webdiplomacy.net

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 8:56 pm

I still haven't fully understood why the anti-capitalist left has such a strong trust for the massive medical corporations who's number one motive is profit.

Even now as evidence continues to pile up how rushed these vaccine are and corrupt the process was, there is a minority of anti-capitalists who still love the companies like Pfizer. I am genuinely curious Jamiet's opinion on them right now.

I would nationalise them all.

Scientists and healthcare officials in the UK, not employed by profit-seeking private enterprises, recommended the vaccine. I am willing to trust their advice.

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 8:47 pm

The more evidence that surfaces, the more I find that the vaccine was just about the worst option available, and mainly recommended because it made medical corporations more money. Thirty thousand people died because the vaccines were not properly vetted and tested, and other options were not considered which were just as effective. On top of that, people were lied to about their effectiveness and told that the vaccines would stop them from getting Covid, when in fact they didn't stop the spread but only lessened symptoms slightly.

This is a case I find to be caused by greedy corporations and politicians willing to profit from them. I'm surprised Jamie isn't eager to blame this on Capitalism.

I was not told the vaccine would stop me getting covid.

Maybe the information provided to UK citizens was better.

Perhaps it was. In the US, when they first came out, we were told that they would prevent Covid. Then, later, we were told that they didn't really prevent it but just lessened symptoms, but with 100% effectiveness. Then, later, we were told that they only did so sometimes.

Ultimately, they ended up being no better than other treatments, but causing 30 times more deaths than all other vaccines combined since 1990.

If the option was "do nothing and watch deaths mount" or "try rolling out a vaccine to as many people as possible" which would you choose?

Given that the vaccine had some effects, it did also have risks, but they were lower than the risk of catching covid at the time, so vaccinations everyone instead of letting them all catch covid still made sense.

Whether they actually had the data to back that up at the time or not.

If it was the only option, then sure, it would've be justified. But it wasn't. They had research showing that there was medication that was just as hopeful as the vaccine at treating Covid, which was much more accessible and cheap, and which turned out, after research, to be just as good if not better without the deaths caused by the vaccine.

@Fritz: What is the basis for your claim that 30,000 people were killed by covid vaccines?

Sounds like fake news to me.

The CDC's own VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:49 pm

The CDC's own VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

That's an unverified reporting system, as I understand it. I think it was designed to act as a potential indicator of trends or problems, not a source of empirical evidence.

It still doesn't explain why the reports would be so high. 30k deaths in 3 years, when for the 30 years before, all vaccines had totaled 10k? Added to that is the fact that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.

According to the World Council for Health, and their report in 2022, there is a 1 in 5,074,171 chance of death from the Flu vaccine. From the Covid vaccine, there is a 1 in 30,041 chance of death. And that was back when only five thousand deaths had yet been reported. (The World Council for Health took data from all over the world, not just VAERS.)

Even if only half, or even only a quarter, of the VAERS deaths are actually due to the Covid vaccines, the percentage of non-reported adverse events, likely including more deaths, more than makes up for the error. And even if we give it a 50% error rate, it is still 84 times more deadly than a Flu vaccine.

The 1976 mass vaccination campaign was halted after 53 deaths were reported. Why is thirty thousand not enough now? All this to make mega-pharmaceutical corporations more money, while effective alternatives were entirely ignored.

Sorry, a slight correction:

Back in 2022, when yet only 5776 deaths were reported to VAERS, worldwide reports totaled over 50k deaths. So by now, the number on VAERS is only 30k, but worldwide the number is around 52k.

Source from WCH:
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Pharmacovigilance-Report-22.01.23-LR.pdf

Here's a more extensive source, from where I got that pdf:
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine-pharmacovigilance-report/

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2024 1:36 am

Here's a more extensive source, from where I got that pdf:
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine-pharmacovigilance-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Health

Lol

Lol indeed. And what is Wikipedia's definition of conspiracy theory and fake treatment? Obviously, the WCH is against covid vaccines, and they use external evidence to support their position. I used their data because it is a summary of data produced by organizations like the CDC.

So when Wikipedia says "conspiracy theories" and "fake treatment" what it really means is "a view that doesn't support covid vaccines."

Essentially, if you mean to debunk the WCH, you're going to have to do a lot better than a Wikipedia entry which uses circular logic.

Regardless, as I noted, this is not data produced by the WCH, but a summary of data from external sources. So even if you have no trust in the World Council for Health, the data is not from them, and my evidence, logic, and argument on the whole stands unrefuted.

