Flog be on his 10th booster, so everyone should be as well, cuz science.
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
Hmmm....again...and again.
Victoria offers almost unique data: near-real-time reporting on death trends in millions of people who are heavily vaccinated but had little exposure to Covid before being jabbed.
The picture is increasingly grim.
Victoria registered 4,896 deaths from all causes in August, 27 percent above the monthly average of the previous five Augusts. Mortality in Australia typically peaks June through August, the Southern Hemisphere’s winter, but the figure is only the latest in a disturbing trend.
So far in 2022, Victoria has registered 32,533 deaths, 20 percent above its average for the same eight-month period from 2017 through 2021. Victoria has had more than 4000 deaths in five months since February; it crossed that threshold only in seven months in the previous 12 years.
In general, deaths in Victoria have typically fallen in a very narrow band. In each year from 2017 to 2021, the state reported between 26,350 and 27,800 deaths for the eight months from January to August.
Not anymore.
www.bdm.vic.gov.au
Much of this year’s increase is due to Covid-related deaths. Like the rest of Australia, Victoria has faced a wave of Covid infections and deaths in 2022, even though 70 percent of its adults and nearly 90 percent of people over 60 are not just vaccinated but boosted.
More than two-thirds of Victoria’s Covid deaths have occurred in 2022 - the equivalent of about 200,000 deaths in the United States - even though Omicron is viewed as significantly milder than earlier variants.
At the same time, deaths from other causes are up substantially too, and rising caseloads from both Covid and other illnesses have put heavy pressure on the state’s hospital system. Wait times for non-urgent surgeries are now more than six months at many hospitals, compared to three or four last year.
Victoria is Australia’s second-most-populated state, with about 7 million people, mostly living in and around the city of Melbourne. Like all of Australia, it had very rigid lockdowns; in September 2020, police infamously arrested a pregnant woman for “inciting” an anti-lockdown protest.
It reports monthly all-cause deaths numbers about five days after the end of the month, more quickly than almost any other state or nation.
The database is robust even though the figures are very recent. State law in Victoria requires physicians and funeral directors to report deaths online. They are registered immediately and the figures rarely if ever change after the initial reported figure.
Victoria’s current Website only lists monthly death figures since September 2019, but the Wayback Machine includes an archived version from early August 2020 that includes figures for every month back to January 2010. Later in August 2020, for reasons that are not clear, the state removed all data from before mid-2019.
https://www.steelernation.com/forums/javascript:void(0)
Deaths are soaring in one of the world's most highly mRNA vaccinated areas
Deaths in the Australian state of Victoria, where 95 percent of adults have received Covid vaccines and most are boosted with mRNA shots, soared to their highest level in at least 13 years in August - far above the five-year average.Victoria offers almost unique data: near-real-time reporting on death trends in millions of people who are heavily vaccinated but had little exposure to Covid before being jabbed.
The picture is increasingly grim.
Victoria registered 4,896 deaths from all causes in August, 27 percent above the monthly average of the previous five Augusts. Mortality in Australia typically peaks June through August, the Southern Hemisphere’s winter, but the figure is only the latest in a disturbing trend.
So far in 2022, Victoria has registered 32,533 deaths, 20 percent above its average for the same eight-month period from 2017 through 2021. Victoria has had more than 4000 deaths in five months since February; it crossed that threshold only in seven months in the previous 12 years.
In general, deaths in Victoria have typically fallen in a very narrow band. In each year from 2017 to 2021, the state reported between 26,350 and 27,800 deaths for the eight months from January to August.
Not anymore.
Deaths registered per month | Births Deaths and Marriages Victoria
Download the data of deaths registered per month below.
Much of this year’s increase is due to Covid-related deaths. Like the rest of Australia, Victoria has faced a wave of Covid infections and deaths in 2022, even though 70 percent of its adults and nearly 90 percent of people over 60 are not just vaccinated but boosted.
More than two-thirds of Victoria’s Covid deaths have occurred in 2022 - the equivalent of about 200,000 deaths in the United States - even though Omicron is viewed as significantly milder than earlier variants.
At the same time, deaths from other causes are up substantially too, and rising caseloads from both Covid and other illnesses have put heavy pressure on the state’s hospital system. Wait times for non-urgent surgeries are now more than six months at many hospitals, compared to three or four last year.
Victoria is Australia’s second-most-populated state, with about 7 million people, mostly living in and around the city of Melbourne. Like all of Australia, it had very rigid lockdowns; in September 2020, police infamously arrested a pregnant woman for “inciting” an anti-lockdown protest.
It reports monthly all-cause deaths numbers about five days after the end of the month, more quickly than almost any other state or nation.
The database is robust even though the figures are very recent. State law in Victoria requires physicians and funeral directors to report deaths online. They are registered immediately and the figures rarely if ever change after the initial reported figure.
Victoria’s current Website only lists monthly death figures since September 2019, but the Wayback Machine includes an archived version from early August 2020 that includes figures for every month back to January 2010. Later in August 2020, for reasons that are not clear, the state removed all data from before mid-2019.
https://www.steelernation.com/forums/javascript:void(0)
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,404
- Reaction score
- 5,475
- Points
- 113
FFS, Tim. I directly quoted the NEJM study. You reference a nonsensical analysis by Igor “I own a popular math website and run a business” Chudov from Substack! Nowhere can any of his interpretation of the graphs and conclusions be found in the study. “Natural immunity reset” or “natural immunity removal” ain’t a thing, it’s just not. Both natural and vaccinated immunity wane over time, that’s all.
I’m quite certain the MEDICAL DOCTORS that authored the NEJM study are capable of interpreting their findings and basing their SUPPORT FOR BOOSTERS on those findings. They didn’t overlook some damning discovery.
No you didn't you did exactly what I said you did - took words out of context. I posted the full quote, which says something utterly different than you purported it did
You're making my point. The authors of the article attempted to make a point while their data fully made another point.
They may not have an official name, but they happen. As the data showed. They studied 887,193 children aged 5 to 11 years in North Carolina. Substantial study. Substantial data.
While a true statement, an utterly misleading statement. Kids with natural immunity have better protection longer than those who get the clot shot. Kids who had natural immunity and get the clot shot lose their natural immunity RAPIDLY until it's gone. Damning information.
Oh, they did. Why don't you correct Igor's analysis? Tell us all where and how he is wrong. There are 6 graphs in the article.
Please, do go on and interpret them differently for us.
