Is the tide turning against covid vaccines?

by slimboyfat 173 Replies latest social current

• 

  slimboyfat

  A critique of the sloppy methodology can be found here:

  The critique was written by someone who is not a heart doctor as is Dr Malhotra and it looks like an online magazine rather than a peer review journal as was the original article. We have entered a crazy world where “debunkers” are assumed never to be wrong themselves, whereas senior doctors and academics can be dismissed entirely if they disagree one iota with the current dogma.

  A central claim that Dr Malhotra didn’t rely on robust evidence is a bit cynical considering the drug companies are not sharing their data and outside researchers need to rely data wherever they can find it. Why are drug companies not sharing their research data?

  There are also serious questions about data collection of adverse affects since there seems to be no system in place. If they neglect to gather data on adverse effects, and refuse to share what data they do have, then we are getting an incomplete picture of the dangers. It’s entirely cyclical to obstruct and restrict data and then to criticise others for their data collection.

  Denmark and other countries are discontinuing the vaccine mandates because of the adverse effects. I wonder if the debunkers now go so far to discredit entire countries who stray from the official line. “Denmark debunked”, I’d like to see it.
• 

  TonusOH

  I agree that criminal charges are called for in such situations, and I am not excusing their actions. The term shortcut may seem insufficient or inapplicable to you, but that is what they did. They made a decision designed to save time and money, regardless of cost- that is a shortcut. It cost lives, it tarnished their reputation, it cost them vast amounts of money and was one of the reasons they had to reduce their workforce by more than 10% in 2005.

  A logical approach to the issue would tell me that it was not worth it, even allowing for the fact that the people who made the decisions that killed thousands of people did not pay an appropriate personal cost.
• 

  slimboyfat

  They saw data that showed the drug was harmful but they passed the drug anyway and tens of thousands of people died as a result. It wasn’t about saving time so how can that be called a “shortcut”?

  In order to determine whether it is in their financial interests to promote dangerous drugs you can’t just deduct the fines in this one instance. How many times have they passed dangerous drugs and got away with it? How many times was the evidence less clear so that it was easier to fudge the outcomes?

  It can get very complicated for us, trying to make sense of claims from variously well qualified people who make opposite claims.

  But we don’t need to be scientists ourselves, we only need to have been observant over the past couple of years to notice the following:

  We were initially told the vaccines would stop us catching the virus. That turned out to be WRONG.

  We were told the vaccines would stop us transmitting the virus. That turned out to be WRONG.

  We were told that when everyone took the vaccines we would reach herd immunity. That turned out to be WRONG.

  It’s almost as if there are things about the vaccines that the authorities didn’t know about when they were coercing people to take them.

  You don’t need to be either a scientist or a conspiracy theorist to make the entirely reasonable deduction that authorities who have got so many things wrong about the vaccines so far, could also conceivably have got it wrong when they assured us the vaccines won’t have unforeseen and serious impacts on health.
• 

  TonusOH

  It wasn’t about saving time so how can that be called a “shortcut”?

  They took the easy path instead of doing more research or scrapping the rollout and finding another medication. The latter would have cost them time and money. So it was about saving time.

  In order to determine whether it is in their financial interests to promote dangerous drugs you can’t just deduct the fines in this one instance.

  If the overall cost was higher than the revenue, it would not be in their interests to make a decision that would also lead to damage to their reputation and more regulation for their industry. This seems sensible to me.

  By definition, we cannot know how many times they got away with it. We must judge them on the times when they were caught and assess the risks and ultimate costs. We know that companies make bad decisions because we do occasionally catch them, and that is why there is more regulation and more scrutiny. This is to be expected.

  As for recognizing that health officials have gotten it wrong, we know that in the same way-- discoveries and research show us where they got it wrong and we can determine how trustworthy they are or aren't. And we can shine that same light on any claim about the efficacy -or lack thereof- of vaccines. Again, I don't see this as an either-or situation. Recognizing that one person is promoting biased or incomplete information to make things look one way doesn't mean I have to accept that the alternative must be that the opposite is true.
  
• 

  Riley

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUpf8JPN8e4
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  MRNA treatments are a crap-shoot. If you can’t understand that then no one can help you. Saying, “If the jabs hadn’t been available I would be dead.”, is ludicrous. You’ve been fooled by the oldest trick in the book; create a vacuum and then fill it..

  It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled….

  DD
• 

  TD

  The critique was written by someone who is not a heart doctor...

  Mahotra is actually pretty far afield himself here. As the reviewer noted, he did not acknowledge, let alone attempt to explain studies contrary to his interpretation.
  

  That is sloppy. and I've very surprised it got past peer review.

  Please understand, this does not automatically make him wrong, but it does cast a shadow over his interpretation(s).
  
• 

  Riley

  The data subsets are so huge now when it comes to covid vaccines efficiency and safety that any dissenting voice when properly researched always turns out to be complete and utter nonsense. We are literally dealing with billions of doses administered.

  It is fun to believe you are special and you have had some special knowledge bestowed apon you. Sadly we are dealing more with narcissistic personality disorder than anything of scientific merit.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Billions of doses administered… all without proper long term studies on side-effects…. many, many incredibly competent Doctors and Scientists cancelled for daring to question the integrity of the MRNA treatment…The Media labeling anyone with legitimate questions as “Anti-Vaxxers” and the people who “murdered Grandma”.

  Businesses permanently closed, good people fired from their jobs with the economic ripples still being felt…human rights violations, theft of private funds aka, Canadian Truckers.. the largest transfer of wealth to Corporations in history, Utra-wealthy groups like BlackRock overpaying for Real Estate and perhaps ensuring that an entire generation of young people will be renters … and the “Winter of Death” for the un-vaxxed..AND Big Tech in bed with Big Pharma and the Government to decide what constitutes “mis-information” with their own “Fact-Checkers” in a never before witnessed attack on free speech coupled with the all out effort to compel speech… They even changed the definition of “Vaccine.”

  Yep, sure sounds like anyone raising legitimate questions since the beginning is a Narcissist…🙄 It sure can’t be Fauci who thinks of himself as “The Science.” or idiot Trudeau who admires the CCP, or any of the other countless hypocritical officials caught lying time and again…

  DD
• 

  Anony Mous

  Florida’s health department announced that it now recommends against the vaccine for young people because it increases the risk of heart inflammation. This was supported by emerging evidence about the risks with the data showing a significant increase in cases in the first 30 days after a vaccine vs the regular distribution of cases.

  Multiple states now recommend against it for younger children and some are suggesting may outright ban the practice.

  More states have hinted will follow as the risks become more evident.