It’s a cold civil war: political party recruiting groups, sexist, racist, religious, and nutcase groups; irrespective of the values, and ethics, acting against the good future of the nation and the world as a whole. Crazy years.
2 Likes
Putting vaccines on an alter is very dangerous. Billions per death are spent on inoculations for issues that cause relatively few deaths.
The idea that decision has no downsides and that there is no need to weigh the upside versus the downside as well as alternatives can only be sold to the ignorant. Actually, it probably can only be sold to the ignorant that are actually arrogant and think that they know things that they did not study.
The honest answer from almost everyone is that they do not know. Some vaccines are more straightforward to study than others. If you are not allowed to speak of such things such as the dangers, usefulness and costs of many vaccines, nobody will be allowed to study such things.
Which will save more people influenza vaccines for children or putting the same resources towards making GLP-1 shots available to a wider population?
Compare and Contrast the Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists
6 Likes
There are few cases because the vaccines are working. These diseases have not been eradicated. If you take vaccines away, cases go up. That’s why there’s a resurgence of measles typically starting in areas with low vaccination for either economic or ideological reasons.
3 Likes
I am not talking about after the fact. Simply calculate the difference in the number of deaths divided by the cost and you get a cost per death. This should be known to the public.
2 Likes
By this same logic, if nobody is attacking us, we need no military?
The point of vaccines just as the point of military is to have a strong immune response so that you don’t get sick and that nobody invades. And yes, both vaccines and the military have a cost. But whoever historically skimped on these matters, hadn’t lasted long.
4 Likes
Your walking around the argument. Your reply is a strawman argument. Nobody debates whether you need a military. People debate about the amount spent on the military. Few argue that all vaccines do more harm than help. Any poll you read that says otherwise is propaganda. People that believe polls like this need to go outside and meet people.
I didn’t read the article and I don’t need to because the headline gives it away as propaganda. I know that there are not 31% of Republicans that say all vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. I know this because I actually interact with real people in the real world. I don’t have to take very many samples to know if something occurs at a rate of 31%. I know hundreds of Republicans and not one holds that view.
The COVID shot is a good example of what people really think. What percent of people have received all their boosters? That tells us the percentage of people that think the “vaccine” is more harmful than the disease. I don’t think the US has anywhere near 70% of the people fully vaccinated and boosted. Thus, I could argue (but I wouldn’t) that well over 30% of Americans think vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases the supposedly prevent.
4 Likes
3 Likes
I refuse to call mRNA shots ‘vaccines’.
Moderna is a shady company since they started in 2010.
We don’t know the long term effects of mRNA.
added:
by Whitney Webb
4 Likes
Natural immunity is our best defense in most cases.
Vaccine industrial complex is similar to Military Industrial Complex
2 Likes
Ars Technica? They provide a service by keeping the “umm acshually…” Very Bright Boys relatively contained, but I loathe its echo-chamber commentariat. Here’s some counterpoint: New survey confirms that vaccines are, by far, the #1 cause of chronic disease in America
Of course, the sample is his readers, but it’s big (13k total, of which he pulled two groups: Fully unvaccinated: 2,355 responses, average age=55 / Highly vaccinated: 2,260, average age = 49) and the results aren’t out of line with other independent research. Officially sanctioned research never tests vaccinated against unvaccinated, and though there is plenty of population-wide data collected that could be used for such studies, it is purposely not made available. As in so many controversial subjects, data that should be there but isn’t is a huge tell, especially when established interests are at stake.
Lines 61 and below have a p-value >.05 and are NOT statistically significant (because the effect is too small or the number of samples are too small or both). Note that the “No chronic disease” odds ratio was deliberately flipped (see the text above).
