15
Comments (29)
sorted by:
5
BritPedeMEGA [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

A Pandemic Of The Vaccinated...?

More context.

The U of Alberta study is a pre-print, and has not yet been peer reviewed. However, the papers and studies & resultant data it references, many are peer reviewed.

Oddly missing from all dino media sources and sites, on a first page search hit anyway.

Steve Kirsch comments: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-big-data-study-of-145-countries

Quote:

"The study found that the COVID vaccines cause more COVID cases per million (+38% in US) and more deaths per million associated with COVID (+31% in US).

The abstract says:

The statistically significant and overwhelmingly positive causal impact after vaccine deployment on the dependent variables total deaths and total cases per million should be highly worrisome for policy makers. They indicate a marked increase in both COVID-19 related cases and death due directly to a vaccine deployment that was originally sold to the public as the “key to gain back our freedoms.” The effect of vaccines on total cases per million and its low positive association with total vaccinations per hundred signifies a limited impact of vaccines on lowering COVID-19 associated cases.

These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns."

End quote.

Steve goes on futher to say, quote:

"In other words, we were lied to.

The vaccines are making this worse, not better. This is why we are not getting ourselves out of the hole. Mandating vaccines are making this

This is hardly the first study to reach those conclusions. These studies, all done independently, found the same thing—the more you vaccinate, the worse things get.

  1. The lyons weiler paper https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-more-we-vaccinate-the-higher

  2. The Harvard Study. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-more-we-vaccinate-the-higher

  3. The German study. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-from-germany-confirms-higher

  4. The Denmark study. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-shows-vaccines-must-be ((which shows Dr. James was right; you have to boost every 30 days to maintain protection. )

  5. German Gov data. https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/02/german-gov-data-suggests-fully-vaccinated-developing-ade/

  6. 80% of covid deaths in the UK are vaccinated. https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/08/bbc-forgot-to-tell-you-4-in-5-covid-deaths-triple-vaccinated/

  7. The Lancet. 89% of new covid cases among fully vaxxed. https://principia-scientific.com/lancet-89-of-new-uk-covid-cases-among-fully-vaxxed/ "

End quote.

-6
tuchodi -6 points ago +1 / -7

Lotsa cherry-picking going on here. Allow me to do some of my own. The TL:DR version is this: Someone with training, experience, and access does some research and publishes something. Then Steve who has no training or experience in the field explains why the qualified people are wrong. OP will, when challenged, sidestep because they hadn't read the links they are promoting.

The lyons weiler paper https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-more-we-vaccinate-the-higher

This is an opinion piece by James Lyons-Weiler, who holds no relevant credentials.

The Harvard Study. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-more-we-vaccinate-the-higher

This is the title of that Harvard study (PMID: 34591202): "Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34591202/ You will note that is exactly the opposite of Steve's statement that "the more you vaccinate, the worse things get."

The German study. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-from-germany-confirms-higher

This study offers three explanations for the numbers they found. The only one mentioned in Steve's link is the only one that matches his and OP's narrative. Furthermore, the period of this study of excess deaths is early September to early October 2021, during which time excess deaths in Germany averaged 8% (https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid), covid deaths there averaged about 46 people per day, and over 2 million people were vaccinated. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1195560/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccinations-number-germany/) Hard to believe so few deaths could be so significant in a country of over 84 million people.

The Denmark study. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-shows-vaccines-must-be ((which shows Dr. James was right; you have to boost every 30 days to maintain protection.)

The Denmark Study says "Our study provides evidence of protection against infection with the Omicron variant after completion of a primary vaccination series..." but not as good as against Delta. I assume everyone knows that now.

As for boosting every 30 days: here is the Denmark study. Read it yourself. It does not say that. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3

German Gov data. https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/02/german-gov-data-suggests-fully-vaccinated-developing-ade/

No fancy arguments needed here. The claim is "German Government Data for the alleged Omicron variant of Covid-19, suggests that most of the “fully vaccinated” will have full blown Covid-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) by the end of January 2022". Fine. Just 16 more days to go to see how accurate that prediction is.

