Tag Archives: Covid-19 vaccines

You May Want to Rethink the Jab, by Bob Moriarty

Pay no attention to those isolated cases behind the curtain. From Bob Moriarty at 321gold.com:

The Bill Gates Effect: WHO’s DTP Vaccine Killed More Children in Africa Than the Diseases it Targeted.

Portuguese health worker, 41, dies two days after getting the Pfizer Covid vaccine as her father says he ‘wants answers’.

Mexican doctor hospitalized after receiving COVID-19 vaccine.

Hundreds of Israelis get infected with Covid-19 after receiving Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

Wife of ‘perfectly healthy’ Miami doctor, 56, who died of a blood disorder 16 days after getting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is certain it was triggered by the jab, as drug giant investigates first death with a suspected link to shot.

75-year-old Israeli man dies 2 hours after getting Covid-19 vaccine.

Death of Swiss man after Pfizer vaccine.

88-year-old collapses and dies several hours after being vaccinated.

Thousands negatively affected after getting Covid-19 vaccine.

Hospital worker with no prior allergies in intensive care with severe reaction after Pfizer Covid vaccine.

4 volunteers develop FACIAL PARALYSIS after taking Pfizer Covid-19 jab, prompting FDA to recommend ‘surveillance for cases’.

Investigation launched as 2 people die in Norway nursing home days after receiving Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.

Continue reading→

Cuomo Reverses: Demands “Reopen The Economy” Amid Dismal NYC Vaccine Rollout, by Tyler Durden

Cuomo has perhaps noticed that his tax base is shrinking as his Covid measures stop business activity and the productive wealthy are fleeing the state. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Despite NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s efforts late last week to expedite COVID vaccinations by finally expanding eligibility requirements (after initially threatening to fine hospitals for supplying doses out of order), the sign-up process for people living in NYC remains “bewildering”, according to Comptroller Scott Stringer, a Democrat who is running to succeed Bill de Blasio as mayor when his second term ends later this year.

Stringer’s complaints follow reports of hospitals in the city being forced to throw away doses of the vaccine.

Dr. Neil Calman, president of the Institute for Family Health, complained to the NYT that the Family Health Center of Harlem had to throw away doses when patients didn’t show up to their appointments, since they couldn’t turn around and instead administer the doses to others.

And despite the fact that legal repercussions could further slow the process, state authorities have investigated healthcare providers that may have violated vaccination plans, including the city’s ParCare Community Health Network, which authorities say may have ignored the state’s vaccine prioritization guidelines.

Continue reading→

 

Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects, by Joseph Mercola

If you’re considering the vaccine, you might want to do what many medical professions say they are going to do. Wait for at least a year until there’s more data on risks and side effects. From Joseph Mercola at lewrockwell.com:

With COVID-19 vaccines on the precipice of mass distribution, news media are on fire as they talk about who will get the vaccine first and how it will be distributed. The one thing they aren’t discussing, however, is the definition of “effective” when it comes to these vaccines.

Early November 2020, Pfizer sent the stock market soaring1 when it announced its vaccine is more than 90% effective.2 One week later, Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days3 — boasted a 94.5% effectiveness rating.4

However, if you read Pfizer’s and Moderna’s press releases and other clinical trial information, you’ll see that they have left out some really crucial information. For example:5

  • They don’t say how many cycles they used for the PCR tests they gave to count COVID-19 cases, which is crucial for determining the accuracy of those tests
  • They don’t say whether the “cases” had symptoms or not
  • They don’t mention anything about hospitalizations or deaths, meaning there is no indication it prevents either
  • There is no indication about how long the vaccine lasts if it truly is effective and protective. Some indications suggest you might need to take this vaccine every three to six months in order for it to be effective

Continue reading→

95% Vaccine Efficacy? Not So Fast, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

95% efficacy doesn’t mean what you think it means. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

A -short- look at how vaccine makers like Pfizer and Moderna get to claim a 90% or even 95% efficacy for their products, with the help of regular Automatic Earth commenter Doc Robinson (not a medical doctor) and his quotes from the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The way the companies report their efficacy may be normal in their circles, but will, in the “normal” world, be experienced as confusing if not outright misleading.

