UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread

[sancho panza]

Some screenshots

[sancho panza]

Looks like the republicans are gunning for him-and rightly so imho.A lot of this current disaster lies in his almsot messianic security of tenure and questionable ethics.more screen shots for posterity

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

It looks like the theory of T cell damage from the jabs is being verified. 😞 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

Looks like 3000 children were dropped from a 4500 child study of the Pfizer jab.......

[Pinkpanther]

3 hours ago, sancho panza said:

It looks like the theory of T cell damage from the jabs is being verified. 😞 

 

Just a reminder of the clinical trials, for the 2 jabs that have yet to finish.

 

Moderna-  phase 3 trial end - 2 inital jabs -  Dec 2022  - 4 months away.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427

 

Astra Zeneca - phase 3 trial end - 2 inital jabs - Feb 2023 - 6 months away

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746

 

Biontech/Pfizer - Phase 3 trial end - 2 intial jabs - Jan 2023 - 5 months away.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728 (initial and current but amended)

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04368728?A=1&B=42&C=Side-by-Side#StudyPageTop  (to see the amendments.)

 I have included the changes to phase 3 trials for Pfizer.

I would really like to see the end results of all the original phase 3 trials for all 3 experimental vaccines when they are published next year.   But hey - the Jabs based on the intial phase 3 trials are safe and effective.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Pinkpanther

[Ash4781b]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62664537
 

“Speaking to the Spectator, Mr Sunak insisted he did not want to blame individuals but said he believes a series of mistakes were made by ministers during the pandemic.

He said ministers were not given enough information to scrutinise analysis produced by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies - a group of independent experts advising the government. 

He told the magazine he had asked for summaries of the assumptions behind Sage's modelling for the first year of the pandemic, but could "never get" them.

"This is the problem," he was quoted as saying, "if you empower all these independent people, you're screwed".”

 

That’s supposedly from Sunak who was chancellor in the pandemic. Really odd not able to get the data. 

[Loki]

9 minutes ago, Ash4781b said:

a series of mistakes were made

There's a lot of that going around at the moment

[sancho panza]

Dr John covering changes that appear to have come in for pregnant women and the clot shot.

It's wonderful how cagey he has to be to get around the YouTube rules but the message seems clear.

Govt are altering guidance because

a) the vaccines are safe for pregnant emmen

 

b) the vaccines aren't safe for pregnant women/ they need more research befor saying they are

 

 

[sancho panza]

Dr John covering excess deaths.also mentions at the start the death of the Scottish Mountain biker......the implication seems clear

 

 

[sancho panza]

Joe Rogan interviews Alex Berenson.Absolutely enthralling 3hr interview for your average sceptic

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5xCeuH6zui8r27ImExB6K6

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

Here it comes

https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/why-we-question-the-safety-of-covid

Last week, along with an international group of physicians and scientists, we published a study suggesting that the risks of COVID-19 vaccines may be greater than previously reported.  Using publicly available data from Pfizer and Moderna studies, we found one serious adverse event for each 800 vaccinees.   That translates to about 1,250 serious events for each million vaccine recipients. DHHS reports the rate for other vaccines is only 1 or 2 per million.

The 1976 swine flu vaccine was withdrawn after it was associated with Guillain-Barre Syndrome at a rate of approximately 1 in 100,000. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine Rotashield was withdrawn following reports of intussusception in about 1 or 2 in 10,000.  As widely acknowledged, COVID vaccines prevent hospitalizations, and the clinical trials estimated that between 225 and 625 hospitalizations were prevented per million vaccinated persons.

Regrettably, our analysis was hindered by an addressable problem:  The individual level data that could confirm or refute our analysis have not been made public.    For example, we would have greater confidence in our conclusions if we knew how often individuals experienced multiple serious adverse events. Pfizer, Moderna and the FDA have these data, but have kept them hidden from public view. This information is essential to the understanding of the balance between vaccine benefits and harms. We are calling upon Pfizer, Moderna and the FDA to release all information needed for a comprehensive assessment of these products.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283?via%3Dihub

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

Author links open overlay panelJosephFraiman^a

JuanErviti^bMarkJones^cSanderGreenland^dPatrickWhelan^eRobert M.Kaplan^fPeterDoshi^g

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license

Open access

   

 

Abstract

Introduction

In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Methods

Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest.

Results

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).

Discussion

The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

[sancho panza]

Answers/theories on a postcard please

Record excess deaths in Europe

 

[Noallegiance]

Covid mindset is percolating to other areas of life.

