Covid Vaccines And Reported After Effects Of Concern To Pilots
I see, you have summed the deaths in tables 11 & 12 to get the number.
The report is more circumspect though, stating the numbers are based on the reporter‘s (yellow card) opinion on causality. The problem of lack of control for pre-conditions is also mentioned. Saying the vaccines killed 2362 people is a bald Interpretation that the report doesn’t make.
Plus there is the question of relative risk, both for the individuals involved and the whole population. How many of those 2362 people would have died had they not been vaccinated/boosted? How many (more) people would have died had there been no vaccination programme? Vaccination is meant to provoke an immune response, so some side effects are to be expected. If you vaccinate very large numbers of people, there will almost inevitably be a small number of severe adverse reactions, and some of those will be fatal. Dreadful for those involved, but not really surprising. Of course if the proportion of those events is relatively high, then it means the vaccine/s are not safe/worth the risk.
The question is whether the side effects and consequences of vaccination with one or more vaccines represents a greater risk than the illness it is trying to mitigate. Clearly the health authorities don‘t think so. And given the number of Covid-related deaths I‘m not surprised. Covid also kills people. Some people try and play that down, but the evidence for that is so obvious that you virtually have to pole vault over the it*
And none of the above changes the impression of higher risk (of debilitating side effects) than officially reported that the posts by ppruners here makes. That is really concerning.
* UK deaths from Covid are at 2904 per million. The UK has a population of 68 million. Puts the relative risk into perspective wouldn‘t you say?
The report is more circumspect though, stating the numbers are based on the reporter‘s (yellow card) opinion on causality. The problem of lack of control for pre-conditions is also mentioned. Saying the vaccines killed 2362 people is a bald Interpretation that the report doesn’t make.
Plus there is the question of relative risk, both for the individuals involved and the whole population. How many of those 2362 people would have died had they not been vaccinated/boosted? How many (more) people would have died had there been no vaccination programme? Vaccination is meant to provoke an immune response, so some side effects are to be expected. If you vaccinate very large numbers of people, there will almost inevitably be a small number of severe adverse reactions, and some of those will be fatal. Dreadful for those involved, but not really surprising. Of course if the proportion of those events is relatively high, then it means the vaccine/s are not safe/worth the risk.
The question is whether the side effects and consequences of vaccination with one or more vaccines represents a greater risk than the illness it is trying to mitigate. Clearly the health authorities don‘t think so. And given the number of Covid-related deaths I‘m not surprised. Covid also kills people. Some people try and play that down, but the evidence for that is so obvious that you virtually have to pole vault over the it*
And none of the above changes the impression of higher risk (of debilitating side effects) than officially reported that the posts by ppruners here makes. That is really concerning.
* UK deaths from Covid are at 2904 per million. The UK has a population of 68 million. Puts the relative risk into perspective wouldn‘t you say?
Yes, annoying that isn‘t it? But you could pick any number of countries and find a similar picture. Covid has killed an awful lot more people than vaccines have.
Same Again
people who work at the NYT, BBC and countless other long-established and trusted journalistic sources also have families - why would they suppress the story of the age? Especially one that is about pharma and goverment harming people? These are the news agencies that are perpetual thorns in the sides of various governments. Are they also in on the censorship? It makes no sense.
The myocarditis risk is known and acknowledged. According to the gov info site, that association is being closley monitored. Personally I can see an underreporting possibility at a number of levels. A collective suppression of information is harder to believe.
Same Again
people who work at the NYT, BBC and countless other long-established and trusted journalistic sources also have families - why would they suppress the story of the age? Especially one that is about pharma and goverment harming people? These are the news agencies that are perpetual thorns in the sides of various governments. Are they also in on the censorship? It makes no sense.
The myocarditis risk is known and acknowledged. According to the gov info site, that association is being closley monitored. Personally I can see an underreporting possibility at a number of levels. A collective suppression of information is harder to believe.
Yes, annoying that isn‘t it? But you could pick any number of countries and find a similar picture. Covid has killed an awful lot more people than vaccines have.
