• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Covid Vaccine

Nothing at all to see here, right? "Infant deaths not due to Covid either." Hmmm. I wonder....thinking here...what could we suspect? No. Not bad baby formula. Maybe that green breast milk mommas get after taking the jabs?

 
More and more and more and more studies are showing those vaccinated are now at greater risk. "The pandemic of the vaccinated."

The first real evidence mRNA shots RAISE the risk of Covid hospitalization and death over time​

A big Swedish study offers fragmentary but suggestive data


On Sep. 20, using data covering 9 million people, Swedish researchers published a paper showing mRNA jabs may increase the risk of Omicron infection after three months.

That finding received attention. But an even more intriguing nugget in the paper has so far gone unnoticed.

Based on one statistical analysis vaccinated people had a HIGHER risk of death or hospitalization from Covid roughly a year after receiving their second dose. The charts — b and d below — show that vaccine protection against death and hospitalization begins to decline slowly after about five months and then plunges about nine months.

(The top chart shows the relative risk of infection, hospitalization, intensive care, and death by week after two vaccine doses. The red line marks zero effectiveness; when the blue line falls below it, it is suggesting vaccinated people are at higher risk of infection.)



(This is the same chart, but only including the risk of death)



SOURCE <-----LINKY


This data provides real-world evidence of possible vaccine-caused “antibody dependent enhancement.” In ADE, vaccines cause our immune systems to produce antibodies that help a virus or other pathogen to attack us.

Still, the finding should not be viewed as definitive. It is based on relatively few deaths in the later time periods, which is why the confidence intervals (the dashed lines around the blue line) widen hugely after 40 weeks.

When the researchers used a different statistical method known as standard polynomial regression to analyze the data, they found the vaccines remained moderately effective against hospitalizations and death. In fact, protection actually appeared to increase slightly around a year - a trend that is counterintuitive at best.

Dr. Yiyi Xu, the paper’s lead author, did not endorse either method as superior but said via email the researchers need more data to know which finding might be correct.

Both types of analysis “provide more accurate estimates if there is a sufficient number of cases,” she wrote. “There are very few cases of death and a relatively low number of hospitalization cases around week 40 and later, so the estimation is quite uncertain for both analyses.”

So which statistical method is more likely to be accurate? Is the finding that the vaccines actually increase risk real?

Independent experts on statistics disagreed. One suggested the technique showing the negative efficacy - called a cubic spline — actually is likely to be more correct than the other:

With “standard” (aka single polynomial) regression – blue line – you can fit any data, if you give it enough freedom. The price for that, is that the better it fits the data you give it, the worse it will be at explaining new data, and especially so at the edges… Splines, due to the way they are built, avoid this problem and produce more sensical (hence more useful) predictive models.

But another wrote:

I personally happen to believe strongly that these vaccines will have negative efficacy… But as a statistician I feel you simply cannot make that claim with confidence off the back of a spline like this.

In any case, even the standard model shows a sharp decrease in the value of a two-dose regimen over time. It falls below 45 percent protection from death around nine months before making its odd turn up.





Yes, mRNA vaccines will save you from dying from Covid.

For months, I tell ya, months!
 
Well, it took over 2 1/2 years but I finally got the election flu. GF (a pure blood) is a traveling DON, in and out of nursing homes all the time. She got it about a week ago. No biggie, just some aches, fatigue and nausea. I’m so thankful that I never got any of the vaxxes or the clot boosters.
 
Well, it took over 2 1/2 years but I finally got the election flu. GF (a pure blood) is a traveling DON, in and out of nursing homes all the time. She got it about a week ago. No biggie, just some aches, fatigue and nausea. I’m so thankful that I never got any of the vaxxes or the clot boosters.
its the flu, bro
 

EXCLUSIVE: Newly Obtained Emails Shed More Light on CDC’s False Vaccine Safety Monitoring Statements​


Newly obtained emails show the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made a false statement on COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring in 2021, months before agency officials gave false statements on the matter to The Epoch Times.

The emails also show top officials in the agency discussing performing safety monitoring on a key database for myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that has been linked to the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The CDC promised in 2021 in a set of operating procedures to perform a type of analysis called Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) on reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. The reports are submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which officials have described as “the nation’s early warning system” for post-vaccination adverse events. The CDC also said in an updated set of operating procedures in 2022 that it would perform the analysis.