Overheard Mum caring for toddler at football:

Kid screams having fallen over in the bleachers.

"Where do you hurt?"

"Chin"

"Well, good thing you had your helmet on"

[sancho panza]

Prof of Medicine from John Hopkins University warning on childhood myocarditis......what would he know?

 

 

[sancho panza]

Dr Aseem Malhotra Consultant Cardiologist delivers a stunning paper.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/25/suspend-all-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-until-side-effects-are-fully-investigated-says-leading-doctor-who-promoted-them-on-tv/

Suspend All COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Until Side-Effects are Fully Investigated, Says Leading Doctor Who Promoted Them on TV

by Will Jones

25 September 2022 10:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Leading doctors have joined a call to suspend all COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until serious side-effects are fully investigated and the raw trial data from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial are released for independent analysis to help determine the true benefits and potential harms for different age groups.

Writing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Insulin Resistance, one of the U.K.’s most eminent Consultant Cardiologists Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who was one of the first to take two doses of the vaccine and promote it on Good Morning Britain on TV, says that since the rollout of the vaccine the evidence of its effectiveness and true rates of adverse events has changed.

In a two-part research paper entitled “Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine”, real-world data reveal that in the non-elderly population the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one death from COVID-19 runs into thousands and that re-analysis of randomised controlled trial data (that first led to approval of the vaccines for Pfizer and Moderna) suggests a greater risk of suffering a serious adverse event from the vaccine than being hospitalised with COVID-19.

Dr. Malhotra writes: “Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety.”

Mirroring a potential signal from the Pfizer Phase 3 clinical trial, a significant rise in cardiac arrest calls to ambulances in England was seen in 2021 (an extra 14,000 compared to 2020) with similar data emerging from Israel in the 16-39 year old age group where there was a 25% increase in heart attacks or cardiac arrests associated with the Pfizer vaccine administration but not associated with COVID-19.

Citing the FDA’s own website he also highlights that testing positive for antibodies is an unreliable marker for immunity or protection against Covid post-vaccination.

He writes:

It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally.

Authorities and sections of the medical profession have supported unethical, coercive and misinformed policies such as vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, undermining the principles of informed consent. These regrettable actions are a symptom of the ‘medical misinformation mess’: The tip of a mortality iceberg where prescribed medications are estimated to be the third most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer.

Underlying causes for this failure include regulatory capture – guardians that are supposed to protect the public are in fact funded by the very corporations that stand to gain from the sale of those medications. A failure of public health messaging has also resulted in wanton waste of resources and a missed opportunity to help individuals lead healthier lives with relatively simple – and low cost – lifestyle changes.

The unprecedented rollout of an emergency use authorisation vaccine without access to the raw data, with increasing evidence of significant harms, compounded by mandates that appear to serve no purpose other than to bolster the profits of the drug industry, have highlighted modern medicine’s worst failings on an epic scale, with additional catastrophic harms to trust in public health.

There is a strong scientific, ethical and moral case to be made that the current Covid vaccine administration must stop until all the raw data has been subjected to fully independent scrutiny. Looking to the future, the medical and public health professionals must recognise these failings and eschew the tainted dollar of the medical-industrial complex. It will take a lot of time and effort to rebuild trust in these institutions, but the health of both humanity and the medical profession depend on it.

He concludes:

We must use this as an opportunity to transform the system to produce better doctors, better decision making, healthier patients and restore trust in medicine and public health. Until all the raw data on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been independently analysed, any claims purporting that they confer a net benefit to humankind cannot be considered to be evidence based.

Professor of Vascular Surgery and President of the International Vascular Society Dr. Sherif Sultan said:

Doctor Aseem Malhotra’s literature review and analysis is a cause for global concern. We fully believe that vaccines are one of the great discoveries in medicine that has improved life-expectancy dramatically. However, mRNA genetic vaccines are different, as long-term safety evaluation is lacking but mandatory to ensure public safety. These findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals. Surveillance of potential vaccine side-effects and COVID-19 outcomes to identify public health trends and promptly investigate potential underlying causes needs immediate attention.

Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at the University of Stanford Jay Bhattacharya said:

Dr. Aseem Malhotra has written detailed narrative review of the literature on the uses and abuses of the mRNA Covid vaccines. Dr. Malhotra makes a good case that there is considerable heterogeneity across age groups and other comorbid conditions in the expected benefits and expected side-effect profiles of the vaccine. He finds that while there may be a case for older people to take the vaccine because the benefits may outweigh expected harm, that may not be the case for younger people. Dr. Malhotra’s paper calls for a pause in the use of the vaccine in younger people, such as the one recently adopted by Danish public health authorities and the Florida department of public health in the United States. He calls for investigation of side-effect profiles of mRNA vaccines and for a halt to any vaccine mandate programmes involving Covid vaccines. These papers should be considered carefully by all public health authorities who seek to adopt principles of evidence based medicine in their recommendations to the public regarding the Covid mRNA vaccines.

