ‘less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the FDA.’ Assuming this math is correct, we can conclude that the 42,086 cases represent a staggeringly underreported amount.

    Other significant ‘unknowns’ peppered throughout Pfizer’s analysis are:
    2990 cases where the gender is unknown
    6876 cases where the age is unknown
    9440 cases where the outcomes are unknown

    Another anomaly that stands out is that for case outcomes, Pfizer has chosen to include those recovering from adverse events in the same category with those recovered, under the label, ‘Recovered/Recovering’. This move alone seems questionable.

    The large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports

    Alarmingly, the analysis makes note of the fact that there has been such a large volume of adverse events, classified as ‘serious cases’ in that short period of time, that Pfizer has had to take on more full-time employees and make significant technology changes to cope with the processing of the voluminous reports while also meeting regulatory reporting timelines. As recorded in the document:

    ‘Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritized the processing of serious cases, to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity.’ The report went on to state how Pfizer has dealt with these large numbers of adverse event reports.

    ‘Pfizer has also taken multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues. To date, Pfizer has onboarded additional b4 full-time employees (FTEs) ...’

    (*b4 is a redacted term)

    The 1228 Deaths

    Within Pfizer’s self-generated document, a serious red flag surfaces: 1228 people were recorded to have died within three months after taking the vaccine, while no record accounts for the gender of the study participants who died. This data, which has significant safety implications, was known to Pfizer by end of February, yet on April 12, Dr. Mace Rothenberg, former Pfizer Chief Medical Officer, when talking to the Washington Journal about the development of the Pfizer vaccine said “I can tell you that no corners were cut” and “there have been no deaths that have occurred directly as a result of the vaccine alone.”

    Those defending the safety of the Pfizer vaccine have raised the argument that ‘correlation does not imply causation, in which two events occurring together does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship.’

    Page 10 of the Pfizer analysis presents an important identified risk of anaphylaxis with nine reported fatalities. Four out of the nine occurred on the same day the individuals were vaccinated (see below).

    Pfizer emphasized that these individuals had underlying medical conditions, but for all four of them to die on the same day that they were received the vaccine, suggests potential vaccinal death causality.

    In Table 7 of pages 16-17, 1403 cases of Cardiovascular AESIs (Adverse Event of Specific Interest) were reported and segmented by the following: Arrhythmia; Cardiac Failure; Cardiac failure acute; Cardiogenic shock; Coronary artery disease; Myocardial infarction; Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; Stress cardiomyopathy; Tachycardia.

    The relevant event onset latency ranged from less than 24 hours to 21 days. This means that relevant events occurred from any time less than 24 hours up to 21 days of receiving the vaccine, with a median of less than 24 hours. 136 relevant event outcomes were fatal. Therefore, 50% of these relevant outcomes (including deaths) occurred less than 24 hours after receiving the vaccine. This points again to vaccine death causality.

    Yet, Pfizer somehow concludes: ‘This cumulative case review does not raise any new safety issues. Surveillance will continue.’

    When looking at the category ‘Immune-mediated/Autoimmune AESIs’, 1050 cases were reported, with just over three times more females affected than males- there were 12 fatal outcomes. The median of the relevant event onset latency was less than 24 hours, which again suggests vaccine death causality.

    The seriousness of the cases

    Looking at the graph below, a significant portion of cases are reported as serious compared to non-serious with the highest number of serious cases in the ‘general disorders’ category. A serious case is one that is medically significant resulting in either hospitalization or that has a life-threatening consequence or death. It’s interesting to note that for cardiac, immune, vascular, and infections, serious cases dominate and for immune cases, all are classified as serious …

    etc…
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2021
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    We're not sure on that one. Evidence suggests a reduction in infection, so if not infected then not transmissive, and even when infected, a reduction of the time one is transmissive ... so it reduces the risks across the board, it seems to me?
     
    Ella S. and RJM like this.
  5. RJM

    RJM God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Thank you. That's fair
     
  6. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,467
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Over 65s dying in hospital beds prevent "healthy people" from getting conventional surgeries and office visits.

    It is still about all of us. The hospitals are still filling up with largely unvaxed folk.
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Hospital beds are filling with the unvaxed, and the ICUs are by majority Delta.

