Safe And Effective ®

Let’s return once again to the manner in which SaskHealth is doing public reporting of new cases of Covid-19, (which thankfully seem to be in steady decline).

The problem here should be self-evident: the unvaccinated and newly-vaccinated do not have the same immune status — that’s just a statistical and immunological fact. It’s inexplicable that they’ve been grouped as one. They are not the same, and data from the two groups should not be combined. Why not? Because, if a recent vaccination promotes a behavioral or immune response that makes newly vaccinated more susceptible to infection, (as discussed here), that data is being suppressed.

Here’s Dr Clare Craig, in the British Medical Journal, to explain:

Thinking beyond behavioural change as an explanation for increased COVID post vaccination.

Dear Editor,

As well as the papers cited by the authors, other studies have shown a similar effect. A Danish study showed a 40% increase in infections in the first two weeks after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination, despite not vaccinating in homes with recent outbreaks.[1] Indeed, the original Pfizer trial demonstrated a statistically significant 40% increase in ‘suspected COVID’, with 409 cases in the vaccination arm in the first week of the trial, compared with 287 in the placebo arm.[2] Other publications have omitted mention of the period immediately after vaccination.[3] [4] There is substantial anecdotal evidence of people who had tested negative prior to vaccination, becoming infected shortly afterwards, invariably attributed to exposure just before vaccination.[5] Others have raised concerns about this.[6]

The REACT study of prevalence in January showed that the odds ratio of having a positive swab was 1.48 in healthcare and care home workers and 1.38 in other key workers (when compared to all workers).[7] It seems highly unlikely that behavioural change alone (in the over 80s) could account for an increase in the risk of infection of a similar magnitude to that assumed by being in high-risk employment. […]

The Pfizer vaccination causes a transient fall in lymphocytes for the first three days after vaccination.[12], The phase 2 trials of AstraZeneca similarly showed a fall in neutrophils.[13] Post vaccination neutrophil depletion[14] and lymphocyte depletion[15] has been shown for other vaccines and the latter has been known about since 1981.[16] There is conflicting literature on whether this effect results in susceptibility to viral infections but there is certainly evidence suggesting that is the case in children.[17] Given the evidence of white cell depletion after COVID vaccination and the evidence of increased COVID infection rates shortly after vaccination, the possibility that the two are causally related needs urgent investigation.

This response is only referring to susceptibility to COVID in the first two weeks of vaccination; it is not commenting on the efficacy of vaccines after this period.

And yes, the double-vaxxed have surpassed the (so-called) “unvaccinated” as a percentage of new cases for the first time.

68 Replies to “Safe And Effective ®”

    1. There is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database of adverse effects. As of November 7, 2021, there were 2,725,582 adverse events in 634,609 adverse event reports, including 8,284 deaths, 9,726 life-threatening events, 9,580 permanent disabilities, 363 congenital anomalies or birth defects, 38,818 hospitalizations, 79,615 ER visits, and 121,100 doctor’s office visits attributed to the covid vaccines. These are only the risks we know about so far. Nobody knows what the adverse effects will be one, five, or ten years from now.

  1. What bugs me is that they lump under 12 year olds in the unvaxxed. Since these kids can’t generally get vaccinated, their inclusion in comparisons between vaxxed and unvaxxed infection rate comparisons would be misleading.

  2. Sometimes I wonder if the virus and the vax are one in the same, or they are an one-two punch…leaning towards the latter.

    1. Apparently this woman Fynderella asked that same question. “before she was kicked off twitter Fynderella was mentioning this”

      https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056
      “ it appears that the full COVID spike protein interferes with DNA repair and T-cell generation. This means it can cripple the adaptive immune response. Jury’s still out on if the vaccine-induced spike does the same, but my hunch is it does. Explains how the jab can strip existing immunity as the population wide data appears to imply. “

      Todays Ticker is excellent: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244235

      1. According to the first link, it seems, to me, SARS primed the pump to weaken one’s immune system. Didn’t the push for the annual flu shot start after SARS? I wondered how many seniors who faithfully took the flu shot over the years, ended up with COVID?

  3. Mentioned this earlier in another thread.
    Here in Oz we have the TGA to inform us that we need to Trust the Science. They publish weekly reports on tga.gov.au

    (context – investigation into reports of deaths from people who died shortly after receiving a jab)

    Here is what the TGA have been saying since 28th Oct:
    “Our review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest that the vaccines played a role in the vast majority of these deaths.”

    And here is what they were saying in the 21st Oct report:
    “Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.”

    Note “…. the vast majority of…” change.

    TGA have gone from saying “once we remove the clot death there is no chance of the Jab causing fatalities” to “The Vast Majority of deaths are probably nothing to worry about. Honest. Trust the Science.”

    Problem is by their own choice of words this is a zero sum, so while the Vast Majority are fine, the Small Minority are not.

    TGA have quietly admitted that the Jab could kill you, but only from time to time.

    My handy Risk Assessment reference that my Day Job expects us to use at all times tells me that anything where the Consequence is death is a Catastrophic situation. Even if we then go to class the likely hood as ‘Rare’ (aka the lowest) then the end result via the matrix is still HIGH.

    Know any other industry let you get away with this?

    (and for those who don’t do risk assessments and reductions as part of their day to day, the number one method of reducing a risk is to REMOVE THE RISK. This is what we are trained – constantly – to try and do.)

    Summary – TGA in Australia casually admits the Jab might kill you. Yet our various levels of government want to bully us into getting 100% Jabbed and then re-jabbed with the Booster.

    Yeah, well done everyone.