Same Again
people who work at the NYT, BBC and countless other long-established and trusted journalistic sources also have families - why would they suppress the story of the age? Especially one that is about pharma and goverment harming people? These are the news agencies that are perpetual thorns in the sides of various governments. Are they also in on the censorship? It makes no sense.
The myocarditis risk is known and acknowledged. According to the gov info site, that association is being closley monitored. Personally I can see an underreporting possibility at a number of levels. A collective suppression of information is harder to believe.
Same Again
people who work at the NYT, BBC and countless other long-established and trusted journalistic sources also have families - why would they suppress the story of the age? Especially one that is about pharma and goverment harming people? These are the news agencies that are perpetual thorns in the sides of various governments. Are they also in on the censorship? It makes no sense.
The myocarditis risk is known and acknowledged. According to the gov info site, that association is being closley monitored. Personally I can see an underreporting possibility at a number of levels. A collective suppression of information is harder to believe.
You wont find the MSM reporting on the Twitter releases, strange that isnt it for a 'trusted' source
Well, I have taken the trouble to go down the rabbit hole and perhaps not surprisingly, found quite a few oversize white rabbits. I’ll stick with journalistic sources with a track record of investigation and criticism if you don‘t mind.
Why journalistic sources that have historically challenged their governments on a range of issues suddenly, collectively, would go along with suppression of a huge news story (killer vaccines), is a leap in reasoning beyond me.
Why journalistic sources that have historically challenged their governments on a range of issues suddenly, collectively, would go along with suppression of a huge news story (killer vaccines), is a leap in reasoning beyond me.
Well, I have taken the trouble to go down the rabbit hole and perhaps not surprisingly, found quite a few oversize white rabbits. I’ll stick with journalistic sources with a track record of investigation and criticism if you don‘t mind.
Why journalistic sources that have historically challenged their governments on a range of issues suddenly, collectively, would go along with suppression of a huge news story (killer vaccines), is a leap in reasoning beyond me.
Why journalistic sources that have historically challenged their governments on a range of issues suddenly, collectively, would go along with suppression of a huge news story (killer vaccines), is a leap in reasoning beyond me.
Ha ha, someone trusting the mainstream media...do you remember when that doctor H. Jones stated on a tv show that 95% of patients in hospital were unvaccinated, only to be corrected from someone from the office of national statistics, that it was 35%? So, either he knew this and lied, which is disgraceful, or he didn't know and should if he is going to be on TV quoting facts and figures, which is also disgraceful.....and what happened, a tiny snippet in a paper with an apology for the mistake, and a few nights later he was on BBC spouting more crap, with all the gullible's believing him!
B.
B.
The following users liked this post:
I see, you have summed the deaths in tables 11 & 12 to get the number.
The report is more circumspect though, stating the numbers are based on the reporter‘s (yellow card) opinion on causality. The problem of lack of control for pre-conditions is also mentioned. Saying the vaccines killed 2362 people is a bald Interpretation that the report doesn’t make.
Plus there is the question of relative risk, both for the individuals involved and the whole population. How many of those 2362 people would have died had they not been vaccinated/boosted? How many (more) people would have died had there been no vaccination programme? Vaccination is meant to provoke an immune response, so some side effects are to be expected. If you vaccinate very large numbers of people, there will almost inevitably be a small number of severe adverse reactions, and some of those will be fatal. Dreadful for those involved, but not really surprising. Of course if the proportion of those events is relatively high, then it means the vaccine/s are not safe/worth the risk.
The question is whether the side effects and consequences of vaccination with one or more vaccines represents a greater risk than the illness it is trying to mitigate. Clearly the health authorities don‘t think so. And given the number of Covid-related deaths I‘m not surprised. Covid also kills people. Some people try and play that down, but the evidence for that is so obvious that you virtually have to pole vault over the it*
And none of the above changes the impression of higher risk (of debilitating side effects) than officially reported that the posts by ppruners here makes. That is really concerning.
* UK deaths from Covid are at 2904 per million. The UK has a population of 68 million. Puts the relative risk into perspective wouldn‘t you say?
The report is more circumspect though, stating the numbers are based on the reporter‘s (yellow card) opinion on causality. The problem of lack of control for pre-conditions is also mentioned. Saying the vaccines killed 2362 people is a bald Interpretation that the report doesn’t make.
