Covid Vaccines And Reported After Effects Of Concern To Pilots
If you want to have a smart arse discussion about Covid and the vaccines and how we are all being taken for fools, take it to Jet Blast. There is a thread there for that where your line of argument has been kicked into the dust many times. You are not adding anything of value here.
helicrazi
I believe this aspect of all the possible discussions around this is a distraction from some valuable personal contributions from other Rotorheads. A propos, I’ll quit discussing this with you.
I believe this aspect of all the possible discussions around this is a distraction from some valuable personal contributions from other Rotorheads. A propos, I’ll quit discussing this with you.
Each of us is different and that includes our immune systems so reactions vary from nothing, through a sore arm for a day (which is what I had from the last booster) to flu-like symptoms for a couple of days - all completely normal.
And don't forget it is flu season as well. There are lots of non-Covid bugs, coughs and sneezes going around at the moment.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: California
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the "vaccine" packing insert can shed some light on the subject.
https://media.gab.com/system/media_a...6136a89567.mp4
https://media.gab.com/system/media_a...6136a89567.mp4
Caution that these results were "Exploratory" and data base issues exist. Taken from Jim's linked article.What can we conclude then from our EXPLORATORY analysis:
- Clearly the surge in Covid-19 and its effect on excess deaths shows the vaccines are not effective. This looks self-evident and this isn’t news.
- There is no evidence to support long-covid as a cause of excess deaths.
- There is weak evidence of the negative effect of lockdown measures (see the video).
- Healthcare quality looks to be irrelevant, but we are not satisfied we have good metrics for this.
- There is a clear signal that the vaccination programme is causing, at least, some of the excess death rate. With this data the vaccines don’t look to be safe.
- There is no evidence to support long-covid as a cause of excess deaths.
The findings of that "data crunch" require two conditions to be fulfilled:
a) A number of vaccines were developed, tested to Stage 3, found to be effective and approved.
b) All of the vaccines were subsequently found to not only be ineffective, but they actively caused more harm than the disease itself
Is that believable?
a) A number of vaccines were developed, tested to Stage 3, found to be effective and approved.
b) All of the vaccines were subsequently found to not only be ineffective, but they actively caused more harm than the disease itself
Is that believable?
The findings of that "data crunch" require two conditions to be fulfilled:
a) A number of vaccines were developed, tested to Stage 3, found to be effective and approved.
b) All of the vaccines were subsequently found to not only be ineffective, but they actively caused more harm than the disease itself
Is that believable?
a) A number of vaccines were developed, tested to Stage 3, found to be effective and approved.
b) All of the vaccines were subsequently found to not only be ineffective, but they actively caused more harm than the disease itself
Is that believable?
The research is complete junk. They don't even distinguish between vaccines. How can anything useful be said if the data review doesn't even attempt such obvious elementry control? And the next question is, if they haven't controlled for elephant in the room variable 1, what other confounding variables are going to relegate this to the back of the class for research?
Concern about possible under-reporting or monitoring of side effetcs is one thing. Exrapolating the conclusions they reach on the basis of such weak nominal data, without even attempting to control for obvious variables, is really bad research.
This isn't mutton masquerading as lamb, it's baked soil pretending to be a shepard's pie.
Concern about possible under-reporting or monitoring of side effetcs is one thing. Exrapolating the conclusions they reach on the basis of such weak nominal data, without even attempting to control for obvious variables, is really bad research.
This isn't mutton masquerading as lamb, it's baked soil pretending to be a shepard's pie.
The research is complete junk. They don't even distinguish between vaccines. How can anything useful be said if the data review doesn't even attempt such obvious elementry control? And the next question is, if they haven't controlled for elephant in the room variable 1, what other confounding variables are going to relegate this to the back of the class for research?
Concern about possible under-reporting or monitoring of side effetcs is one thing. Exrapolating the conclusions they reach on the basis of such weak nominal data, without even attempting to control for obvious variables, is really bad research.