There's such a thing as being too open minded.

You're regurgitating non-science peddled by grifters who've found a way to squeeze a bit of money and attention from fabricated "vaccine injury" stories. It's just dumb lol, you could not have tied your wagon to a shittier horse.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter if you trust the World Council for Health. Throw them out the window and my argument still stands, because my evidence does not rely on them. Clearly you didn't actually read any of the report, nor did you look into where the data was taken from.

Despite the fact that very few adverse events are actually reported, we have a vaccine which we know has caused thousands upon thousands of people, from all over the world, to die. Clinical trials, as well as real world usage, have shown that other methods of treatment which we knew about even before we had the vaccines work just as effectively as the vaccines themselves at reducing deaths from covid.

It's a rushed vaccine with millions of adverse events and thousands of deaths, which had alternatives which were just as effective and nowhere near as deadly. That's not my data, nor is it the WCH's, it's data from the official reporting systems that we have in place for this exact reason. If you want to talk about dumb, mandating that people take such a vaccine and disregarding the alternatives is just that.

I'd also like to take a look at the language you use, and where your terms come from. We will find that quite a few of your accusations are fallacious.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2024 4:19 am

There's such a thing as being too open minded.

You're regurgitating non-science peddled by grifters who've found a way to squeeze a bit of money and attention from fabricated "vaccine injury" stories. It's just dumb lol, you could not have tied your wagon to a shittier horse.

"regurgitating" - Do you mean quoting evidence? Because at least I have evidence, something which your side notably lacks here. If you mean that I'm acting as an echo chamber, all I can say is that I've given logical analysis and evidence to back it up. You've done neither.

"non-science" - You don't have a basis for this term, so the best I can do is refer it back to the Wikipedia article, which also doesn't have a standard or basis for that type of language, and is thus, as already stated, circular. By non-science I presume you mean anything that goes against the majority opinion. At best this is an Ad populum fallacy, at worst it's just unfounded and circular.

"grifters" - Really what you mean here is hoaxes, but this doesn't have any basis in evidence nor does it actually refute anything. Even if we assume that the WCH have no credibility, they're quoting real statistics from real reporting systems, not just coming up with evidence out of thin air.

Regarding the squeezing money bit, even if that's all true (which you, again, have given no warrant for), the fact remains that the vaccines are produced by corporations which can't be sued and can make their vaccines as expensive as they want and touted by politicians who have monetary interests in said corporations. Everyone in that chain wants more vaccines produced, regardless of their effectiveness or worth, because it makes them money. I'm surprised that you fail to see the basic fact that politicians care more about themselves than others, and will thus do what benefits themselves at the expense of others, and that when a system is in place that makes them money and that they can pretend is helping people, they'll use it, regardless of its actual outcome.

"fabricated 'vaccine injury' stories" - Again, clearly you didn't read the report, look at the evidence itself, or researched this in the slightest past a "gotcha" Wikipedia article. Your ignorance here speaks volumes.

These systems are the official methods in place specifically for this purpose. Once again, if you label the WCH as liars and grifters and throw all trust of them away, it doesn't make a difference, because they aren't coming up with evidence. Fifty thousand deaths have been reported. Usually ten reports of death would be enough to stop a vaccine immediately and send it back to testing to ensure it's safety. No attempts were made to seek alternatives, proper testing was rushed or disregarded, and the public was lied to about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. People were told that the vaccines would stop you from getting covid, and that there would be no adverse side effects other than a mild cold. No matter how you look at it, that all ended up lies.

I'm amazed that you've been so immersed in the echo chambers of "the vaccine is safe and effective" that you're willing to dismiss the very safeguards in place to ensure that people don't die from corruption and greed.

This is what I mean about being too open minded.

You're missusing the vaccine injury data. It's as simple as that. And no wonder, since you came to it once it had been knowingly mispurposed by an organization with absolutely no stake in truth telling.

It's just funny how hard you'll defend this without doing one more google search. Read anything else about VAERS that isn't written by WCH and you'll have your answer.

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2024 2:29 pm

It's just funny how hard you'll defend this without doing one more google search. Read anything else about VAERS that isn't written by WCH and you'll have your answer.

I've done so. I've seen the criticism, and I find that criticism to be flawed. As I said, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, only 1% of vaccine adverse events are actually reported.

But this doesn't address anything I've said. Why is it that, when 10 reports would precipusly have immediately caused pause and investigation, fifty thousand isn't enough?