But the CDC has made false statements three times this year on PRRs, initially saying such analysis was outside the agency’s purview, then saying the analysis was performed starting in 2021, then saying the analysis did not begin until 2022. The newly obtained emails show that an official falsely said the CDC does not perform PRR analysis to an editor in 2021.

John Gregory, a health editor at NewsGuard, wrote to the CDC on Oct. 19, 2021, asking for a comment regarding a claim that the CDC’s PRR analysis cannot accurately identify when a vaccine causes adverse events, one of the emails shows. Martha Sharan, a CDC spokeswoman, sent the query to Dr. John Su, who leads the CDC’s VAERS team, and Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, who also works on vaccine safety.

Their responses were redacted apart from a comment on NewsGuard. Sharan then wrote that she’d spoken to Gregory.

“I spoke to the reporter and explained that CDC does not do PPR analysis. The reporter is not going to pursue this any further!” she wrote, adding later that she meant PRR.

That contradicts the operating procedures, which state that the CDC “will perform Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analysis” on VAERS reports.

“We let our published content speak for itself,” Gregory told The Epoch Times in an email when notified that the CDC does actually perform PRRs.

‘That’s a New One to Me’​

In June 2022, the CDC falsely told Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit, that PRR analysis is “outside of th[e] agency’s purview.” An Associated Press reporter, Angelo Fichera, flagged a Children’s Health Defense article on the statement to the CDC, asking whether the CDC had ever performed the analysis, according to the newly obtained emails.

Kristen Nordlund, another CDC spokeswoman, forwarded the query to Sharan. “Martha—thoughts on this one?” she asked.

“That’s a new one on me—proportional reporting ratios’—I need to send this one to John,” Sharan responded.

Sharan later sent a statement about PRRs to The Associated Press and the Washington Examiner.

The Associated Press and NewsGuard never published stories on the topic. After The Epoch Times reported on contradictory statements from the CDC, the Examiner published an article about the developments.

Fichera, Sharan, and Su did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The emails were obtained by The Epoch Times and an independent researcher through FOIA requests.

“The CDC claims to be vigilantly and transparently monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, but when it comes to Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analysis, the CDC’s broken promises, inconsistent statements, stonewalling, and double standards tell a different story,” Mary Holland, president and general counsel of Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times via email.

“When asked about PRR analysis in connection with COVID vaccines—through FOIA, media, and congressional requests—CDC has made conflicting statements, some of them false. When confronted about the statements, the CDC claimed, essentially, that PRR analysis is not worth doing. And for the few months of PRR the CDC now says it has completed, the CDC has failed to make the results public, despite requests from multiple sources.”

“Children’s Health Defense calls on the CDC to do the right thing: do the analysis, and make the results available,” she added.

Timeline of CDC emails and statements. Some are being reported for the first time in this story, which continues below.
  • “I spoke to the reporter and explained that CDC does not do PPR analysis. The reporter is not going to pursue this any further!” – Martha Sharan to CDC colleagues, Oct. 19, 2021. (source: FOIA response to independent researcher)
  • “Correction – that should say PRR.” – Martha Sharan to CDC colleagues, Oct. 19, 2021. (FOIA response to independent researcher)
  • “[P]rogram staff within the Immunization and Safety Office inform me that no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of th[e] agency’s purview.” – Roger Andoh, June 16, 2022. (letter to Children’s Health Defense)
  • “That’s a new one on me – proportional reporting ratios’ – I need to send this one to John.” – Martha Sharan to CDC colleagues, June 22, 2022 (FOIA response to The Epoch Times)
  • “[P]rogram staff within the Immunization and Safety Office inform me that no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency’s purview.” – Bruno Viana to Roger Andoh, June 30, 2022 (FOIA response to The Epoch Times)
  • “CDC has been performing PRRs since Feb 2021, and continues to do so to date.” – Dr. John Su, July 18, 2022 (statement to The Epoch Times)
  • “CDC has revisited several FOIA requests and as a result of its review CDC is issuing corrections. … In reference to Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRRs) – CDC performed PRRs from March 25, 2022 through July 31, 2022.” – Martha Sharan, Aug. 8, 2022. (statement to The Epoch Times)
  • “CDC performed PRR analysis between March 25, 2022, through July 31, 2022. CDC also recently addressed a previous statement made to the Epoch Times to clarify PRR were not run between February 26, 2021, to September 30, 2021.” – Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Sept. 12, 2022 (letter to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.))
To be continued...
 
continued...