Plus there is the question of relative risk, both for the individuals involved and the whole population. How many of those 2362 people would have died had they not been vaccinated/boosted? How many (more) people would have died had there been no vaccination programme? Vaccination is meant to provoke an immune response, so some side effects are to be expected. If you vaccinate very large numbers of people, there will almost inevitably be a small number of severe adverse reactions, and some of those will be fatal. Dreadful for those involved, but not really surprising. Of course if the proportion of those events is relatively high, then it means the vaccine/s are not safe/worth the risk.
The question is whether the side effects and consequences of vaccination with one or more vaccines represents a greater risk than the illness it is trying to mitigate. Clearly the health authorities don‘t think so. And given the number of Covid-related deaths I‘m not surprised. Covid also kills people. Some people try and play that down, but the evidence for that is so obvious that you virtually have to pole vault over the it*
And none of the above changes the impression of higher risk (of debilitating side effects) than officially reported that the posts by ppruners here makes. That is really concerning.
* UK deaths from Covid are at 2904 per million. The UK has a population of 68 million. Puts the relative risk into perspective wouldn‘t you say?
Covid mortality around 0.3% (with not of, could be hugely less)
Injury around 1% of reported, if only 10% are reported, this becomes a huge number
Majority of deaths in the elderly as expected.
Thread Starter
Having a read of that ‘report’. Certainly a ‘glossy brochure’ for them vaccines. One thing I can not find in it though is at what time is one considered vaccinated. Is it the moment that the vaccine is given, or is it say two weeks after the vaccine is administered ?
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
We may have a hint here:
“..International data has shown that these suspected events have been observed to occur most frequently approximately 3 days after the first vaccine and 2 days after the second vaccine, and both UK and international data have identified that the large majority of suspected events occur within 7 days of vaccination..”
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting
“..International data has shown that these suspected events have been observed to occur most frequently approximately 3 days after the first vaccine and 2 days after the second vaccine, and both UK and international data have identified that the large majority of suspected events occur within 7 days of vaccination..”
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting
Chief Bottle Washer
This thread was allowed in Rotorheads expressly to allow discussion relevant to pilots as per the thread title: a minority have used it to post about issues and unverifiable ‘facts’ far more relevant to the Jet Blast COVID thread.
Either post verifiable facts pertinent to the thread title or face posts being removed.
Thread Starter
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting
Yeah, looks like it is worse then the ‘glossy’ web site leads us to believe. Re the report, I can find no reference to what is defined as un-vaccinated. If it is that one is considered un-vaccinated until two weeks after the first vaccine is administered then any one being affected, or dying from, the vaccine during those two weeks could very well be added to the un-vaxxed list.
Yeah, looks like it is worse then the ‘glossy’ web site leads us to believe. Re the report, I can find no reference to what is defined as un-vaccinated. If it is that one is considered un-vaccinated until two weeks after the first vaccine is administered then any one being affected, or dying from, the vaccine during those two weeks could very well be added to the un-vaxxed list.
Looked through the paper and that is what is said Jim. It may not be an intuitive fit to the reports by Rotorheads here, but you can‘t make it say what it does not.
Perhaps there will be research to come showing a higher rate of reactions. But so far, the research and people promoting it have been discredited in short order. Is that a conspiracy? No. Just a rebuttal of rubbish research and false information.
That still doesn‘t mean that there isn‘t an issue. It just needs better data and more credible presentation.
Perhaps there will be research to come showing a higher rate of reactions. But so far, the research and people promoting it have been discredited in short order. Is that a conspiracy? No. Just a rebuttal of rubbish research and false information.
That still doesn‘t mean that there isn‘t an issue. It just needs better data and more credible presentation.
I‘m sorry Jim, but you are clearly unwilling to accept the findings of the research you yourself referenced. Why did you bother posting it? The number 4 was arrived at after controlling for normal incidence naturally. Then the authors made provisos with respect to that very small number.