4 Likes
YorkshireLive examinerlive.co.uk
Tom Burnett & Tom Kershaw
Sun, 11 August 2024
NHS staff told to ‘ask men if they are pregnant before X-rays’
NHS X-ray operators have reportedly been instructed to ask men if they are pregnant before conducting X-rays. Several hospitals have allegedly implemented inclusivity guidelines to verify the pregnancy status of anyone aged between 12 and 55, irrespective of their gender, as reported by The Telegraph.This guidance was initially introduced following an incident where a trans man, unaware of his pregnancy, underwent a CT scan. Regularly used scans such as X-rays and MRIs can pose risks to unborn children due to radiation exposure.
Some male patients have reportedly left appointments in protest at being asked this question, with some women also expressing discomfort at having to explain why they cannot conceive.
The “inclusive pregnancy status guidelines for ionising radiation” were developed by the Society of Radiographers (SoR), and several hospital trusts across England are already implementing variations of these guidelines.
6 Likes
Kirsch manages to get the opposite results from the same data as peer-reviewed publications. Say, compare these two:
- https://kirschsubstack.com/p/breaking-record-level-data-from-czech
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971224000468
I’d be curious what you find?
1 Like
2 Likes
2 Likes
4 Likes
Shall they be called PED-erasts?
2 Likes
Kirsch may well be wrong on that particular point, I don’t care to wallow in that particular statistical pigsty, but one’s prior for the reliability of medical papers should be no higher than 50% likely to be correct, and lower for papers in sub-fields such as this that have a strong bias toward a certain point of view.
The data I posted earlier wasn’t specific to the CV19 “vaccines”, but regarding vaccines in general. The CV19 mRNA shots were predicted to be much worse than vaccines, with all prior trials being total failures, and them having no antigen, but rather causing cells throughout the body to produce toxic spike protein. Their EUA was illegal, there being safer and more effective treatments which were deliberately suppressed. Their trials were deliberately falsified and insufficient. The manufacturers’ listed known side-effects were far, far beyond what the press and CDC were reporting. The limitation on liability accorded to vaccines does not apply to them, if the law were enforced as written.
There were so many red flags regarding the pandemic, the pretext for the injections, it’s impossible to even list them all in one post, but here are some biggies:
*the CDC and Congress exempted themselves from the mandates
*lack of tests in the US during the early part of the pandemic, while tests magically appeared everywhere else
*then the tests were defective,
*then the tests were inaccurate PCR, run at amplifications in the billions, which had a high percentage of false positives
*then they ran the tests at much higher amplifications for those who had not taken the shots than for those who did. This by itself shows knowing fraud.
Anyway, my position is that the pandemic was planned biowarfare with supporting psyops from the get-go. I didn’t know the the details in late 2019, but I was sure enough that something of the sort was in the works that I took drastic action, leaving me with no means of support, no savings and no credit.
As I wrote 21 Mar:
With regard to the CDC particularly, in 2017-19 I drove dozens of CDC people for Uber. I’m relaxed about bio labs - my dad is a pathologist, with a decades-long solo clinical, anatomic and forensic practice; I lived near Ft. Detrick for years (the biowar lab that closed in 2019), I’ve done some bacteriology work myself. Most of the CDC people were lovely, especially the field researchers.
But there were a few that gave me the absolute heebie-jeebies - just off the charts bad vibes with nothing I could put my finger on as to why, other than the “duper’s delight” smirk. Evil, in a word. Driving, I had only intermittent glances in the mirror to go on, but my subconscious put its foot down and forced me to stop driving around November 2019. Several other pieces of information contributed - the closure of Ft. Detrick, the lung disease supposedly caused by vaping, but most of all, the unprecedented secret meetings at the CDC, with even top assistants barred, that I learned about from a passenger.
5 Likes
4 Likes
So if I understand correctly, you refuse to go and evaluate a counter-point to your favorite source – while maintaining the unsubstantiated stance that ‘skeptics’ on social media in pursuit of viral posts and a following are somehow better than the brotherhood of scientists on tiny salaries in exchange for the pursuit of truth?
Rubbish, I say.
Academic institutions are wealthy and the establishment will engage in establishment politics, and grant each other fancy titles. But there are still lots of good people working in the basements and teaching unfashionable courses to students who are much like them.
1 Like