|
Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
This is from 6 months of data in the UK. This is not just deaths with Covid, but ALL causes of death per 100,000 people. It seems to line up with some concerning data from other countries. I'm not sure what it means, but it's interesting data.
[alexberenson.substack.com] Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 02/23/2012 Posts: 542 |
The powers that be are getting scared that all the side effects of their poison are going to start showing up before they reach their quota |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
Here's an article that shows a different view: [www.medpagetoday.com]
As you review both of them I would encourage you to consider which data is formally analyzed and shows statistically significant differences and is peer reviewed. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Interesting, I'd love to read the entire study rather than just an article about the study. I've seen far too many articles lately that have taken a great deal of studies out of context (Bangladesh mask study is a prime example).
However, it doesn't explain the raw data coming from the UK. I'm by no means suggesting that the vaccination is definitively killing people, I'm sure there are numerous things going on, but the data is concerning and it seems that it would demand further study. Sadly the US has not been transparent with the data (pretty much any data lately). The CDC and NIH have been so far behind the curve that it's rather embarrassing. Remember when both agencies were adamant that the vaccinated weren't at risk for getting Covid and weren't at risk for spreading it? Remeber when they instituted different testing threshholds for vaxxed vs. unvaxxed to skew the data? Even with that unlevel playing field both agencies are now publicly saying that the vaccine is not an effective tool in stopping the spread of Covid or for stopping people from getting Covid. (Yet they are pushing the vaccination even harder than ever) This is something that raw data out of the UK and Israel clearly showed many, many months ago (all while the CDC, NIH, and all legacy media was saying that breakthrough cases were extremely rare, I believe you were also saying the same thing back then). The raw data from the UK has been a very effective tool regarding Covid trends. The other day Dr. Fauci said "We would hope, and this is something we are looking at very carefully, that that third shot with the mRNA not only will boost you way up but increases the durability so that you will not necessarily need it every six months or a year. We’re hoping it pushes it out more. If it doesn’t and the data show we do need it more often, then we’ll do it.” Well, we know some data... Israel is already on their fourth shot because they already did boosters and they have already seen a decline in durability. Again, overseas data is valuable and many months ahead of what the CDC says (although I'm pretty sure the CDC already know the data but pretend like they don't know it or that it doesn't exist.) Because of our politicization/weaponization of the CDC and NIH I'm growing less and less confident of ANY study that they're involved in. When the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says masks can reduce the chance of infection from COVID-19 by 80%, which is contrary to studies by the CDC itself as well as ALL the independent studies it's hard to trust many studies where the CDC provides data. I'm admittedly becoming skeptically of them based on their own checkered track record. If they provided the data for that study you posted then the study is only as good as the dataset and the lack of transparency in that data is a problem. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 11/24/2019 Posts: 241 |
We’re told to “follow the science” and Fauci is saying he “hopes” the third jab will do some good? Sounds like there isn’t much science behind that statement.
Is that following the science like the review board member who said there wasn’t ant data to support giving boosters, he just had a gut feeling it might help? |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
The way this epidemic has popped up nobody knows anything .From what ive seen anyone with lung problems better hope they dont get it |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
Jake, the link to the article is in the story I posted. That's how I knew it was a formal analysis and peer reviewed.
The data is certainly murky but if you don't trust the CDC/NIH look to the individual hospital systems that are saying the same thing independently. Sure, you could say they are in bed with the CDC/CMS/NIH but just a year or so ago everyone was saying the hospitals were lying about COVID numbers because they get extra money so it makes sense to over inflate the numbers. Now they are saying get the COVID Vaccine because there are less cases and hospitalizations with the vaccinated and providing numbers to prove it. So, which one is it? Are they lying about COVID numbers to get more money or are they lying about the effectiveness of the vaccine? (Not aimed at Jake specifically but this is an interesting question) IMO hospitals suffered major financial damage last year because only certain wards were full and elective procedures and other procedures were put off and the add on payment for COVID wasn't even close to making up the difference. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
My Daughter is a Doctor and my sister gives the shot and does the infusions at our local hospital they say get the shot and the moderna is showing more effective than the others and not saying you cant still catch up but symptoms are in most cases not as severe |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I read the article and then had to refresh my browser and now I can't access it again because it's behind a paywall/registration page.