It is interesting that the UK data and the very large study you referenced give very different incidence numbers. But there are probably reasons for this, such as different data collation and methodologies. One problem with a lot of the research being offered up as evidence of high vaccine risk is due to trying to make correlations at a data standard that just isn’t there. The area looks like it needs good research and data. It won‘t be coming from 21 year old hacks and keyboard warriors. So I‘ m happy to take the blue pill of known world until Morpheus turns up instead of the current gaggle of dodgy drug dealers. If a number of posters here fancy themselves as issue woke that‘s up to them. Looks like being taken in by noise and sophistry to me.
I‘m going to stop feeding the hamsterwheel as per response to helicrazi. This isn‘t going anywhere. We are not going to learn anything with this strand of discussion.
It is interesting that the UK data and the very large study you referenced give very different incidence numbers. But there are probably reasons for this, such as different data collation and methodologies. One problem with a lot of the research being offered up as evidence of high vaccine risk is due to trying to make correlations at a data standard that just isn’t there. The area looks like it needs good research and data. It won‘t be coming from 21 year old hacks and keyboard warriors. So I‘ m happy to take the blue pill of known world until Morpheus turns up instead of the current gaggle of dodgy drug dealers. If a number of posters here fancy themselves as issue woke that‘s up to them. Looks like being taken in by noise and sophistry to me.
I‘m going to stop feeding the hamsterwheel as per response to helicrazi. This isn‘t going anywhere. We are not going to learn anything with this strand of discussion.
.I’m wondering when were those who received a first vaccine were considered to be vaccinated ? Were it the moment yer took the vaccine, or were it two weeks later ?
That gov.uk website shows what extensive care has been taken in reporting adverse side effects of the vaccines - as mentioned earlier, for most people it is no more than a sore arm.
Last edited by Chock Puller; 28th Dec 2022 at 15:11. Reason: Paranoia concerns belong in JB
Moderation is best done by the poster and done properly prevents the need for intervention by Moderators.
Repeated efforts to solicit self moderation seems to have fallen upon deaf ears.
Posts in this thread should deal specifically with issues that directly and pointedly deal with individual pilots, the medical certification of individual pilots, decisions by Licensing authorities re Pilots medical certifications, and the rules and regulations there of, and those research studies, accident reports, or other information that deals directly with those topics.
Can we be any more clear about this?
All other discussion, arguments, sarcastic responses to others should be taken to the Covid Thread in Jet Blast.
This Thread shall remain open as the topic is and should be of interest to all of us that maintain an Aviation Medical Certification or participate in conducting those examinations or have an administrative responsibility for flight operations.
Repeated efforts to solicit self moderation seems to have fallen upon deaf ears.
Posts in this thread should deal specifically with issues that directly and pointedly deal with individual pilots, the medical certification of individual pilots, decisions by Licensing authorities re Pilots medical certifications, and the rules and regulations there of, and those research studies, accident reports, or other information that deals directly with those topics.
Can we be any more clear about this?
All other discussion, arguments, sarcastic responses to others should be taken to the Covid Thread in Jet Blast.
This Thread shall remain open as the topic is and should be of interest to all of us that maintain an Aviation Medical Certification or participate in conducting those examinations or have an administrative responsibility for flight operations.
Staying on topic....
Maybe someone can answer this then:
Is there any data available from CAA (or FAA) regarding medical suspension from suspected vaccine injury or might data be available under a FoI request?
I suspect that IF the vaccine is causing heart damage then it will be some time before its picked up on routine medicals due to the time between ECGs for younger pilots.
Maybe someone can answer this then:
Is there any data available from CAA (or FAA) regarding medical suspension from suspected vaccine injury or might data be available under a FoI request?
I suspect that IF the vaccine is causing heart damage then it will be some time before its picked up on routine medicals due to the time between ECGs for younger pilots.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
That was made quire clear at the time to anyone who paid any attention - the vaccine triggers a response from your immune system that can take a couple of weeks to reach full effect. Really not rocket science.
That gov.uk website shows what extensive care has been taken in reporting adverse side effects of the vaccines - as mentioned earlier, for most people it is no more than a sore arm.
That gov.uk website shows what extensive care has been taken in reporting adverse side effects of the vaccines - as mentioned earlier, for most people it is no more than a sore arm.