Thanks for your response :) Re mortality data - as we know, we have significant excess deaths in UK (whether attributable to the jabs and/or other measures implemented, I know not at this point ). I do wonder about length of time for jab injuries to manifest given the mechanisms they appear to initiate? Might it be the case that numbers of deaths might not be recognised as jab-related should they occur months/years later? I'm aware that Peter Doshi, having looked at the trial data, cites SAEs generally as approx. 1-800. I agree that we need to know or at least be making stringent efforts to do so. The Scottish Inquiry seems to be asking some of the right questions (sadly and frustratingly the UK inquiry appears, to date, not to be asking relevant questions). What is certain, is that the damage done by the policy response to whatever was going on will resonate through generations.
Peter Doshis's numbers look about right to me from direct clinical experience and clearly 1 in 800 SAEs is not compatible with Rancourt's suggestion of 1 death per 5 to 20 injections. If the numbers were that high the excess deaths would be so high that not even a change in ONS methodology could dampen the signal! Having closely audited this on a local level those figures of 1 in 5-20 are simply not credible - in fact they are so off, I do wonder where they came from or perhaps I misheard him or misunderstood.
I personally consider 1 in 800 SAEs to be unacceptably high and I believe the cards are stacked against people who are trying to establish causality for the purposes of compensation, even for those where there is a very clear temporal relationship, so what hope for anyone where the temporal relationship is not clear? I plan to cover causality in the next series of posts, even though I don't have enough embroidery to decorate the words. I've started sewing some of the finished panels together so am juggling the writing, sewing and embroidery (which I thought I'd finished but keep getting ideas :-)).
The 'safe and effective' mantra has proved the jabs to be anything but. I am now of the opinion that there was no actual pandemic (as per Denis Rancourt's data analysis, which appears compelling) and thus there was never any need whatsoever for the nonsensical measures (including, and most especially, the 'vaccines') that were implemented. It has always puzzled me that MHRA received significant funding to 'beef up' the YCS/data reporting in 2019 (I believe) and yet, is now less than transparent in reporting data collected to the public. Link to a short clip where DR outlines his findings. https://twitter.com/denisrancourt/status/1740872581987635278
Thanks for the link - he makes a very good point about the virus apparently observing borders - I think Haiti and the Dominican republic was the most compelling demonstration of this and it is clear that without the PCR tests and the LFDs things would have played out very differently.
A very quick sense check tells me though that his suggestion of 1 death per 5-20 injections in older adults is not correct. Most people over 65 have had at least 5 injections - 1 death in 5-20 injections would be a phenomenal number of deaths, and could not be glossed over. Though I am sure his figures will be backed up by analysis or he wouldn't have quoted them, they don't match the evidence of my own experience and look to be way out.
It does put me off when stats are exaggerated just as it does when people claim with absolute certainty that all the 2020 Covid labelled deaths were due to a mix of witholding care, inappropriate use of end of life pathways, inappropriate treatments, blanket DNARSs, death mislabelling or neglect. It is vital that we discover to what degree those things did happen and where there is evidence for this, get to the root of why it happened. I hope the Scottish Covid inquiry is going to scrutinise such allegations carefully and the truth will out.
Nontheless, I know that even when none of those things happened, susceptible people did succumb to a virulent virus, and very very frail people succumbed very quickly. Was it a pandemic? Well, I'm just one person in one practice with a particular perspective based on what I saw; we've learned that definitions for things like pandemic and herd immunity are not set in tablets of stone. Nonetheless, my own experience tells me there was a nasty virus circulating in 2020, but the measures implemented to try to contain the virus did cause significant harm, which I believe far surpasses any potential theoretical benefit and will have consequences for generations to come.
I'm not surprised that adverse effects are under reported especially after hearing from a friend working in a huge central London vaccination centre. She witnessed several severe events, especially with the Pfizer product
We don't want to drown the signal in the noise which is why I've tended to be a bit pragmatic about reporting, though I also keep a comprehensive list of reported and non-reported AEFIs so I can watch for emerging patterns. The YC reports I've sent tend to be the more severe end of the spectrum, or unusual, but even so, if you add up all the time taken for the ones I've completed so far it would be 1-2 days work. If GPs were paid to complete a report the reporting rate would suddenly rocket, I'm sure.