Last edited:
Like I said, Democrats good, Republicans bad, Democrats right, Republicans wrong. That’s all he needs to know.
Here's another interpretation of the same damning NEJM study.
dailysceptic.org
The findings are depicted in the charts below. In chart A, notice that the green and blue lines, representing children vaccinated in November and December respectively, go through zero into negative territory at a sharp gradient within five months of the first injection. It’s unclear why the green line is not continued past April, as the researchers presumably had the data, but from what is shown it looks very much like the vaccine effectiveness will continue declining deep into negative territory.
In chart B, we see both the red and blue lines – which represent children who are vaccinated and have been previously infected and not previously infected respectively – again going through zero at a steep gradient within five months of vaccination. The fact that the vaccinated who have natural immunity from previous infection also see negative effectiveness is a surprise as one would not expect those with natural immunity to be more susceptible to infection than those without it.
Charts C and D suggest that it is the vaccine that is causing this worrying erasure of natural immunity. Chart D shows the effectiveness of natural immunity from previous infection among the vaccinated. Notice that the blue line, which is protection against the Delta variant among the vaccinated-and-previously-infected, hits zero at a steep gradient within seven months. Now look at the blue line in chart C, which is protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated. It, too, is waning, but much more slowly, and after eight months it is still very much in positive territory at over 50%. The same can be said for natural immunity against earlier variants (green line), which wanes slowly and remains positive after 16 months. Why is natural immunity remaining protective for the unvaccinated, whereas in the vaccinated their ‘protection’ goes negative even if they have natural immunity?
This is very disturbing because it suggests not only that the vaccines give negative ‘protection’ after a few months but also that they destroy the protection that should have been provided by natural immunity. The unvaccinated keep their protection from previous infection but the vaccinated end up with negative efficacy even if they’ve been previously infected. This means the vaccines appear to demolish a person’s natural immunity and leave him or her more vulnerable to infection than he or she was before.
The new findings add to growing concerns among scientists about the effect of the Covid vaccines on the immune system. A recent study in mice found that mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s inhibit the immune system response to other pathogens. In that study (which is not yet peer-reviewed), the culprit appeared to be the lipid nano-particles (LNPs) which carry the mRNA in the vaccine: “We found that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNP alone led to long-term inhibition of the adaptive immune responses.”
Another pre-print study found that the Pfizer vaccine “induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses” including “inhibition of innate immune responses”.
Oddly, the authors of the new study fail to draw attention to their alarming findings. Instead they conclude that the vaccine was “found to confer considerable immunity against Omicron infection” – even though the high protection only lasted weeks and was negative within months. They also conclude that “the rapid decline in protection against Omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination” – as though what people really need is more of these injections.
But the study’s findings speak for themselves, and they are highly concerning. It’s increasingly clear that it was a mistake to rush mRNA vaccine technology to market, and that the vaccines need to be taken out of use and put back into the research phase until the full range of their effects and their safety profile are much better understood.
Covid Vaccine Destroys Natural Immunity, NEJM Study Shows
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) shows not only that the effectiveness of the
dailysceptic.org
The findings are depicted in the charts below. In chart A, notice that the green and blue lines, representing children vaccinated in November and December respectively, go through zero into negative territory at a sharp gradient within five months of the first injection. It’s unclear why the green line is not continued past April, as the researchers presumably had the data, but from what is shown it looks very much like the vaccine effectiveness will continue declining deep into negative territory.
In chart B, we see both the red and blue lines – which represent children who are vaccinated and have been previously infected and not previously infected respectively – again going through zero at a steep gradient within five months of vaccination. The fact that the vaccinated who have natural immunity from previous infection also see negative effectiveness is a surprise as one would not expect those with natural immunity to be more susceptible to infection than those without it.
Charts C and D suggest that it is the vaccine that is causing this worrying erasure of natural immunity. Chart D shows the effectiveness of natural immunity from previous infection among the vaccinated. Notice that the blue line, which is protection against the Delta variant among the vaccinated-and-previously-infected, hits zero at a steep gradient within seven months. Now look at the blue line in chart C, which is protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated. It, too, is waning, but much more slowly, and after eight months it is still very much in positive territory at over 50%. The same can be said for natural immunity against earlier variants (green line), which wanes slowly and remains positive after 16 months. Why is natural immunity remaining protective for the unvaccinated, whereas in the vaccinated their ‘protection’ goes negative even if they have natural immunity?
This is very disturbing because it suggests not only that the vaccines give negative ‘protection’ after a few months but also that they destroy the protection that should have been provided by natural immunity. The unvaccinated keep their protection from previous infection but the vaccinated end up with negative efficacy even if they’ve been previously infected. This means the vaccines appear to demolish a person’s natural immunity and leave him or her more vulnerable to infection than he or she was before.
The new findings add to growing concerns among scientists about the effect of the Covid vaccines on the immune system. A recent study in mice found that mRNA vaccines like Pfizer’s inhibit the immune system response to other pathogens. In that study (which is not yet peer-reviewed), the culprit appeared to be the lipid nano-particles (LNPs) which carry the mRNA in the vaccine: “We found that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNP alone led to long-term inhibition of the adaptive immune responses.”
Another pre-print study found that the Pfizer vaccine “induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses” including “inhibition of innate immune responses”.
Oddly, the authors of the new study fail to draw attention to their alarming findings. Instead they conclude that the vaccine was “found to confer considerable immunity against Omicron infection” – even though the high protection only lasted weeks and was negative within months. They also conclude that “the rapid decline in protection against Omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination” – as though what people really need is more of these injections.
But the study’s findings speak for themselves, and they are highly concerning. It’s increasingly clear that it was a mistake to rush mRNA vaccine technology to market, and that the vaccines need to be taken out of use and put back into the research phase until the full range of their effects and their safety profile are much better understood.
Also, we can't let this slide. As many of us here pointed to VAERS and other claims of vaccine injuries, several posters repeatedly said "the CDC is monitoring all of this. If there were issues, they would let us know."
Nope. They weren't. I've shown evidence before in FOIA documents they weren't. Now, Rochelle Walensky herself recently admitted they were not.
We injected the majority of Americans with an experimental, dangerous vaccine...and the CDC didn't even start looking at reports until March of this year. This is why blind sheep are such a danger to nations. Too much trust.
dailysceptic.org
The Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged publicly for the first time that the agency gave false information about its COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring. Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted that her agency falsely claimed it was carrying out robust safety monitoring in 2021 and that it only actually did so from March 2022 – but it still refuses to release the full data. The Epoch Times has the story.