Other Emails​

Several other messages add to the timeline of the CDC’s internal and external statements regarding PRR.

Two weeks after Andoh falsely told Children’s Health Defense that data mining is outside of the CDC’s purview, Bruno Viana, a CDC records employee, sent emails to Andoh about the response.

Viana quoted word-for-word portions of the letter that Andoh sent to the group.

The context of the emails is unclear.

An email to Viana requesting more information returned an away message. The CDC records office declined to comment, saying a new FOIA request would be necessary to obtain the information.

Another set of internal emails showed Su and Shimabukuro involved in responding to The Associated Press and the Washington Examiner.

“With the above background, I might suggest the following response,” Su said in one heavily redacted email.

“John’s edits look fine to me. Thanks,” Shimabukuro later wrote.

And other emails featured Su and Sharan talking to and about The Epoch Times’ queries, including a followup query noting that an initial response did not make clear whether the CDC had, in fact, performed PRRs.

Su was attributed with the false statement that the CDC had started PRRs in February 2021. One of the missives indicates the statement did come from him. That portion of the email is redacted, but the length of the text aligns with the actual response.

Analysis on Myocarditis​

Clinical trials for the vaccines turned up no evidence of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, or a related condition called pericarditis. But real-world evidence of the conditions began emerging in early 2021.

After the Department of Defense in the spring of 2021 said it identified myocarditis as a possible side effect of the vaccines, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC’s director, claimed that the CDC saw no signal for myocarditis after looking at its vaccine safety data.

“After hearing about these reports, we, again, looked back in our vaccine safety data, and we have not seen any reports of those. Those have since been reported to us, and so those investigations are ongoing,” she said during a press briefing, adding later, “We have not seen a signal, and we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given.”

The CDC has declined to make public the results of that review. It’s not clear what systems the CDC reviewed.

“At the time of the director’s press conference, CDC did not have sufficient evidence to conclude there was a safety signal for myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Continued surveillance subsequently detected a safety signal, and further assessment verified that signal,” Sharan told The Epoch Times in a recent email. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are both built on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.

An exchange just two weeks later included in the newly released emails showed that CDC officials discussed myocarditis monitoring.

Shimabukuro wrote on May 13, 2021, to Su and Paige Marquez, another CDC official, with the subject line “PRR for myocarditis.” That email was entirely redacted.

“Are you saying…” Marquez responded. The rest of her email was redacted.

Shimabukuro’s next email was completely redacted, as was an email from Su apart from his signature.

“No Janssen,” Shimabukuro wrote next.

“Okay, thanks for clarifying!” Su wrote.

The exchange ended there.
 
Well damn.

Yep. He's not the first. Originally I said I would get their jab when it became available. About 9 months or so ago my NIH scientist neighbor, who also was going to get it changed her mind. Explained to me why, and said you don't need it. So I've listened to her. One original infection. Natural immunity holding strong.

That said, my sister-in-law - double boosted - currently has the Rona for the 3rd time.
 
Yup. A little too late though asshats. :Trust the science...but we won't let you actually see the data. Billions of people just need to trust us."



Here’s a translation of the German article which is unfortunately behind a paywall:

In scientific circles, doubts arise as to whether the information provided by the manufacturers about the mRNA vaccine is correct. Biontech/Pfizer and Moderna have so far refused to independently verify the data. A Stiko member is now also criticizing.

Virologists, epidemiologists, pharmacologists – they may not have always been friendly to each other during the pandemic. But they are now coming together on one point: it is the demand for an independent review of the studies that led to the approval of the mRNA vaccines from Biontech/Pfizer and Moderna.
The studies are published. However, the primary data, scientifically the decisive documents, are missing. All vaccine evaluations of the registration studies are based on them. Until now, the documents have been kept under lock and key by the manufacturers, and they are refusing requests to see them.
 