This isn't mutton masquerading as lamb, it's baked soil pretending to be a shepard's pie.
Concern about possible under-reporting or monitoring of side effetcs is one thing. Exrapolating the conclusions they reach on the basis of such weak nominal data, without even attempting to control for obvious variables, is really bad research.
This isn't mutton masquerading as lamb, it's baked soil pretending to be a shepard's pie.
Here is yellow card injury data which is estimated that only 10% is reported.
As of 23 November 2022, for the UK, 177,925 Yellow Cards have been reported for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 246,866 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 47,045 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 52 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 2,130 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.
For the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna the overall reporting rate is around 2 to 5 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered.
In the 28 days since the previous summary for 26 October 2022 we have received a further 2,499 Yellow Cards for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 228 for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 1,099 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 15 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 154 where the brand was not specified. The increase in reports for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines is due to the bivalent vaccine use in the national autumn booster campaign. Our review to date of suspected adverse events since the launch of the campaign has not revealed any new safety concerns.
That's 474,018 injuries reported, if the gov are correct in their 10% reporting estimate, that's an estimated 4,740,180 injuries.
And currently we have 178,397 deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Keep in mind that if you died in a car accident within 28 days of a positive test, guess what...
Estimated 4,740,180 injured vs 178,397 'covid' deaths...
As of 23 November 2022, for the UK, 177,925 Yellow Cards have been reported for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 246,866 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 47,045 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 52 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 2,130 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.
For the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna the overall reporting rate is around 2 to 5 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered.
In the 28 days since the previous summary for 26 October 2022 we have received a further 2,499 Yellow Cards for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 228 for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 1,099 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 15 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 154 where the brand was not specified. The increase in reports for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines is due to the bivalent vaccine use in the national autumn booster campaign. Our review to date of suspected adverse events since the launch of the campaign has not revealed any new safety concerns.
That's 474,018 injuries reported, if the gov are correct in their 10% reporting estimate, that's an estimated 4,740,180 injuries.
And currently we have 178,397 deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Keep in mind that if you died in a car accident within 28 days of a positive test, guess what...
Estimated 4,740,180 injured vs 178,397 'covid' deaths...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 418 Likes
on
221 Posts
My flying career is over.
after a covid booster I went running and my heart rate went 200+
X-ray showed my heart was enlarged
6 weeks later it was back to normal, approaching 2 years later no recurrence.
RAF won’t even give me a twin pilot ticket for a one off incident that the NHS have said is unlikely to happen again
after a covid booster I went running and my heart rate went 200+
X-ray showed my heart was enlarged
6 weeks later it was back to normal, approaching 2 years later no recurrence.
RAF won’t even give me a twin pilot ticket for a one off incident that the NHS have said is unlikely to happen again
Since day one of Covid there has been an on-going argument over data reliability and commonality of definitions that was relevant and significant and continues still.
Torque skipped over statements made within that linked Study where they clearly called it "Exploratory" and noted in black and white the problems pose by how the Data was compiled and submitted by those participating in the reporting of data to authorities and also how authorities different in their standards.
So all ya'll pointing fingers back and forth....grasp the fact there is very little concrete un=arguable and unchallenged data/analysis to be had.
Thata compounded by the virus itself being moving target itself is going to cause ambiguity.
I would supplest you temper your posts to reflect that and politely differ.
I have long questioned why I am mandated to take a vaccine that does not prevent me from getting Covid, does not prevent me from giving it to someone else or prevent someone else from giving it to me.
I took the vaccine as I am at riak and the value of the vaccine seemed to outweigh risks.
Certainly, I am wondering had I known of this newer information at that time....would I have taken the injections.
Few things are certain in life....and we. have to make our best and informed decisions.
Add in the side effects thing and more and more data being developed over time that does raise legitimate questions about the effectiveness and side effects....then I can see the need for a healthy discussion about it all.
As in all things internet.....you have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I quoted the text contained in that linked article....and passed no judgement on it as it cited its own shortcomings as I read it.