The Epoch Times reports that the CDC has “still not provided the results of the PRRs that were performed”, either to itself or to Senator Johnson. The FDA, which has conducted “Empirical Bayesian data mining on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System reports” also refused to provide any of the results to the Epoch Times.
Dr. Walensky claimed in her letter that Empirical Bayesian (EB) data mining is more reliable, and that the PRR results “were generally consistent with EB data mining, revealing no additional unexpected safety signals”.
Senator Johnson replied that without the data “the American people, the public cannot verify your assertion”.
Nope. They weren't. I've shown evidence before in FOIA documents they weren't. Now, Rochelle Walensky herself recently admitted they were not.
We injected the majority of Americans with an experimental, dangerous vaccine...and the CDC didn't even start looking at reports until March of this year. This is why blind sheep are such a danger to nations. Too much trust.
CDC Admits it Falsely Claimed it Was Monitoring Vaccine Safety – But Still Won’t Release the Full Data
The Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged publicly for the first time that the agency
dailysceptic.org
The Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged publicly for the first time that the agency gave false information about its COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring. Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted that her agency falsely claimed it was carrying out robust safety monitoring in 2021 and that it only actually did so from March 2022 – but it still refuses to release the full data. The Epoch Times has the story.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the [CDC’s] Director, said in a letter made public on September 12th that the CDC did not analyse certain types of adverse event reports at all in 2021, despite the agency previously saying it started in February 2021.
“CDC performed PRR analysis between March 25th 2022, through July 31st 2022,” Walensky said. “CDC also recently addressed a previous statement made to the Epoch Times to clarify PRR were not run between February 26th 2021 to September 30th 2021.”
Walensky’s agency had promised in several documents, starting in early 2021, to perform a type of analysis called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) on reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which it helps manage.
But the agency said in June that it did not perform PRRs. It also said that performing them was “outside th[e] agency’s purview”.
Confronted with the contradiction, Dr. John Su, a CDC official, told the Epoch Times in July that the agency started performing PRRs in February 2021 and “continues to do so to date.”
But just weeks later, the CDC said Su was wrong.
“CDC performed PRRs from March 25st 2022 through July 31st 2022,” a spokeswoman told the Epoch Times in August.
Walensky’s new letter, dated September 2nd and sent on September 6th to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), shows that Walensky is aware that her agency gave false information. Walensky’s letter included no explanation of why that happened.
The Epoch Times reports that the CDC has “still not provided the results of the PRRs that were performed”, either to itself or to Senator Johnson. The FDA, which has conducted “Empirical Bayesian data mining on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System reports” also refused to provide any of the results to the Epoch Times.
Dr. Walensky claimed in her letter that Empirical Bayesian (EB) data mining is more reliable, and that the PRR results “were generally consistent with EB data mining, revealing no additional unexpected safety signals”.
Senator Johnson replied that without the data “the American people, the public cannot verify your assertion”.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,052
- Reaction score
- 11,750
- Points
- 113
Tim 4, Floggy no score, no shots on goal, no nothing except chirping from the line outside the arena.
God bless Berenson. The narrative just keeps getting worse.
alexberenson.substack.com
Newly mRNA boosted adults aged 40-74 are now TWICE as likely to be hospitalized for Covid as those who haven't recently been boosted, a new British government report shows.
Vaccine advocates endlessly claim that though mRNA shots fail against Omicron infection in weeks, they still miraculously prevent Covid from becoming a serious illness that could require hospitalization.
These figures, which cover hospitalizations in June, suggest otherwise.
(See that blue bar? Those are the people who have had a booster within the last three months. That bar supposed to be lower than the other bars, not higher. Higher is bad.)
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...5d-a48c-4b2e-846c-6188e3290521_1170x1748.jpeg
The data are buried on page 47 of the most recent Covid vaccine surveillance report, released Sept. 1 by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency. The British government checks hospitals for Covid patients and then compares them to its national immunization registry, providing comprehensive data on cases by vaccine status.
The report shows that in June, people aged 40 to 74 who had received an mRNA booster within the last three months had a 1-in-3,600 risk of being hospitalized with Covid. That figure was double the 1-in-7,200 risk for people who had received their last Covid jab more than six months ago. (It also shows that the jabs stopped working after three months for people 75 and older.)
The British government removed some raw data about Covid deaths and hospitalizations from the vaccine surveillance report months ago, when they began to show vaccines were not working well. Still, it remains a better source of information than anything the United States offers.
To explain the apparently negative effect of boosters, the report’s authors suggest that people 40 to 74 who received a third or fourth shot in the spring might be sicker than average Britons.
But they offer no evidence to support that theory.
Another possibility, of course, is that the antibodies that the vaccines cause people to make may actually somewhat worsen Omicron infections, a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement.
However, in people 75 and older, the boosters still seem to have some short-term protective effect - though another tricky epidemiological phenomenon known as healthy vaccine user bias means the benefit is probably much less than it appears.
—
The HSA survey also shows that almost everyone who is hospitalized with Covid in Britain has had at least two vaccine shots, including 87 percent of people 40-64 and close to 95 percent of those 65 and over.
The vast majority of those have had three shots.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...cfc-d31b-4e8d-b687-813aede9ec2b_1170x834.jpeg
Data this ugly could help explain why the White House is now proposing Americans get mRNA shots only once a year, a significant easing of previous pressure to get jabbed twice or even three times a year.
Of course, the fact that vaccine demand has collapsed completely and midterm elections are only two months away might also be playing a role.
Follow The Science!
Do boosters save people from getting very sick with Covid? New data from Britain say the opposite.
The mRNA vaccine miracle just keeps getting more special. Don't blame me; the numbers come straight from the British government.
Do boosters save people from getting very sick with Covid? New data from Britain say the opposite.
The mRNA vaccine miracle just keeps getting more special. Don't blame me; the numbers come straight from the British government.
alexberenson.substack.com
Newly mRNA boosted adults aged 40-74 are now TWICE as likely to be hospitalized for Covid as those who haven't recently been boosted, a new British government report shows.
Vaccine advocates endlessly claim that though mRNA shots fail against Omicron infection in weeks, they still miraculously prevent Covid from becoming a serious illness that could require hospitalization.