Dr. Amir Hannan MBE, General Practitioner and Chairman of the West Pennine Local Medical Committee, Greater Manchester said:

Dr. Aseem Malhotra should be congratulated for putting this all together to help inform the public, the medical profession, the regulators, Government, the pharmaceutical industry and wider society. Drug treatments and vaccinations can be an important part of helping to overcome disease and prevent illness but we must remain vigilant against over-reliance on the benefits and minimising or even suppressing the harms. Greater scrutiny of the data and those overseeing medical practice is needed to ensure the public and the profession remain safe. An urgent review is needed of the materials and information provided on the COVID-19 vaccines to help inform the public so that informed consent is gained through a shared decision-making process with education and training in light of the new evidence emerging.

Dr. Campbell Murdoch, General Practitioner and Clinical Advisor to the Royal College of General Practitioners said:

Provision of safe and effective healthcare sits at the heart of medical services. As a GP this is central to every action I take with patients. The healthcare regulator in England, the Care Quality Commission, requires this from all providers of medical care.

As Dr. Malhotra describes, to be able to provide safe and effective care all healthcare professionals must practice evidence-based medicine. This is a combination of using the best available scientific evidence, the patient’s preferences, and the healthcare professional’s expertise. The combination of these three factors allows the patient to make an informed choice about what is best for their health.

In the case of the COVID-19 vaccination Dr Malhotra describes multiple systemic failures in the provision of safe and effective evidence-based medicine. Consequently, it has been impossible for patients and the public to make an informed choice about what is best for their health and life.

High quality healthcare requires organisations and individuals to act with complete integrity. Without this the delivery of safe and effective healthcare will always fail.

Errors in healthcare can provide an opportunity to improve. It is now time to reflect and learn from the experience of the COVID-19 vaccination. Healthcare must always help, not harm.

Dr. Bob Gill, General Practitioner, activist and producer of documentary “The Great NHS Heist” said:

This important two-part review of the impact of the international rollout of mRNA vaccination programme highlights significant concerns about the overstated benefits of vaccination especially in low-risk populations and the under-reporting of adverse events. Public information and consent to vaccination has not been balanced, neglecting discussion of individual risk versus benefit of having the shot. The quality of evidence provided by vaccine producers and lack of openness from the pharmaceutical industry risk long-lasting damage to confidence in public health interventions.

Part two of the review sets out how regulatory capture by pharmaceutical corporations and their immense financial power influences politicians and media to promote products at the expense of scientific scrutiny and unfettered access to research on which decisions of immense impact are made. Bias and conflicts of interest abound in the medical-industrial complex with well-documented adverse outcome for patients from over-medicalisation and prescription drugs. Coercive vaccine mandates based on biased and short trials with unpublished raw data are the culmination of the unchecked power of the pharmaceutical industry to the exclusion of effective lifestyle-factor risk reduction, which was ignored by media and politicians alike. 

Given the declining virulence of the infection and mounting evidence of vaccine-related harms, there can be no justification to continued mass roll-out of booster programmes, given the short-term risks from the vaccine likely outweigh the benefits for the majority of the population and we remain ignorant of the long-term risk to health.

Dr. Renee Hoenderkamp, General Practitioner, writer and broadcaster said:

This is an important paper from Aseem. As a GP in a small practice I have two young patients with post-vaccine heart conditions confirmed. They were not counselled on the risk of this as part of an informed consent process. Surely any medical professional should want their patients to fully understand the risks and benefits of a medication they take, and welcome that discussion? As the evidence evolves and we see clearly that the risk from both COVID-9 and the vaccine designed to protect against it differs massively by age, sex, co-morbidity and previous infection, it becomes ever more important to give patients the information they need to make an informed decision. This important paper brings those risks and benefits into sharp focus and should allow the desperately needed discussion that has thus far been sorely missing from any examination of vaccination benefit and harms. Aseem opens up the discussion around both the harms and the ability to have a healthy discourse and I welcome it.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by sancho panza

[leonardratso]

this guy cant do flippity floppity like that, he might fall out of a building.