    The percentages either sick or isolating in the emergency services are becoming critical.

    +++

    In local news, the mum who didn't isolate her kids has infected other families, so our Christmas gathering is off. Son in Law cannot visit his mum in hospital ... it's all so sad when a bit of social responsibility could have avoided this.
     
  8. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    490
    Omicron is spreading here, though at present not in a fearful way. Government has sent out alert. Kerala death toll is high again 419 out of India total of 453. Perplexing. How it came about to that when they were doing the best earlier?
     
  9. RJM

    RJM God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    7,711
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Important channel, imo
    20 min

     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2022
  10. Unveiled artist

    Unveiled artist Real life Dolls

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2022
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    58
    Unfortunately, that's the case in the states:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...accine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

    "In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there's "willful misconduct" by the company. The protection lasts until 2024."
     
    RJM likes this.
  11. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Save Our Souls

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    2,773
    Likes Received:
    585
    We all know that there is big money to be made on pharmaceuticals.
    Where there is money, there is corruption.
    ..but I'm not thinking to move to Russia or China any time soon. :)
     
    RJM likes this.
  12. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,467
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    I think in general capitalism takes advantage of consumers....and thrives specifically on tragedy.
     
    RJM likes this.
  13. Ella S.

    Ella S. Utilitarian Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    482
    This is so bizarre to me. I remember a time when, even if I was just coughing or sneezing from allergies, these very same people would tell me to "stay home" or that they hoped I wasn't contagious. Now, with an extremely contagious and far deadlier disease, people are still just waltzing around.
     
  14. Unveiled artist

    Unveiled artist Real life Dolls

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2022
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    58
    I think the logic applies to the flu-if you don't have symptoms doctors won't treat you. So, you're free to go to work and walk around without you knowing if you're asymptomatic. You can't go to a doctor to treat you for possible asymptomatic symptoms that may infect others.

    So, it's the same logic. No one is dropping dead (literally) from COVID and many people I know and online have survived it. So, they do the same-they go to the doctors if they have symptoms (I hope) and if they are wise and have symptoms they are familiar with (instead of going to the doctor for every little headache), they do what their employers say and stay home.

    Unlike the flu, though, the government and their scientist are saying everyone could be asymptomatic and contagious and people MUST believe they are therefore wear a mask and take the vaccine. It's quite different from the flu perspective. In one instance, authorities and scientists that don't know others are telling society they are sick while on the other hand actual doctors will only diagnosis your sickness with symptoms and tests.

    So, they are quite different. As for work, though, I think it's common procedure to stay home if one is sick. Though, if you don't have extravagant symptoms that warrant a COVID test then it wouldn't be wise to tell employers you may have COVID.
     
  15. Ella S.

    Ella S. Utilitarian Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    482
    I completely forgot that going to the doctor is an option for a lot of people. My whole life has been, essentially, if I run a fever or vomit then I stay in until my symptoms go away in case I'm contagious. The only doctor I ever visit is my psychiatrist, and that's because I was legally mandated to see one.
     
    Unveiled artist likes this.
  16. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,467
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    0
    Really?

    No they are literally dropping dead, and filling hospitals costing the world trillions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2022
    Ella S. likes this.
  17. Unveiled artist

    Unveiled artist Real life Dolls

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2022
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    58
    Oooh. I'm the other way around. I've had seizures all my life and had to go to the doctors for every other thing. Now, I go for regular check-ups. I don't know about others, but I think I and many have a good sense of good health and bad health if not stubborn to go to the doctors when something is wrong. Those who are at high risk I can kinda understand the fear/concern but this is a whole 'nother animal.

    The thing is, do you stay home because it is your choice or are you told to stay home despite how you feel (how well do you know yourself and health if you've not had a change of routine)?
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2022
    Ella S. likes this.
  18. Unveiled artist

    Unveiled artist Real life Dolls

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2022
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    58
    They're not. It's not the black plague. It depends on a person's overall health and other factors. Do you believe more people are in the hospital than there are those who are not? Shouldn't we put numbers in perspective?
     
  19. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    490
  20. Ella S.

    Ella S. Utilitarian Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    482
    It's my choice, but I can't say that I ever know whether a fever is just a fever or going to turn into something worse.
     

Share This Page