These figures, which cover hospitalizations in June, suggest otherwise.
(See that blue bar? Those are the people who have had a booster within the last three months. That bar supposed to be lower than the other bars, not higher. Higher is bad.)
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...5d-a48c-4b2e-846c-6188e3290521_1170x1748.jpeg
The data are buried on page 47 of the most recent Covid vaccine surveillance report, released Sept. 1 by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency. The British government checks hospitals for Covid patients and then compares them to its national immunization registry, providing comprehensive data on cases by vaccine status.
The report shows that in June, people aged 40 to 74 who had received an mRNA booster within the last three months had a 1-in-3,600 risk of being hospitalized with Covid. That figure was double the 1-in-7,200 risk for people who had received their last Covid jab more than six months ago. (It also shows that the jabs stopped working after three months for people 75 and older.)
The British government removed some raw data about Covid deaths and hospitalizations from the vaccine surveillance report months ago, when they began to show vaccines were not working well. Still, it remains a better source of information than anything the United States offers.
To explain the apparently negative effect of boosters, the report’s authors suggest that people 40 to 74 who received a third or fourth shot in the spring might be sicker than average Britons.
But they offer no evidence to support that theory.
Another possibility, of course, is that the antibodies that the vaccines cause people to make may actually somewhat worsen Omicron infections, a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement.
However, in people 75 and older, the boosters still seem to have some short-term protective effect - though another tricky epidemiological phenomenon known as healthy vaccine user bias means the benefit is probably much less than it appears.
—
The HSA survey also shows that almost everyone who is hospitalized with Covid in Britain has had at least two vaccine shots, including 87 percent of people 40-64 and close to 95 percent of those 65 and over.
The vast majority of those have had three shots.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...cfc-d31b-4e8d-b687-813aede9ec2b_1170x834.jpeg
Data this ugly could help explain why the White House is now proposing Americans get mRNA shots only once a year, a significant easing of previous pressure to get jabbed twice or even three times a year.
Of course, the fact that vaccine demand has collapsed completely and midterm elections are only two months away might also be playing a role.
Follow The Science!
Pretty important read. I'm just pasting a subset of the overall article (the most important article Steve claims he's ever posted). Long, go to the link to read it all.
stevekirsch.substack.com
Instead of admitting their mistake, the MoH covered it up by issuing a report that distorted the expert report.
In addition, the experts also effectively covered it up by saying nothing when this happened. They sat by idly while the MoH misrepresented the data. It appears that everyone involved was so intimidated that they felt that they had to bury the truth, even when it can cost lives.
The news finally broke to the public on August 20 that the government hadn’t been monitoring adverse reactions for a year and then, after they finally gathered the adverse safety data, that they deliberately manipulated the data to make the vaccine look safe when it wasn’t. You’d think there would be major outrage at the violation of the public trust. But there was nothing. No reaction. Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, the Health Ministry's head of public services and a top COVID adviser to the Israeli government, issued no public statement. That’s stunning.
This suggests that she and the others in her organization who knew about this were in on the cover-up. The Israeli people should demand that they be fired and criminally prosecuted.
In addition, the current Minister of Health, Nitzan Horowitz, is doing nothing. Why isn’t he calling for an investigation? He should be fired as well. Or is corruption of science OK with the Israeli government?
Finally, how deep does the corruption go? Will any Israeli mainstream media cover this story? Why not? Will any member of the Israeli parliament call for an investigation? Will any member of the executive branch call for an investigation?
It appears to me that they are all bought off by the drug companies. Am I wrong?
Specifically:
Apparently, there was an honest person at the meeting and so when the MoH didn’t act in a way that protected the public, the recording was leaked to the press.
In the 80 minute recording, one of the researchers said, “We’ll have to think medical-legal – how to present our findings to avoid lawsuits.”
After bits of the recording were leaked to the press, none of the Israeli media would cover the story. In fact, only one news outlet in the world, GB News in the UK, was willing to cover it. Watch this video of the GB News interview by Neil Oliver which happened on August 20, 2022.
Exclusive: Proof that Israel found serious safety problems with the COVID vaccines then deliberately covered it up
Israel didn't start to gather safety data until a year into the vaccine program. They gathered 6 months worth of data and found that the vaccines weren't safe so they lied to the world about it.
stevekirsch.substack.com
Executive Summary
The Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) was informed by their own hand-selected outside expert group headed by Prof. Mati Berkowitz that the COVID vaccines are not as safe as the MoH had been claiming to the Israeli people. It was just the opposite: instead of mild, short term events, the events were serious and long-lasting. For neurological side effects, in 65% of the cases, these did not go away at all (start watching this video at 2:30; the 65% is at 3:09) and the researchers admitted they had no clue if they would ever go away.Instead of admitting their mistake, the MoH covered it up by issuing a report that distorted the expert report.
In addition, the experts also effectively covered it up by saying nothing when this happened. They sat by idly while the MoH misrepresented the data. It appears that everyone involved was so intimidated that they felt that they had to bury the truth, even when it can cost lives.
The news finally broke to the public on August 20 that the government hadn’t been monitoring adverse reactions for a year and then, after they finally gathered the adverse safety data, that they deliberately manipulated the data to make the vaccine look safe when it wasn’t. You’d think there would be major outrage at the violation of the public trust. But there was nothing. No reaction. Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, the Health Ministry's head of public services and a top COVID adviser to the Israeli government, issued no public statement. That’s stunning.
This suggests that she and the others in her organization who knew about this were in on the cover-up. The Israeli people should demand that they be fired and criminally prosecuted.
In addition, the current Minister of Health, Nitzan Horowitz, is doing nothing. Why isn’t he calling for an investigation? He should be fired as well. Or is corruption of science OK with the Israeli government?
Finally, how deep does the corruption go? Will any Israeli mainstream media cover this story? Why not? Will any member of the Israeli parliament call for an investigation? Will any member of the executive branch call for an investigation?
It appears to me that they are all bought off by the drug companies. Am I wrong?
Specifically:
- The Israel Ministry of Health (MoH) took 18 months from the launch date of the vaccine before they looked at the COVID vaccine safety data to see what it said.
- They only started collecting safety data in December 2021, one year after rolling out the vaccines to the public. Few people knew this.
- In December 2021, they tasked an outside expert panel led by Prof. Mati Berkowitz, a leading Israeli expert on pharmacology and toxicology from Asaf Harofe hospital, to examine the safety data they collected over the next 6 months (from early December to the end of May, 2022).