First, Robert Redfield admitted to inflated numbers last year because there was a financial incentive to both the hospital and the individual Dr. That wasn't some conspiracy, I can provide the direct quote if you'd like. It's especially egregious that it was incentivized for individual Dr's. As for hospitals suffering last year because of elective surgery and procedures being put off... I totally agree. Two things can be true at the same time... it may have hurt them financially to cancel those procedures but in many situations their hands were tied and they errored on the side of caution. It actually gave them even more incentive to overcount Covid cases to make up as much difference in revenue as possible. If you're not selling much gas you raise the price of the snacks to make up for it at the convenient store. Second, again, the data from Europe is very interesting. Countries like Austria, Denmark, and the UK are all seeing a surge in cases and deaths and they have high vax rates. A county in Ireland has a 99.7% vax rate and they have the highest Covid rate in Ireland. Gibraltar is seeing a Covid spike and they are the most vaxed nation in the World with enough vaccines administered to cover 143% of their population (either people getting multiple shots or people that work there but live in Spain). Much of the raw data seems to indicated that there is an inverse relationship for vax rate and Covid cases . The continent of Africa is a prime example: 6% vax rate overall and some of the lowest Covid numbers in the World. The wealthy countries like South Africa have the highest vax rate and highest Covid cases. It's across the board like that on the continent. We could also look at places like Western Australia where hospitalizations and excess deaths are through the roof and yet Covid isn't there yet because of draconian lockdowns, the only thing different is they are heavily vaxed. Look at excess deaths so far in the US... they are much higher than last year and that's with 60% fully vaxed and 70% with at least one dose. Deaths are up, not down compared to last year when we had Covid running rampant and no vaccine. I could go on and on with other examples. Sure you can say it's anecdotal evidence. Sure you can say that data hasn't been studied yet or peer reviewed. That's fine. That's OK, but when data shows so many concerning things and the CDC and NIH continue to turn a blind eye to it is causes me to at the very least pause and contemplate. I prefer peer reviewed, but I don't ignore raw data. It wasn't long ago that every news article the CDC and NIH were saying that 99% of all Covid case and hospitalizations were in the unvaxed. "Breakthrough cases were rare" (even though every other countries data said otherwise) You even said the same thing on this page. That data and that statement was clearly wrong and that's not at all what the data is currently showing. Raw data showed it months ago. As for lying about the effectiveness of the vaccine... yeah I think the CDC and NIH have been lying about that too. They know (and knew) that it's efficacy wanes quickly. They already know that a 4th and 5th and 6th booster will be needed unless we reach natural herd immunity before that (yet they act like natural immunity doesn't exist). Again data from overseas (Israel) showed that months ago. You can completely ignore the UK data and wait for a peer reviewed study, that's fine I have no problem with that. That might also explain why the CDC, the NIH and their leaders are constantly behind the curve with all of their comments as well. The raw data from the UK shows something is happening, exactly what I don't know, but something is happening and the data transparency has been there for months, our transparency has not. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 02/23/2012 Posts: 542 |
We all know that the ones with the shot are the ones spreading it ,just talk to common sense nurses they will enlighten you
It’s sad how much division this is creating among grown men I’ve had good friends shun me because I won’t take the poison while they tell stories of how many sick friends they have that took it SMH |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
I don't know if vaxed spread it any more than the unvaxed. I have some anecdotal evidence in my own life that makes it look that way and there's some data that indicate that but I'm not going to jump to that conclusion just yet. Right now it seems like there really not much difference between the vaxed and unvaxed as far as spread is concerned.
I think there a chance the numbers out of the UK could be easily explained: maybe it's older people that are dieing and skewing the data, maybe it's immunocompromised that are skewing the data, maybe the vaxed are engaging in riskier behavior and that is skewing the data, honestly we just don't know. All I'm saying is the raw data out of the UK is concerning and requires further study. I'm not saying the vaccine is terrible or evil or poison anything like that. Right now it doesn't even seem fair to call them vaccines when (at best) they act more like a therapeutic rather than a vaccine. We've constantly been lied to and calling them a vaccine seems like just one more way they haven't been truthful with us. I'm still hopeful that we can get to the point where either the current vaccines/therapeutics or a future vaccine will start to show a higher level of efficacy (most likely a future vaccine) but it seems like were just pushing back the inevitable and that we're all going to get this regardless of vax status. I go back to my question from months ago... are these experimental drugs making it better of worse? I still don't think the answer is clear on that yet. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 11/24/2019 Posts: 241 |
They had to change the legal definition of a vaccine to be able to call it that.
The only resemblance the jab has to other vaccines is that it is injected with a needle. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 09/23/2008 Posts: 632 |
i don't know who all it has or hasn't affected but i do know that some folks that have been vaccinated that are 6 ft deep and others that have gotten covid after being vaccinated but dont let facts get in the way of a narrative. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 10/30/2018 Posts: 749 |
Really how can anyone really no anything about the vaccine or the Covid long term this is just a small warning of what can happen when idiots go messing with mother nature |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
Dirtfarmer, I totally agree, they tried to quietly change the definition and they thought nobody would notice.
Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 01/03/2019 Posts: 280 |
What's amusing is that the regulatory bodies work to better define what a vaccine is to be more accurate and informative and people flip out like they are hiding something, instead of understanding they are doing their job to better inform the public. They also didn't do it quietly. They announced it on an open federal register several weeks before it occurred and held an all day open public forum that was broadcast live on Youtube! In fact, the public was invited to join the forum and provide their input. Then they publicly produced the executive summary and meeting minutes and archived the meeting so people could watch it later. Several news outlets also reported on it before and after the meeting. It was in my state paper and on several local news channels. If people didn't know about it it's because they didn't care enough about it to actually pay attention. Heck you don't even need to watch the news or seek out the information. Subscribe to the e-mail list and they'll send the information directly to you beforehand. Vaccines still work the same way they did 50+ years ago.....the production of an active, and more specific immune response, the definition was changed to be more accurate. I wish more people would seek to understand instead of seek to blame, especially when they are not formally educated or experienced in an area. It's just a slap in the face to people who spend their entire careers trying to make the world better through Healthcare. No wonder why so many HCPs would never do it again. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
plum krazy
|
You tube is certainly very useful, but certainly not a venue for important info the public needs to know, - backwards effort to continue to show deception to the masses. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Informed person
|
If you read the Fauci Dossier, you will know that this whole thing is a fabricated plan that has been being built since the early 2000's. Take the jab if you so desire, don't complain later that you weren't warned! There ain't no getting it out once they jab it into your body. Do what yall want, just don't try to force it on others who have been informed and choose to stay clear of it. The so called "Covid Vaccines " ARE NOT STOPPING PEOPLE FROM BEING INFECTED WITH THE VIRUS, NOR FROM SPREADING IT!! I KNOW TOO MANY PEOPLE RIGHT NOW WHO HAVE BEEN JABBED AND ARE STILL GETTING THE VURUS AND STILL BEING HOSPITALIZED!! ITS A FARCE!!!!
Sorry for the caps but people MUST be informed about the truth so they can make an educated decision about taking the jab or not. I pray for those who have taken it and for those who haven't. I personally know several people who the Jab has caused serious problems and health issues. Believe what yall want, do what yall want to do, but this person isn't drinking the cool aide. Just saying. |
|
Re: Overall death rates of Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed in the UK
|
Registered: 03/25/2008 Posts: 2,526 |
CDC tried to downplay the change, stating “slight changes in wording over time … haven’t impacted the overall definition."
Here are some of the most cited quotes from CDC email obtained by a FOIA request: “Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…” (comments seem a little politicly biased) “I need to update this page Immunization Basics | CDC since these definitions are outdated and being used by some to say COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition.” (because they weren't as per their wording) “The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition.” (again, becasue it didn't fit their already updated (2015) definition) The CDC can change the definition but it won't change what the vast (overwhelming) majority of people believe when they hear the terms vaccine and vaccination. The vast majority of people still believe those terms to means that they have a high level of IMMUNITY. Yes we all know that it's not 100% but I think most would assume an efficacy in the 90% range for most vaccines and that's not even close to what we see with these experimental therapeutic drugs. They changed the definition specifically for this experimental therapeutic drug... specifically these three drugs that the CDC director even says “But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,” and we already know they don't prevent replication. When in doubt, change the wording! The end result will be that some people will now associate ALL vaccines with this poor level of efficacy. Some people will assume that the MMR vaccine has such a poor efficacy, or Polio, or any of the other life saving vaccines that people have associated the word vaccine with. They broadened the definition to include almost anything as a vaccine or vaccination. Vitamin C can now be considered a vaccination based on their own definition of the two terms. It's no different than how they've tried to redefine "Gain of function" so they can play word games and pretend like it doesn't fit their definition and that it was OK to fund it. Changing the definition seems like a common game these days and it's never to make it "more accurate and informative" but rather to include or exclude something from the definition to fit their needs. Their own internal email says as much. Jake Morgan Owner, PULLOFF.COM Independent Pulling News This page is a free service. The cost is covered out of my pocket. It takes a great deal of time and a fair amount of money to keep this website going. Donations for: photos, classified ads, forum discussion, etc... are appreciated. Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal. |
Global: Topics: 38,571, Posts: 229,597, Members: 3,319.
This forum: Topics: 279, Posts: 2,500.
Our newest member BadHabit2