Calling it junk seems a bit wide of the mark as it very much qualified its findings in clear language.
If you do not agree with its findings....that is fine....provide your own article that does.
Then sit back and see how your the content of your article fares.
Torque skipped over statements made within that linked Study where they clearly called it "Exploratory" and noted in black and white the problems pose by how the Data was compiled and submitted by those participating in the reporting of data to authorities and also how authorities different in their standards.
So all ya'll pointing fingers back and forth....grasp the fact there is very little concrete un=arguable and unchallenged data/analysis to be had.
Thata compounded by the virus itself being moving target itself is going to cause ambiguity.
I would supplest you temper your posts to reflect that and politely differ.
I have long questioned why I am mandated to take a vaccine that does not prevent me from getting Covid, does not prevent me from giving it to someone else or prevent someone else from giving it to me.
I took the vaccine as I am at riak and the value of the vaccine seemed to outweigh risks.
Certainly, I am wondering had I known of this newer information at that time....would I have taken the injections.
Few things are certain in life....and we. have to make our best and informed decisions.
Add in the side effects thing and more and more data being developed over time that does raise legitimate questions about the effectiveness and side effects....then I can see the need for a healthy discussion about it all.
As in all things internet.....you have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I quoted the text contained in that linked article....and passed no judgement on it as it cited its own shortcomings as I read it.
Calling it junk seems a bit wide of the mark as it very much qualified its findings in clear language.
If you do not agree with its findings....that is fine....provide your own article that does.
Then sit back and see how your the content of your article fares.
Here is yellow card injury data which is estimated that only 10% is reported.
As of 23 November 2022, for the UK, 177,925 Yellow Cards have been reported for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 246,866 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 47,045 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 52 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 2,130 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.
For the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna the overall reporting rate is around 2 to 5 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered.
In the 28 days since the previous summary for 26 October 2022 we have received a further 2,499 Yellow Cards for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 228 for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 1,099 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 15 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 154 where the brand was not specified. The increase in reports for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines is due to the bivalent vaccine use in the national autumn booster campaign. Our review to date of suspected adverse events since the launch of the campaign has not revealed any new safety concerns.
And currently we have 178,397 deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Keep in mind that if you died in a car accident within 28 days of a positive test, guess what...
As of 23 November 2022, for the UK, 177,925 Yellow Cards have been reported for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 246,866 have been reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 47,045 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 52 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 2,130 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.
For the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna the overall reporting rate is around 2 to 5 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered.
In the 28 days since the previous summary for 26 October 2022 we have received a further 2,499 Yellow Cards for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 228 for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 1,099 for the monovalent and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 15 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 154 where the brand was not specified. The increase in reports for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines is due to the bivalent vaccine use in the national autumn booster campaign. Our review to date of suspected adverse events since the launch of the campaign has not revealed any new safety concerns.
And currently we have 178,397 deaths within 28 days of a positive test. Keep in mind that if you died in a car accident within 28 days of a positive test, guess what...
Your quotation is missing this important bit from the same source:
"Part of our monitoring role includes reviewing reports of suspected side effects. Any member of the public or health professional can submit suspected side effects through the Yellow Card scheme. The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness."
You mention a figure of 90% underreporting (only 10% reported). Where do you have this from?
You also began by claiming that there was no data for these vaccines before they went into distribution, but from the same source you have selectively quoted from there is this concenring one of the vaccines:
"The monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech was evaluated in clinical trials involving more than 44,000 participants. The most frequent adverse reactions in these trials were pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pains), chills, arthralgia (joint pains), and fever; these were each reported in more than 1 in 10 people. These reactions were usually mild or moderate in intensity and resolved within a few days after vaccination. Adverse reactions were reported less frequently in older adults (over 55 years) than in younger people."
The results of the clinical trials concerning the other vaccines used in the UK are also published.
Shy,
As with Jayteeto, truly sorry to hear that happened.