- The panel presented their findings to MoH personnel on or about Jun 6, 2022 in a Zoom call that was secretly recorded. They found that the COVID vaccines were much more dangerous to people than the world authorities admitted. They found serious adverse events that were never disclosed by Pfizer or any world government. These adverse events were also not found to be short term as the public was told.
- They also determined causality, something no other world health authority has ever been willing to do (because other governments never looked at the data either). Causality was both obvious and easy to prove using the re-challenge data that was collected (you can’t do this using the US VAERS data, for example).
- In short, the panel determined that the government was misleading the people of Israel.
- We still don’t know the whole extent of how dangerous the vaccines are because the outside team only looked at the top 5 most frequently cited events.
- Both the Israeli authorities and scientists analyzing the Ministry of Health (MoH) data acted to cover up the harms by releasing a fabricated report to the public to make the vaccine look perfectly safe and claim that there was nothing wrong..
- It is only thanks to the efforts of one courageous individual who released the recording of the full Zoom meeting between the MoH and their expert panel that we now know what was said at that meeting and what the data actually showed. Otherwise the world would still be in the dark.
- Leaders of our “trusted institutions” all over the world said absolutely nothing after the news broke on August 20, 2022. This suggests that there is widespread corruption in the medical community, government agencies, among public health officials, the mainstream media, and social media companies worldwide: they will not acknowledge any event that goes against the mainstream narrative.
- This is a level of corruption that is unprecedented. The atrocities here are clear cut. Everyone should be speaking out and calling for a full investigation and fully evaluating the safety data collected by the Israel government.
Nobody knew that someone was secretly recording the meeting between the outside researchers and the MoH
Nobody knew that the June meeting between the researchers and the MoH was being secretly recorded.Apparently, there was an honest person at the meeting and so when the MoH didn’t act in a way that protected the public, the recording was leaked to the press.
In the 80 minute recording, one of the researchers said, “We’ll have to think medical-legal – how to present our findings to avoid lawsuits.”
After bits of the recording were leaked to the press, none of the Israeli media would cover the story. In fact, only one news outlet in the world, GB News in the UK, was willing to cover it. Watch this video of the GB News interview by Neil Oliver which happened on August 20, 2022.
3 and 5
Again....thank God for Berenson and others.
alexberenson.substack.com
www.sst.dk
Denmark will bar almost everyone under 50 from receiving more mRNA Covid jabs, the Danish Health Authority said yesterday.
Denmark had already ended Covid shots for nearly everyone under 18. The new rules go much further.
Danes under 50 will only be allowed to receive the shots if they are “higher risk of becoming severely [emphasis added] from Covid-19.”
The Danish Health Authority has not yet defined those groups, but they will likely include only a handful of people, such as those receiving cancer treatments that suppress their immune systems. Pregnant women are unlikely to be included.
Denmark did not explicitly say the risks of mRNA jabs now outweigh their benefits for healthy people under 50.
But that view is implicit in the announcement, which does not merely discourage but actually bans shots for those people, even though Denmark expects “a large wave of [Covid] infection” in the next few months.
In other words, the health authority is not stopping shots because Covid has ended. It now believes most people are better off getting the coronavirus than taking more mRNA.
The Danish move is particularly significant because Denmark has an excellent national health care system and has aggressively collected data on Covid and vaccines.
Denmark was among the first countries to stop giving Covid shots to healthy children and teenagers. Now other European countries are beginning to follow, with Britain ending mRNA shots for almost all children 10 and under.
In yesterday’s announcement of the new policies, Denmark explicitly dropped any effort to halt the spread of the coronavirus and said that it will focus only on protecting people at very high risk:
We expect that a large part of the population will become infected with covid-19 during the autumn, and we therefore want to vaccinate those having the highest risk so that they are protected from severe illness.
—
Meanwhile, expect the same “fact-checkers” who insisted that Denmark’s move to stop vaccinating people under 18 wasn’t actually a move to stop vaccinating people under 18 to try to spin yesterday’s announcement too.
Good luck with that.
(“Denmark didn’t ‘ban’ Covid vaccines for children,” except, yeah, it pretty much did. Only the tiny minority of kids at very high risk from the coronavirus will be even considered for shots.)
Yet the growing push against mRNA shots for healthy children and young people has not percolated the woke hothouse that is American higher education.
Elite American universities, like the University of California-Davis, continue to announce their students will be required to receive additional mRNA jabs this fall - in this case, the “bivalent” vaccine, authorized by federal regulators based on data from a handful of mice.
SOURCE
What’s driving the obsession in American academia with Covid vaccines is not clear. But the health of students and rational risk-benefit analysis appear very low on the list
Denmark ENDS Covid vaccinations for almost everyone under 50.
Remember mandatory vaccinations? This is, well, the opposite. We've come a long way in a year. Except at American colleges - which, insanely, are forcing mRNA boosters on students.
alexberenson.substack.com
Vaccination against covid-19
The Danish Health Authority expects that the number of covid-19 infections will increase during autumn and winter. Therefore, we recommend vaccination of people aged 50 years and over as well as selected risk groups. Read more about the autumn vaccination programme here.
www.sst.dk
Denmark will bar almost everyone under 50 from receiving more mRNA Covid jabs, the Danish Health Authority said yesterday.
Denmark had already ended Covid shots for nearly everyone under 18. The new rules go much further.
Danes under 50 will only be allowed to receive the shots if they are “higher risk of becoming severely [emphasis added] from Covid-19.”
The Danish Health Authority has not yet defined those groups, but they will likely include only a handful of people, such as those receiving cancer treatments that suppress their immune systems. Pregnant women are unlikely to be included.
Denmark did not explicitly say the risks of mRNA jabs now outweigh their benefits for healthy people under 50.
But that view is implicit in the announcement, which does not merely discourage but actually bans shots for those people, even though Denmark expects “a large wave of [Covid] infection” in the next few months.
In other words, the health authority is not stopping shots because Covid has ended. It now believes most people are better off getting the coronavirus than taking more mRNA.
The Danish move is particularly significant because Denmark has an excellent national health care system and has aggressively collected data on Covid and vaccines.
Denmark was among the first countries to stop giving Covid shots to healthy children and teenagers. Now other European countries are beginning to follow, with Britain ending mRNA shots for almost all children 10 and under.