Thanks for your response :) Re mortality data - as we know, we have significant excess deaths in UK (whether attributable to the jabs and/or other measures implemented, I know not at this point ). I do wonder about length of time for jab injuries to manifest given the mechanisms they appear to initiate? Might it be the case that numbers of deaths might not be recognised as jab-related should they occur months/years later? I'm aware that Peter Doshi, having looked at the trial data, cites SAEs generally as approx. 1-800. I agree that we need to know or at least be making stringent efforts to do so. The Scottish Inquiry seems to be asking some of the right questions (sadly and frustratingly the UK inquiry appears, to date, not to be asking relevant questions). What is certain, is that the damage done by the policy response to whatever was going on will resonate through generations.
Peter Doshis's numbers look about right to me from direct clinical experience and clearly 1 in 800 SAEs is not compatible with Rancourt's suggestion of 1 death per 5 to 20 injections. If the numbers were that high the excess deaths would be so high that not even a change in ONS methodology could dampen the signal! Having closely audited this on a local level those figures of 1 in 5-20 are simply not credible - in fact they are so off, I do wonder where they came from or perhaps I misheard him or misunderstood.
I personally consider 1 in 800 SAEs to be unacceptably high and I believe the cards are stacked against people who are trying to establish causality for the purposes of compensation, even for those where there is a very clear temporal relationship, so what hope for anyone where the temporal relationship is not clear? I plan to cover causality in the next series of posts, even though I don't have enough embroidery to decorate the words. I've started sewing some of the finished panels together so am juggling the writing, sewing and embroidery (which I thought I'd finished but keep getting ideas :-)).
The 'safe and effective' mantra has proved the jabs to be anything but. I am now of the opinion that there was no actual pandemic (as per Denis Rancourt's data analysis, which appears compelling) and thus there was never any need whatsoever for the nonsensical measures (including, and most especially, the 'vaccines') that were implemented. It has always puzzled me that MHRA received significant funding to 'beef up' the YCS/data reporting in 2019 (I believe) and yet, is now less than transparent in reporting data collected to the public. Link to a short clip where DR outlines his findings. https://twitter.com/denisrancourt/status/1740872581987635278
Thanks for the link - he makes a very good point about the virus apparently observing borders - I think Haiti and the Dominican republic was the most compelling demonstration of this and it is clear that without the PCR tests and the LFDs things would have played out very differently.
A very quick sense check tells me though that his suggestion of 1 death per 5-20 injections in older adults is not correct. Most people over 65 have had at least 5 injections - 1 death in 5-20 injections would be a phenomenal number of deaths, and could not be glossed over. Though I am sure his figures will be backed up by analysis or he wouldn't have quoted them, they don't match the evidence of my own experience and look to be way out.
It does put me off when stats are exaggerated just as it does when people claim with absolute certainty that all the 2020 Covid labelled deaths were due to a mix of witholding care, inappropriate use of end of life pathways, inappropriate treatments, blanket DNARSs, death mislabelling or neglect. It is vital that we discover to what degree those things did happen and where there is evidence for this, get to the root of why it happened. I hope the Scottish Covid inquiry is going to scrutinise such allegations carefully and the truth will out.
Nontheless, I know that even when none of those things happened, susceptible people did succumb to a virulent virus, and very very frail people succumbed very quickly. Was it a pandemic? Well, I'm just one person in one practice with a particular perspective based on what I saw; we've learned that definitions for things like pandemic and herd immunity are not set in tablets of stone. Nonetheless, my own experience tells me there was a nasty virus circulating in 2020, but the measures implemented to try to contain the virus did cause significant harm, which I believe far surpasses any potential theoretical benefit and will have consequences for generations to come.
I'm not surprised that adverse effects are under reported especially after hearing from a friend working in a huge central London vaccination centre. She witnessed several severe events, especially with the Pfizer product
We don't want to drown the signal in the noise which is why I've tended to be a bit pragmatic about reporting, though I also keep a comprehensive list of reported and non-reported AEFIs so I can watch for emerging patterns. The YC reports I've sent tend to be the more severe end of the spectrum, or unusual, but even so, if you add up all the time taken for the ones I've completed so far it would be 1-2 days work. If GPs were paid to complete a report the reporting rate would suddenly rocket, I'm sure.