Yup. A little too late though asshats. :Trust the science...but we won't let you actually see the data. Billions of people just need to trust us."



Here’s a translation of the German article which is unfortunately behind a paywall:

In scientific circles, doubts arise as to whether the information provided by the manufacturers about the mRNA vaccine is correct. Biontech/Pfizer and Moderna have so far refused to independently verify the data. A Stiko member is now also criticizing.

Virologists, epidemiologists, pharmacologists – they may not have always been friendly to each other during the pandemic. But they are now coming together on one point: it is the demand for an independent review of the studies that led to the approval of the mRNA vaccines from Biontech/Pfizer and Moderna.
The studies are published. However, the primary data, scientifically the decisive documents, are missing. All vaccine evaluations of the registration studies are based on them. Until now, the documents have been kept under lock and key by the manufacturers, and they are refusing requests to see them.

So, that is kinda all you need to know. In a desire to "save lives", governments globally have subjected their peoples to corporate interests, and it turns out those corporations are lying, and have been lying.

I am so sorry that this was not clear to trusting populations over the past 24 months. The damage these monsters have done to the people will only be calculated over decades, and the global toll will be staggering.
 
So, that is kinda all you need to know. In a desire to "save lives", governments globally have subjected their peoples to corporate interests, and it turns out those corporations are lying, and have been lying.

I am so sorry that this was not clear to trusting populations over the past 24 months. The damage these monsters have done to the people will only be calculated over decades, and the global toll will be staggering.

But it's not as if government orders Americans to get the shot, the shot makers get huge amounts of money from the government, and the shot makers give massive amounts of money back to the pols, all on the backs of the taxpayers.

Wait ...
 
But it's not as if government orders Americans to get the shot, the shot makers get huge amounts of money from the government, and the shot makers give massive amounts of money back to the pols, all on the backs of the taxpayers.

Wait ...
God damn that’s some porn right there. Getting ****** from the start, paying for, having supe clean up, paying again, only to be ****** when you didn’t want more
 
Joe Biden, snake oil salesman. Free shot. Step right up and get your free shot.
 
Woah. Just woah. This is it folks. The smoking gun. The proof. The CDC hid this data. It took 463 days to get the data because the CDC was hiding it.

You can now officially say it. The Vaccines Are Not Safe.

Of the 10 Million users in V-Safe, 7.7% of them had to seek medical care.
Not just adverse events people. MEDICAL care (from dowkturs).

Not sure how to break all of this down. May take multiple posts.





Going deeper....


After two lawsuits filed by Siri & Glimstad on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), the Network finally has its first set of data from the CDC’s v-safe program. The law firm’s October 3 press release stated, “following months of legal wrangling, the CDC finally capitulated in a court order that required it to produce this data.” A formal legal request to the CDC was submitted in June of 2021.

The data is “voluminous,” so ICAN generated a dashboard to make it easier for users to sift through the data on the reported side effects and “negative health impacts” of the COVID-19 vaccine. Both Del Bigtree and lawyer Aaron Siri announced the user-friendly dashboard on Monday.

The CDC collected the data from “tens of millions of v-safe participants between December 14, 2020, and July 31, 2022.” It was agreed that no personally identifiable information would be provided. Fields that allowed free-text responses were also omitted from the release of data to protect the privacy of the v-safe users. The CDC announced the launch of v-safe in December 2020.

V-safe is available by smartphone and allows users to report “how they feel” after getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Users may register at vsafe.cdc.gov to begin the process of reporting symptoms.

ICAN’s legal team, led by attorney Aaron Siri, has obtained “over 144 million rows of health entry data” from 10,094,310 users. According to the press release obtained by UncoverDC:

Out of the approximate 10 million individuals that registered and submitted data to v-safe, 782,913 individuals, or over 7.7% of v-safe users, had a health event requiring medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalization. Over 25% had an event that required them to miss school or work and/or prevented normal activities.”

There were also 71 million reports of symptoms in the pre-populated fields. Approximately 13,000 infants under 2 were registered for v-safe, according to ICAN’s press release. 33,000 symptoms in the infants “were significant enough to report.”