In yesterday’s announcement of the new policies, Denmark explicitly dropped any effort to halt the spread of the coronavirus and said that it will focus only on protecting people at very high risk:
We expect that a large part of the population will become infected with covid-19 during the autumn, and we therefore want to vaccinate those having the highest risk so that they are protected from severe illness.
—
Meanwhile, expect the same “fact-checkers” who insisted that Denmark’s move to stop vaccinating people under 18 wasn’t actually a move to stop vaccinating people under 18 to try to spin yesterday’s announcement too.
Good luck with that.
(“Denmark didn’t ‘ban’ Covid vaccines for children,” except, yeah, it pretty much did. Only the tiny minority of kids at very high risk from the coronavirus will be even considered for shots.)
Yet the growing push against mRNA shots for healthy children and young people has not percolated the woke hothouse that is American higher education.
Elite American universities, like the University of California-Davis, continue to announce their students will be required to receive additional mRNA jabs this fall - in this case, the “bivalent” vaccine, authorized by federal regulators based on data from a handful of mice.
SOURCE
What’s driving the obsession in American academia with Covid vaccines is not clear. But the health of students and rational risk-benefit analysis appear very low on the list
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,404
- Reaction score
- 5,475
- Points
- 113
No it doesn’t. You are interpreting that “vaccination and previous infection” means only people who are both vaccinated and had previous infection.
Again, the arrogance. They know what they’re talking about. They’re published in the NEJM. Your posting social media posts and substack articles. You didn’t discover something they missed.
Yes, and they were able to interpret their own data just fine without your help.
Did you read the study? At four weeks, vaccine 63.2% effective for previously uninfected vs. immunity from SARS Cov-2 of 62.9%.
I just quoted the studies results.
Flog, you might want to read all that again. Sound out the multi-syllabic words. Go slowly. You can do this.
Internet Special Education Resources
Special Education & Learning Disabilities Resources: A Nationwide Directory
Nationwide and International Services
Remedial Reading Specialists For Special Education Needs: Children, Teens, Young Adults
In Person and Online Resources
Special Education & Learning Disabilities Resources: A Nationwide Directory
Nationwide and International Services
- Child1st Publications -- Multi-sensory Teaching Tools offer Multisensory Phonics, Multisensory Reading Instruction -- see reading results in children when all other means have failed.
Davis Dyslexia Association International ---- Davis Dyslexia Correction Program, with Facilitators all over the US, Canada, and other parts of the world
EDU-Therapeutics from Learning Time-- training programs, materials and assessments for children, youth, adults with dyslexia, attention deficit, reading challenges.
The LearningRx learning centers provide cognitive skills training for people with learning differences in 25 states across the U.S.
Lindamood-Bell®--Learning Centers. Individuals with learning difficulties can learn to read and comprehend to their potential. Get one-to-one, individualized help for reading, comprehension, and math with our safe in-person or live online instruction
HelpMyReading.Com for Reading Skills Remediation Software and Tutoring Help For Special Needs (LD, ADD/ADHD, Low Vision, ESL, S/L, Trauma, Anxiety). Free initial consult and help.
Kurzweil Education Systems, Text-to-Speech Software Literacy Solutions for individuals with special needs / LD such as dyslexia and ADHD
Ldonline -- resources of all kinds for parents of kids with LD and for LD educators
Rogers Center for Learning Software -- special education software to teach reading, writing, spelling, penmanship and dictionary skills
USA Reading Clinic proven reading system has already helped thousands of children begin to see improvements in only 7 days -- available nationally and internationally
You clearly didn't read the articles or the study or the graphs. Note the graphs Flog. Each group is broken out clearly and separately by case type - previously infected, previously uninfected, unvaccinated only children, and children that are both naturally immune AND got the vaccine.
- Graph B - analyzes Pfizer on previously infected children and previously uninfected children (comparing uninfected and prior-infected kids)
- Graph C - analyzes natural immunity against reinfection in only unvaccinated children (kids with only natural immunity)
- Graph D - analyzes natural immunity against reinfection in vaccinated children (kids with both the shot and natural immunity)
I've read the study 3 times, thanks to your inane blather and misinterpretation of it.
What you did was misquote the article. Badly. You butchered it. You really do suck at this Flog.
Your quote: "At four weeks, vaccine 63.2% effective for previously uninfected vs. immunity from SARS Cov-2 of 62.9%". You cherry picked data and tried to blend it together in a new sentence, and change the context, once again. You messed up weeks with months, badly. You compared 63.2% (vaccinated immunity at 4 WEEKS, the peak) with 62.9% (natural immunity at 4 MONTHS). At 4 MONTHS, vaccinated immunity was 15.5% LOL. At 4 months, natural immunity was at 62.9%....
What the article actually said: "Among unvaccinated children, the estimated effectiveness of omicron infection against reinfection with omicron was 90.7% at 2 months and 62.9% at 4 months"
Months. Not weeks. MONTHS.
The second decimation of your piss poor quoting...the article said: "Among previously uninfected children, vaccine effectiveness reached 63.2% at 4 weeks after the first dose and decreased to 15.5% at 16 weeks"
Are you following? Clearly you are not.
Unvaxed, previously infected children: 90.7% protection against reinfection at 2 MONTHS, 62.9% at 4 MONTHS. <----Natural Immunity
Vaxed, previously uninfected children: 63.2% protection at 1 MONTH, decreasing to 15.5% at 4 MONTHS. <----Vaccinated Immunity
Now can someone tell me which is better? I got Covid, I didn't get jabbed, I peak at 90.7% protection and still have 62.9% protection at 4 months. Is that better than never having Covid, getting the clot shot, then reaching a peak of 63.2% protection at one month, and having it fall to 15.5% at 4 months?
Is 90.7% protection at 2 months better than 62.9% protection at 1 month??
Is 63.2% protection at 4 months better than 15.5% protection at 4 months??
Seems pretty simple.
Now after you clean up that mess, go back and tell us all how the two separate interpretations of the data are wrong. Don't evade or sidestep or cherry pick.
- Chart B - shows that previously infected children (who have natural immunity) AND got the vaccine, dropped to ZERO protection AFTER getting the vaccine and fared worse than just the kids who were only vaccinated. Even you have stated having natural immunity and vaccinated immunity is better than one or the other alone. Explain how this chart isn't showing that getting the vaccine caused the naturally immune to basically lose their prior immunity.