80% of covid deaths in the UK are vaccinated. https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/08/bbc-forgot-to-tell-you-4-in-5-covid-deaths-triple-vaccinated/

Of course. There are so many more vaccinated people than unvaccinated that this is not surprising. If "ratio" and "proportion" are kinda vague terms for you you can stop reading here. Otherwise you can follow the link to the report and read Table 13. There you will find that - for example - if you are between 30 and 39 and unvaccinated in the UK it looks like your chances of being hospitalized after testing positive are almost 3 times greater, your chances of dying within 28 days are 6.5 times greater, and your chances of dying within 60 days are 4 times greater. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045329/Vaccine_surveillance_report_week_1_2022.pdf

The Lancet. 89% of new covid cases among fully vaxxed. https://principia-scientific.com/lancet-89-of-new-uk-covid-cases-among-fully-vaxxed/"

Note that they conveniently left out some information: "among citizens of 60 years or older. 89.821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7%)" Since we already know Omicron spreads through both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and over 90% of the population over 60 the UK is fully vaccinated, most of the infections that occur in people "60 years or older" are going to occur in vaccinated people. Duh! https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043608/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_51.pdf

So the message remains the same. Get vaccinated so you don't become one of the people in the hospital unnecessarily.

3
Bannonmeharder 3 points ago +3 / -0

Shur the fuck up you absolute faggot. You are a shill.

2
BritPedeMEGA [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wasn't promoting nothing. It's a study that made the news and relevant to MetaCanada because its from the U of AB. I posted the quotes directly from someone I could find that was in the high visibility public sphere that wanted to obviously comment, rather than just posting a dry link and not putting any publicly available comments.

No comment was made by me, or if you should, or shouldnt, or like or not like the quotes directly taken from steve. I didn't even say it was true or not. Thats for others to judge for yourself. As you did.

As for this:

"Note that they conveniently left out some information: "among citizens of 60 years or older. 89.821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7%)" Since we already know Omicron spreads through both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and over 90% of the population over 60 the UK is fully vaccinated, most of the infections that occur in people "60 years or older" are going to occur in vaccinated people. Duh!"

So the message remains the same. Get vaccinated so you don't become one of the people in the hospital unnecessarily."

Yes, you keep saying that. "get vaccinated! Get vaccinated! Get vaccinated!". People have done. There is no "more" "get vaccinated!" to get.

  1. We are at 90% jabbed. How much higher do you posit the country should go?
  2. Should everyone get jabbed, if so, why?
-4
tuchodi -4 points ago +1 / -5

OP will, when challenged, sidestep

Wasn't promoting nothing

See?

We are at 90% jabbed. How much higher do you posit the country should go?

There are some .win community members who sound like they could get vaccinated but choose not to.

Should everyone get jabbed, if so, why?

Unvaccinated people are over-represented in the hospitals and ICUs

1
BritPedeMEGA [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

The only thing "challenged" was Steve Kirch's commentary. Which you did.

I presented the article as Canadian content, due to it being from U of A, which you have not commented on that study, just Steve's comments.

I even put a disclaimer in it about the paper being A. A preprint, and B. saying "alledgedly".

Its a forum where one posts Canadian angled content about current events.

"There are some .win community members who sound like they could get vaccinated but choose not to."

Oh? Whom?

"Unvaccinated people are over-represented in the hospitals and ICUs"

This board can argue back all day wether it is or isnt. If it is,

So what? It's already been shown on other posts and from Ontario numbers alone that the hospitals are hardly "stretched" Bed wise.

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +1 / -4

OP will, when challenged, sidestep

I presented the article as Canadian content

See?

Oh? Whom?

You can't find any? I believe that falls under "willful blindness"

hospitals are hardly "stretched"

And the elective surgeries?

1
BritPedeMEGA [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

See? See? See? You can keep using that word. Doesnt make it true. Did I say the articles or even Steves comments were true? No.

See? Back.

I was expecting usernames. For whom.

I don't count. Ive already had corona. I'm immune. Maybe Ham? Pussy Whiskers?

More to the point....so?

-3
tuchodi -3 points ago +1 / -4

Did I say the articles or even Steves comments were true? No.