[Kevin Redshaw]

7 hours ago, leonardratso said:

this guy cant do flippity floppity like that, he might fall out of a building.

He lost his dad to the vaccines. He's also single with no kids, so the truth to him is probably more important than the fear of being bumped off by the cabal. 

[sancho panza]

A stunning 50 minute documentary that shows testimony from patients who've suffered real harm from the vaccines.Some of the cases are tragic.What have we done to our young people?

Dr's Craig,Malhotra and Jones are in amongst it.Really great to see this coming out

Also discusses govt nudge tactics.

 

[sancho panza]

4.6 mn views and groing by the hour

[sancho panza]

 

[leonardratso]

trouble with all this is, its too late to reverse this now. Plus if it were to all happen again in some form or other, then im pretty sure goldfish memory would apply and theyd be crawling over each other to get the 'new and improved super vaccine'.

(note: may contain nuts).

[sancho panza]

The penny's finally dropping for Dr JC-'we're reporting on a breaking international scandal','they gave us their word',

 

[sancho panza]

Prof Ioannidis (Medicine ) ..... and the justification for a two year lockdown and global depression was..........???

Remember IFR for flu is 0.096%

Hattip Maryanne Demasi

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1

The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025-0.032% for 0-59 years and 0.063-0.082% for 0-69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups. The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested. Large differences did exist between countries and may reflect differences in comorbidities and other factors. These estimates provide a baseline from which to fathom further IFR declines with the widespread use of vaccination, prior infections, and evolution of new variants.

Edited October 17, 2022 by sancho panza

[BurntBread]

54 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

Prof Ioannidis (Medicine ) ..... and the justification for a two year lockdown and global depression was..........???

Remember IFR for flu is 0.096%

Hattip Maryanne Demasi

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1

The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025-0.032% for 0-59 years and 0.063-0.082% for 0-69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups. The current analysis suggests a much lower pre-vaccination IFR in non-elderly populations than previously suggested. Large differences did exist between countries and may reflect differences in comorbidities and other factors. These estimates provide a baseline from which to fathom further IFR declines with the widespread use of vaccination, prior infections, and evolution of new variants.

I agree with your points, and the age-stratified IFR represents very interesting data. However, I think 0.096% is the IFR that was taken for COVID by the UK health services (see question to parliament on 12th July 2021 from Steve Baker). The figure I found for the IFR from seasonal 'flu was 0.043% (article in the BMJ, which I don't have access to right now). So basically, if you have lived through 2 normal 'flu years then you have been exposed to the same risk as (original) COVID. The age-stratification is clearly hugely important though, but that's the line I have been using in conversations...

[sancho panza]

44 minutes ago, BurntBread said:

I agree with your points, and the age-stratified IFR represents very interesting data. However, I think 0.096% is the IFR that was taken for COVID by the UK health services (see question to parliament on 12th July 2021 from Steve Baker). The figure I found for the IFR from seasonal 'flu was 0.043% (article in the BMJ, which I don't have access to right now). So basically, if you have lived through 2 normal 'flu years then you have been exposed to the same risk as (original) COVID. The age-stratification is clearly hugely important though, but that's the line I have been using in conversations...

I think you may be right,that data point is somewhere on this thread.Lot of variance in flu IFR's , and also depedns on the severity of the season.Also depends on certification.

This BMJ article quotes Ioaniddis so there's a danger of him having an argument with himself

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509/rr

Ioannidis included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. He reported that the infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and that the median rate was 0.27% (3).

It is therefore not surprising that for influenza, as for all viral diseases, there are huge variations in reported case-fatality rates. In a systematic review, the median was about 1% for laboratory confirmed influenza during the mild influenza pandemic in 2009 and the following years (estimated by me from figure 3 in the paper) (7).

These data contradict the assertion by Pastor-Barriuso et al. that the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 is about 10 times larger than that for influenza. It seems to be about the same. In Denmark, when blood donors were tested for coronavirus antibodies, the death rate for COVID-19 was only 0.16% (8).

The adjusted mortality rate from coronavirus of 1% was then compared with the 0.1% mortality rate from seasonal influenza, and the conclusion was reported to the House Committee that the coronavirus was 10-times more lethal than seasonal influenza.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/howcoronaviruscovid19compareswithfluasacauseofdeath/2022-05-23

Directly comparing COVID-19 deaths with those from flu and pneumonia has limitations. For example, death certificates likely underestimate flu deaths because not all patients are tested for it, and circulating flu causes increases in deaths due to other conditions such as cardiovascular diseases