- Chart C - protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated (The BLUE Line Floggy). Notice natural immunity wanes, but stays positive at well over 50% after 7 months <---Natural Immunity
- Chart D - this is the money slide. Compare it to Chart C. Here you have previously infected AND vaccinated children. Natural Immunity + vaccinated immunity Floggy. Follow the BLUE line again, the Delta variant. After 7 months, kids with the shot and natural immunity dropped to ZERO protection.
Do explain how that is not the case.
Last edited:
Now dat der is funny........But then again, it might not be a bad idea.Internet Special Education Resources
Remedial Reading Specialists For Special Education Needs: Children, Teens, Young Adults
In Person and Online Resources
Special Education & Learning Disabilities Resources: A Nationwide Directory
Nationwide and International Services
Davis Dyslexia Association International ---- Davis Dyslexia Correction Program, with Facilitators all over the US, Canada, and other parts of the world
EDU-Therapeutics from Learning Time-- training programs, materials and assessments for children, youth, adults with dyslexia, attention deficit, reading challenges.
The LearningRx learning centers provide cognitive skills training for people with learning differences in 25 states across the U.S.
Lindamood-Bell®--Learning Centers. Individuals with learning difficulties can learn to read and comprehend to their potential. Get one-to-one, individualized help for reading, comprehension, and math with our safe in-person or live online instruction
HelpMyReading.Com for Reading Skills Remediation Software and Tutoring Help For Special Needs (LD, ADD/ADHD, Low Vision, ESL, S/L, Trauma, Anxiety). Free initial consult and help.
Kurzweil Education Systems, Text-to-Speech Software Literacy Solutions for individuals with special needs / LD such as dyslexia and ADHD
Ldonline -- resources of all kinds for parents of kids with LD and for LD educators
Rogers Center for Learning Software -- special education software to teach reading, writing, spelling, penmanship and dictionary skills
USA Reading Clinic proven reading system has already helped thousands of children begin to see improvements in only 7 days -- available nationally and internationally
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,330
- Reaction score
- 11,773
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,648
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 113
Tim - Trog is as deep as the plot to amateur gay porn.You clearly didn't read the articles or the study or the graphs. Note the graphs Flog. Each group is broken out clearly and separately by case type - previously infected, previously uninfected, unvaccinated only children, and children that are both naturally immune AND got the vaccine.
- Graph B - analyzes Pfizer on previously infected children and previously uninfected children (comparing uninfected and prior-infected kids)
- Graph C - analyzes natural immunity against reinfection in only unvaccinated children (kids with only natural immunity)
- Graph D - analyzes natural immunity against reinfection in vaccinated children (kids with both the shot and natural immunity)
I've read the study 3 times, thanks to your inane blather and misinterpretation of it.
What you did was misquote the article. Badly. You butchered it. You really do suck at this Flog.
Your quote: "At four weeks, vaccine 63.2% effective for previously uninfected vs. immunity from SARS Cov-2 of 62.9%". You cherry picked data and tried to blend it together in a new sentence, and change the context, once again. You messed up weeks with months, badly. You compared 63.2% (vaccinated immunity at 4 WEEKS, the peak) with 62.9% (natural immunity at 4 MONTHS). At 4 MONTHS, vaccinated immunity was 15.5% LOL. At 4 months, natural immunity was at 62.9%....
What the article actually said: "Among unvaccinated children, the estimated effectiveness of omicron infection against reinfection with omicron was 90.7% at 2 months and 62.9% at 4 months"
Months. Not weeks. MONTHS.
The second decimation of your piss poor quoting...the article said: "Among previously uninfected children, vaccine effectiveness reached 63.2% at 4 weeks after the first dose and decreased to 15.5% at 16 weeks"
Are you following? Clearly you are not.
Unvaxed, previously infected children: 90.7% protection against reinfection at 2 MONTHS, 62.9% at 4 MONTHS. <----Natural Immunity
Vaxed, previously uninfected children: 63.2% protection at 1 MONTH, decreasing to 15.5% at 4 MONTHS. <----Vaccinated Immunity
Now can someone tell me which is better? I got Covid, I didn't get jabbed, I peak at 90.7% protection and still have 62.9% protection at 4 months. Is that better than never having Covid, getting the clot shot, then reaching a peak of 63.2% protection at one month, and having it fall to 15.5% at 4 months?
Is 90.7% protection at 2 months better than 62.9% protection at 1 month??
Is 63.2% protection at 4 months better than 15.5% protection at 4 months??
Seems pretty simple.
Now after you clean up that mess, go back and tell us all how the two separate interpretations of the data are wrong. Don't evade or sidestep or cherry pick.
Is this making sense to you? I could teach an Ogre this stuff. Kids with natural immunity only, against Delta had about 53% protection remaining from their natural immunity after 7 months. Kids that had natural immunity and mommy and daddy made them get the clot shot lost 100% of their protection after 7 months. It all went poof. Gone. Disappeared.
- Chart B - shows that previously infected children (who have natural immunity) AND got the vaccine, dropped to ZERO protection AFTER getting the vaccine and fared worse than just the kids who were only vaccinated. Even you have stated having natural immunity and vaccinated immunity is better than one or the other alone. Explain how this chart isn't showing that getting the vaccine caused the naturally immune to basically lose their prior immunity.
- Chart C - protection against Delta in the previously infected and unvaccinated (The BLUE Line Floggy). Notice natural immunity wanes, but stays positive at well over 50% after 7 months <---Natural Immunity
- Chart D - this is the money slide. Compare it to Chart C. Here you have previously infected AND vaccinated children. Natural Immunity + vaccinated immunity Floggy. Follow the BLUE line again, the Delta variant. After 7 months, kids with the shot and natural immunity dropped to ZERO protection.
Do explain how that is not the case.
Thank you for the extra effort you make, but at this point, you have to realize you'll have better success talking to tree bark.
With Trog, if a doctor says on FoxNews, Substack, whatever publication/media not Trog approved that the human body needs oxygen and water to exist, Trog will tell you they are conspiracy theorists and kooks because of the platform they said it on.
But if Dr. Anthony Fauci says on MSNBC that a wooden rocking chair evolved from monkeys trillions of years ago after aliens blew up the planet Kovrefys and those meteors inseminated Venus Flytraps at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean that then spawned sea monkeys that inhabited earth thereafter, YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT AS 100% TRUTH!
I've avoided the big bad covid for all this time, it finally got me today. Bone shaking chill sand, and a tiny cough so far.