Do you post a lot of stuff you don't believe?

I was expecting usernames. For whom.

I don't want to destroy your naivete. Don't explore any of the other .win communities unless you want to do your own research.

Ive already had corona

You should get vaccinated. All the people who actually know what they're talking about recommend it: "You should get a COVID-19 vaccine even if you already had COVID-19." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html

"because it’s possible to get reinfected and COVID-19 can cause severe medical complications, the CDC recommends that people who have already had COVID-19 get a COVID-19 vaccine." https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-if-already-had-covid

"Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, help you understand natural immunity and why getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended, even if you’ve already had COVID-19." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know

3
Bannonmeharder 3 points ago +3 / -0

Tuchodi weeps.

-7
tuchodi -7 points ago +1 / -8

Have you got those elective surgeries started yet?

3
BritPedeMEGA [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well I dunno, you tell me. Maybe if the various prov health services stopped firing docs, nurses and staff for not wanting The Jabba The Hurt, maybe we could get them started?

Theres 34,000 odd beds in On alone. They have the beds. The staff? Cant help em with that, shoulda thought of that before they started firing staff.

-5
tuchodi -5 points ago +1 / -6

stopped firing docs, nurses and staff

There must be some reason they don't want people of unknown or no vaccination status near sick people. I wonder what that is.

2
BritPedeMEGA [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Strange that this wasn't followed for SARS1, which had a CFR of about 10%, and hospitals all over Canada didn't fall apart or the country go into hysterics.

However if someone is terrified that a doc or nurse treating you (for an unreleated instake say) may have caught the rona that day from the checkout line at Walmart, despite it having an IFR at worst of 0.31% <70 - then you got bigger issues.

-5
tuchodi -5 points ago +1 / -6

Strange that this wasn't followed for SARS1

"a total of 8,098 people worldwide became sick with SARS during the 2003 outbreak. Of these, 774 died." https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/fs-sars.html

SARS2 - currently 327,198,129 cases, 5,555,298 deaths.

Can you spot the difference?

2
CaptainSassyPants 2 points ago +2 / -0

Both the deaths and cases are inflated and not factual. Why hasn't this absolute retard been removed?

1
BritPedeMEGA [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes. SARS1 was way, way deadlier than it's 'sequel' (which is about 80% similar) SARS2. On orders of magnititude.

"In Taiwan the first case of SARS was...Mar.14,03;7 there were 78 cases...end of April...676 cases...end of May.6 The first death... Apr. 27, at which time the CFR was only 3.8%. ...mid-May the CFR rose... to about 45% and then stabilized at about 15% in June.

In Canada the first case of SARS was...Feb. 23...first 10 deaths were... Apr. 7...CFR was 38.5%; it fell to... 20% by the end of April... stabilized at about 17% in late June.

...Hong Kong CFR about 71% early in the outbreak but later fell to about 17%." Canadian medical Assoc: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/169/4/277.2

Compare to the Kung Flu MKII SARS2 - currently 327,198,129 cases, 5,555,298 deaths.

So a CFR of 1.7%. IOW a survival rate of at worst, 98.3%.

Now take out everyone with at least one serious comorbidity, misreported "cases", all the bizarre ones of people "dying of COVID" coming in with gunshot wounds or car crashes, crunch the numbers again to exclude >70yrs (CDC director video her saying 75% had comorbidities: https://omegacanada.win/p/141EnBvF8z/whoops-good-morning-america-edit/c/ )

and voila, it's a flu/respiratory like bug that only kills the elderly, very sick in large numbers, and leaves younger and healthy people alone.

So just like flu has been doing then for decades. It's a storm in an epidemiological tea cup.

-4
tuchodi -4 points ago +1 / -5

Got those elective surgeries up and running yet?

1
BritPedeMEGA [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're asking the wrong person.

Maybe call your chum fatty ford and ask him why he isnt getting surgeries done despite being awash in beds. Oh. thats right. He fired lots of staff over a near harmless bug.

2
BritPedeMEGA [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Reading Ham and Tuchodi go at it has certainly upped the entertainment factor lately.