What they do -simplified-, let’s take the Pfizer report, is they have 20,000 volunteers who get a vaccine, in this case 8 are infected, and that gives a result of -well- over 90% efficacy. But that is largely meaningless, because it appears to assume that all remaining 19,992 volunteers would have gotten infected if not for the vaccine.

To give this meaning, the world of science has long insisted on control groups (placebo groups), in this case also 20,000 strong, who don’t get a vaccine. If you know how many in that group are infected, you know -much better- hoe effective the vaccine is. Turns out, in the control group 86 out of 20,000 were infected. More than 8, but much less than 20,000. 19,914 unvaccinated people never got infected.

The 90%-95% numbers “measure” relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is completely different. In the Pfizer case, 99.57% of the unvaccinated people did not become infected, while 99.96% of the vaccinated people did not become infected. Therefore, the absolute risk reduction is 99.96% – 99.57% = 0.39%. While there remain many questions swirling around the mid- to long term effects of taking the vaccine.

You would think this is the most relevant information out there for those thinking about being vaccinated or not, and not the 95% relative risk reduction. But the latter info is what is reported. And sure, it sounds much better.

Continue reading→

What the Covid Vaccine Hype Fails to Mention, by Gilbert Berdine, M.D.

Before you step up for your jab, you might want to check the vaccine test’s definition of “effective.” From Gilbert Berdine at mises.org:

Pfizer recently announced that its covid vaccine was more than 90 percent “effective” at preventing covid-19. Shortly after this announcement, Moderna announced that its covid vaccine was 94.5 percent “effective” at preventing covid-19. Unlike the flu vaccine, which is one shot, both covid vaccines require two shots given three to four weeks apart. Hidden toward the end of both announcements, were the definitions of “effective.”

Both trials have a treatment group that received the vaccine and a control group that did not. All the trial subjects were covid negative prior to the start of the trial. The analysis for both trials was performed when a target number of “cases” were reached. “Cases” were defined by positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. There was no information about the cycle number for the PCR tests. There was no information about whether the “cases” had symptoms or not. There was no information about hospitalizations or deaths. The Pfizer study had 43,538 participants and was analyzed after 164 cases. So, roughly 150 out 21,750 participants (less than 0.7 percent) became PCR positive in the control group and about one-tenth that number in the vaccine group became PCR positive. The Moderna trial had 30,000 participants. There were 95 “cases” in the 15,000 control participants (about 0.6 percent) and 5 “cases” in the 15,000 vaccine participants (about one-twentieth of 0.6 percent). The “efficacy” figures quoted in these announcements are odds ratios.

Continue reading→

Elon Does Something Libertarian, by Eric Peters

Elon Musk doesn’t think the government should be able to force you to take a vaccine. Too bad he thinks the government should be able to force you to subsidize his companies. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Many libertarians want to like Elon Musk. He just gave them a reason to.

Not because he has decided to stop relying on government to help him sell electric cars.  But because he came out against government forcing people to submit to injections.

Musk isn’t old – or sick – and neither are his kids. Therefore, he reasons, there is no reason to inject himself or them with a vaccine against a sickness that doesn’t pose much if any serious risk to themselves – but which is itself much riskier than the virus it might protect them from getting.

Unless it is a novel vaccine, the pending WuFlu vaccine will at best be partially effective – reports have it that the threshold for FDA approval is 50 percent effective – which means 50 percent not effective – and guaranteed to come with a higher risk of serious side effects than the risk of healthy/not-elderly people getting seriously sick from the WuFlu.

Vaccines have a very sketchy record for being safe.

Continue reading→