I did vaxxed early in this process, only because my next door neighbor died of covid. Admittedly that scared me. He was young.
But, I was due for a booster in May that I didn't get so I'm sure that's worn off. Doesn't matter, they don't work anyway. No more jabbies for this guy. I'll take my chances.
I did vaxxed early in this process, only because my next door neighbor died of covid. Admittedly that scared me. He was young.
But, I was due for a booster in May that I didn't get so I'm sure that's worn off. Doesn't matter, they don't work anyway. No more jabbies for this guy. I'll take my chances.
Godspeed. Get you some ivermectin if you can. You'll be fine! Prayers and strength.
More great vaccine news. From...DOCTORS
wishtv.com/as-seen-on/new-study-finds-organ-recipients-rejecting-transplant-after-receiving-covid-vaccine/
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Some transplant recipients are rejecting their new organ and scientists say the coronavirus vaccine may be to blame.
According to a new study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, acute corneal allografts are being rejected by immunized patients who’ve undergone the procedure. Researchers say the underlying cause could be tied to a systemic inflammatory response elicited by the shot post-jab.
New study finds organ recipients rejecting transplant after receiving COVID vaccine
wishtv.com/as-seen-on/new-study-finds-organ-recipients-rejecting-transplant-after-receiving-covid-vaccine/
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Some transplant recipients are rejecting their new organ and scientists say the coronavirus vaccine may be to blame.
According to a new study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, acute corneal allografts are being rejected by immunized patients who’ve undergone the procedure. Researchers say the underlying cause could be tied to a systemic inflammatory response elicited by the shot post-jab.
563 pages, and this is all you need to know about Tim's discussion with Floggy.
More suspicious news.
Excess deaths in Switzlerand: The grey area represents expected mortality, above which deaths are classified as excess.
The Tages-Anzeiger has a curious piece on the sustained excess mortality trend that has gripped Switzerland since the start of the year. The persistent slight elevation, which has never been seen before, has yielded 3,000 excess deaths through the end of August.
The same months in 2020 and 2021 also saw excess pandemic-related mortality, but substantially lower:
Particularly unusual is the duration of the trend. More than half of all weeks since the beginning of the year have tallied more deaths than average, an as-yet unobserved phenomenon. Official Corona deaths add up to a mere 1,100, and we know that in the era of Omicron, at least half of those are likely to be incidental. It’s obviously not the virus that’s killing these people. The preferred Science explanation is that a substantial portion of these deaths are “heat-related” and that these are the unfortunate consequences of climate change. In truth, the summer heat has been vastly overplayed by a press eager to transition back to climate-change narratives, and Swiss heat deaths even in record-setting years, like 2003, don’t break the 1,000 mark.
The Swiss healthcare system is also under considerable pressure, and here too nobody knows the reason. Doctors first noticed the trend in March:
Sustained, as-yet unheard of excess mortality trend strikes Switzerland
Neither heat waves nor Corona mortality are sufficient to explain the excess deaths, which are concentrated in the 65+ age bracket.
Excess deaths in Switzlerand: The grey area represents expected mortality, above which deaths are classified as excess.
The Tages-Anzeiger has a curious piece on the sustained excess mortality trend that has gripped Switzerland since the start of the year. The persistent slight elevation, which has never been seen before, has yielded 3,000 excess deaths through the end of August.
The same months in 2020 and 2021 also saw excess pandemic-related mortality, but substantially lower:
Particularly unusual is the duration of the trend. More than half of all weeks since the beginning of the year have tallied more deaths than average, an as-yet unobserved phenomenon. Official Corona deaths add up to a mere 1,100, and we know that in the era of Omicron, at least half of those are likely to be incidental. It’s obviously not the virus that’s killing these people. The preferred Science explanation is that a substantial portion of these deaths are “heat-related” and that these are the unfortunate consequences of climate change. In truth, the summer heat has been vastly overplayed by a press eager to transition back to climate-change narratives, and Swiss heat deaths even in record-setting years, like 2003, don’t break the 1,000 mark.
The Swiss healthcare system is also under considerable pressure, and here too nobody knows the reason. Doctors first noticed the trend in March:
Until now, such scenes like this only happened in other countries: People who visit a doctor’s office are sent home due to capacity reasons or have to wait for hours. This week, sick people were faced with closed doors at the Permanence-Practice on the Marktplatz in Oerlikon. A notice said: “Due to high workload, we are unfortunately unable to accept any more patients today.”
This is by no means an isolated case in Switzerland. Axel Rowedder, specialist for internal medicine and head of the Medix clinics in Basel and Pratteln, has also had to briefly close his walk-in practices a few times this summer. “The congestion in the outpatient sector is massive. In Pratteln or at the Basel train station we have waiting times of up to four hours, sometimes even longer” …
Why are so many people suddenly ill? Where are all the patients coming from? “If we only knew," says [Esther] Wiesendanger [another clinic administrator]. “I have the feeling that more people are sick and also more often.” But she won’t speculate on the reasons. Since March, the pressure has increased noticeably. About a third of the patients currently visit the practice because of Covid and other respiratory symptoms, in addition to sprains, cuts, wasp stings, back pain, bladder infections, gastrointestinal diseases and much more.
At the Biel hospital centre, the emergency ward has also been pushed to its limits for weeks. “We have no idea where all these patients are suddenly coming from,” says hospital director Kristian Schneider … Nothing stands out in the reasons for admission. “It’s possible that these are still after-effects of the pandemic,” says Schneider.
A great deal of research that shows that after a Covid infection, the risk of developing multiple sequelae and complications is increased – for months. There are also isolated studies showing that a Corona infection can permanently weaken the immune system. To what extent this longer-term disease burden caused by SARS-CoV-2 contributes to the current overload of practices after the two violent Omicron waves in winter and spring remains unclear. In any case, Covid is not making the population healthier. It is also unclear what role infections prevented by Corona protection measures and now caught up on play. Another explanation given by some doctors: The population has become more fearful or health-conscious as a result of the pandemic and seeks medical attention more quickly when they have complaints.
The reason must be anything but hastily developed garbage pharmaceutical products with a poor side-effect profile administered en masse, in multiple doses, to millions of people for no reason. Exotic theories about how the heatwaves are especially devastating for Long Covid victims, deliberate overstatement of Omicron-associated mortality, wasp stings – anything but the vaccines.Similar threads