ICAN also discovered “a disproportionate amount of negative health impacts, including medial events, following the Moderna vaccine versus the Pfizer vaccine.” Women seemed to be more negatively impacted than men, a finding that is “consistent with Pfizer’s post-authorization safety report that was sent to the FDA.” Notably, the legal team also had to obtain that report by lawsuit.

The ICAN Dashboard​

The ICAN Dashboard is two pages of interactive official CDC data, allowing users to filter and sort various categories. Page one looks at reports of “V-safe COVID Vaccine Adverse Health Impacts.” Page two allows users to look at “V-safe COVID Vaccine Symptoms.” Both pages or charts allow users to click on various items; charts, drop-down menus, and graphs. There are multiple ways to sort information according to user preference. There is information on the various vaccine brands and their comparative impact on the health of individuals. One can sort by race and gender, adverse health impacts, symptoms, the timing of the symptoms, and more. In addition to the Dashboard, ICAN provided raw data in five zip files that site users can download locally.


1665104669091.png

This is it folks. It's the CDC data. Game over. We've been conned. And mass murdered and maimed.

200.webp
 
Further....

1665104796916.png


Lawyer Aaron Siri has successfully obtained reports from the CDC after the Informed Consent Action Network sued the organization twice. The court order required the CDC to release crucial information on the vaccine’s safety. The data is gathered from 10 million individuals who utilized the CDC’s “v-safe” program, a smartphone-based tool where recipients of the Covid-19 vaccine can go for health check-ins. The tool allows people to go on their smartphone and provide information on how they’re feeling post-shot. The newly released data is eye-opening. According to the official CDC data shared by Siri, about 1.2 million people were unable to perform regular activities, 1.3 million had to miss work or school, and another 800,000 people required medical care after getting the vaccine. A total of 3,353,110 recipients were negatively impacted by the jab.

These findings are very concerning; for years, the vaccine was advertised as “safe” and “effective.” Siri said, “A big reason that they pushed the Covid vaccine is [because] they said, ‘look, not everybody is gonna get – you know – seriously injured by Covid, but for many, it’ll prevent them from having symptoms, being hospitalized, missing work.’ Well, now that we have the data, we could see that getting the vaccine caused 25% of people who got the shot – within this data set of 10 million people – to miss work, to have some serious event affecting their normal life functions.
 
How did we go from a day and age when a percentage of people died and vaccines were removed from the market to this? How?
 
Not only are the vaccines dangerous, but it turns out a lot of deaths could have been prevented by a simple nasal rinse?

A simple nasal wash with a saline solution performed within 24 hours of symptoms done twice daily for 14 days can reduce the risk of being hospitalized for COVID by 8X.

This is much better than Paxlovid (only a 2.5X reduction if you believe the trial data).

This is much better than any COVID vaccine performs in practice and it’s much safer too.

Simply telling newly infected people to rinse their nose with a saline rinse if they got sick would have reduced the hospitalization rates to levels comparable to the flu.

The CDC is still not telling people to do this today even though there is no risk to anyone.

From MehdUkul Dahkters:

 

17 year-old daughter of Congressman dies of ‘heart attack’​

Fully vaccinated. This is all just completely normal now.



Democrat Sean Casten’s 17 year-old daughter Gwen passed away earlier this year due to sudden cardiac arrythmia, the family noted in a statement today. “In layman’s terms, she was fine, and then her heart stopped,” the statement explained, noting that the young woman was healthy and the family does not know the reason the heart issue occurred.

“Gwen was a healthy 2022 teenager. She ate well, exercised, got regular check-ups, didn’t suffer from any behavioral health issues, and had close relationships with family and friends. She was fully vaccinated, and quarantined after occasional positive, asymptomatic COVID tests during the omicron wave.
 
There isn't any way that a rational person shouldn't be questioning the continued promotion of the mRNA vaccines.

I have little to no respect for the current POTUS, but even he admitted the pandemic over. Yet Pfizer, and places like Walgreens, continue to run ads, targeted mainly at
teenagers and young adults to get boosters. I, for one, find that criminal, while knowing no action will ever be taken on them.
 
Last edited:
Top