Well I have to agree on the last point. There may be good reasons for it, but it does lead to a credibility problem, even if the figures are subsequently adjusted to take account of other known death quotas. Unaccounted excess death per million indicate that Covid has indeed been a big killer. Note that WHO has been revising deaths due to Covid upwards, not down. Are we not at 20+ million worldwide at this point?
Your quotation is missing this important bit from the same source:
"Part of our monitoring role includes reviewing reports of suspected side effects. Any member of the public or health professional can submit suspected side effects through the Yellow Card scheme. The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness."
You mention a figure of 90% underreporting (only 10% reported). Where do you have this from?
You also began by claiming that there was no data for these vaccines before they went into distribution, but from the same source you have selectively quoted from there is this concenring one of the vaccines:
"The monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech was evaluated in clinical trials involving more than 44,000 participants. The most frequent adverse reactions in these trials were pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pains), chills, arthralgia (joint pains), and fever; these were each reported in more than 1 in 10 people. These reactions were usually mild or moderate in intensity and resolved within a few days after vaccination. Adverse reactions were reported less frequently in older adults (over 55 years) than in younger people."
The results of the clinical trials concerning the other vaccines used in the UK are also published.
Shy,
As with Jayteeto, truly sorry to hear that happened.
Your quotation is missing this important bit from the same source:
"Part of our monitoring role includes reviewing reports of suspected side effects. Any member of the public or health professional can submit suspected side effects through the Yellow Card scheme. The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness."
You mention a figure of 90% underreporting (only 10% reported). Where do you have this from?
You also began by claiming that there was no data for these vaccines before they went into distribution, but from the same source you have selectively quoted from there is this concenring one of the vaccines:
"The monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech was evaluated in clinical trials involving more than 44,000 participants. The most frequent adverse reactions in these trials were pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pains), chills, arthralgia (joint pains), and fever; these were each reported in more than 1 in 10 people. These reactions were usually mild or moderate in intensity and resolved within a few days after vaccination. Adverse reactions were reported less frequently in older adults (over 55 years) than in younger people."
The results of the clinical trials concerning the other vaccines used in the UK are also published.
Shy,
As with Jayteeto, truly sorry to hear that happened.
Don’t wait for someone else to report it
It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. Under-reporting coupled with a decline in reporting makes it especially important to report all suspicions of adverse drug reactions to the Yellow Card Scheme.world deaths are apparently 6.7 million, not 20 million +
so world deaths vs world population 0.08% death rate
Last edited by helicrazi; 21st Dec 2022 at 20:57.
As to you repeated the claim that there was no meaningful data at roll out; which meaningful data would you have liked to seen? Data demonstrating effectiveness in preventing infection? Or data demonstrating prevention (or significant reduction) of serious illness or death; data demonstrating prevention or reduction in transmission; or data concerning side effects. These are all different areas of research and require different data, whilst the questions surrounding them and references to Covid vaccines are all jumbled up. If you look above, the answers to one of those questions is in clear text from a source you quoted.
I am merely pointing out that is obviously duff research. I am dismayed that the discussion can be mislead on the basis of something this weak.
As to you repeated the claim that there was no meaningful data at roll out; which meaningful data would you have liked to seen? Data demonstrating effectiveness in preventing infection? Or data demonstrating prevention (or significant reduction) of serious illness or death; data demonstrating prevention or reduction in transmission; or data concerning side effects. These are all different areas of research and require different data, whilst the questions surrounding them and references to Covid vaccines are all jumbled up. If you look above, the answers to one of those questions is in clear text from a source you quoted.
As to you repeated the claim that there was no meaningful data at roll out; which meaningful data would you have liked to seen? Data demonstrating effectiveness in preventing infection? Or data demonstrating prevention (or significant reduction) of serious illness or death; data demonstrating prevention or reduction in transmission; or data concerning side effects. These are all different areas of research and require different data, whilst the questions surrounding them and references to Covid vaccines are all jumbled up. If you look above, the answers to one of those questions is in clear text from a source you quoted.