    1. Exactly, none of the mandates follow the science at all. I would be found criminally negligent if I offered an employee an N95 mask and told them to clean all the old asbestos insulation off the pipes, yet mandating an employee wear a non medical mask and letting them work an eight hour shift without changing the dirty stinking thing is all the rage nowadays. Little Ricky down at Can Tire isn’t properly trained in PPE use, it’s all for show, and our children wearing the same smelly mask all day IS child abuse! We have 4 kids, and they were kept home 6 separate times last school year (60 days total) because they were close contacts to covid, we never took any precautions other than keeping them home for the allotted 10 days then letting them go back to school, and not once did any of the 6 ppl in our household get sick! Although unlike most ppl our kids never stopped hanging out with the neighbourhood kids, thank god for like minded parents in our ‘hood.

    2. Yeah MudCrab, Death is not a side affect! Especially if it’s your death!

      By the way, thanks for keeping SDA up on all the Oz shenanigans.

  4. What’s the population of the earth …. ? Any analysis of how many died pre scamdemic ? Per year

    1. Bill D, Cat…….. I survived the whu who flu along with 7.8 billion others and didn’t need an experimental shot to do so.

  5. The sad thing is people keep using the word immunity when none of the experimental shots confer any immunity to anything. The shots cannot prevent infection, mitigate illness or prevent transmission. The PCR tests and computer models are still the source of the hype and hysteria. Vaxx injuries are mounting and still the insanity is pushed even harder with even more deception. I wonder just how freaking bad it has to get before people actually start to think rationally and critically about everything that has been done to harm us.

    1. VOWG

      ~100 words to Sum up ~ 2 Years of Propaganda, Flat out Lies and more Bullshit than I’ve seen in my Entire Life…..all shoved at the planet with utter regards for Laws nor outcomes via Medical NAZI’s & the Main Stream Media World Wide.

      Exactly..!!!

    1. Yeah we hear them speak and nothing happens. The elite up top are not listening and they don’t care. Jordon Peterson says the provinces are running everything based on polls. Time to do some different polls or stuff to change the polls.

      1. The Jordon Peterson comment referenced Ontario specifically. Probably some others are doing the same, but I suspect that ” just following orders” is also a significant factor. Many Provinces and medical agencies are going along withTam and the WHO. It’s how they have always done things.

    2. Good for her. I’ll never vote Sask Party again as long as I live. I’m finished with Canadian politics at all levels and I have to get the fuck out of this shithole of a country.

  6. Our youngest (18) was pressured (I know…) into getting the jab in order to continue her university classes a couple months back. She went with Pfizer & was injected on a Friday. By the following Wednesday she was exhibiting moderate flu-like symptoms. Two days later she took a quick test which came back positive. On Sunday she took a PCR test and on Monday the results came back positive. By then her symptoms had all but disappeared. Save a vitamin C, D and zinc regimen, no other treatment was used. Standard isolation protocol & she was back in classes.

    At the time I couldn’t help but wonder. From the above, I see my concerns were warranted.

  7. Considering how few people lately are getting 1st doses, your point is little more than noise.

    Also thanks for the post. Over 80% of SK is double vaxxed. Yet 60% of new cases are not vaccinated.

    That means an unvaccinated OR person less than 14 days into their first dose are 6x more likely to get infected. The numbers for hospitalization, ICU, and deaths are always higher than that

    Thank you yet again SDA for proving vaccines work.

    1. Yes ,Allan and most of that 60% are children , Many of whom are not jab eligible. Remember , this group has near Zero probability of covid complications and the vax whose complications are unknown for children will bring it to near zero. When did we become a society where we put those not at risk ahead of the fears of a bunch of cowards who are actually at minimal risk? If you are so afraid lock yourself up and stay there, You asshats would be the first in the lifeboats on the Titanic and let the women and children drowned .

      1. What you are really saying is we should ignore new infections and only focus on hospitalizations, ICU, and deaths.

        Of course, that tips the scales even more towards vaccination.

    2. Not a vaccine. In fact, they are working so poorly, Bonnie Henry wants people to take their boosters after 4 months, rushed up from 6.
      Because they become ineffective. And, they enhance ADE the further out from 6 months you go, as if you had not been jabbed at all.
      Don’t forget the long term effects either, DNA damage, etc.
      The shots are more like aspirin, they wear off and are temporary,

      1. I got the vid from a double vaxxer. Only contact I had during the infection window.

        Double vaxxed healthcare workers are spreading this shit around!

    3. If the vaccine was working as advertised, these debates would no longer exist.

      That’s the point, Allan S — at least from my perspective. Governments and health officials have oversold the efficacy of masks and lockdowns, overhyped the vaccine, undersold the risks, and then silenced and defamed anyone – including other health experts – who dares question the efficacy of their mandated solutions. All while writing themselves and wealthy elites exemptions from the rules they impose on the public.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      1. Thats because you were fed a political answer and not a scientific one. Too many people looked for the quick fix. The vaccines are very effective at reducing hospitalizations, ICU visits, and deaths.

        1. 18 months and counting of absurd irrational edicts is a “quick fix” in Allan S world, huh.

          Put on another mask, you monumental imbecile.

    4. Manitoba just crossed the rubicon, 51% “fully vaccinated” 49% “not fully vaccinated. They suddenly dropped the previous “partially vaccinated” category all together. I wonder why?

  8. If the vaccines are working, then why the restrictions, lockdowns, vaxxpasses and so on? A significant aspect of the narrative surrounding the mass vaccination program was that it was supposed to allow a return to normal, not the quasi-normal, semi-lockdown, suspended animation-like state that we are currently embroiled in.

    1. A higher vaccination rate would change things. But like I said to Kate, too many people are looking for the quick fix.

      1. 85% or more of the entire population of Singapore over 12 is vaccinated. Strange how their infection rate is higher than ever.
        Mind you, this never was about covid. It was always about introducing fascism.

      2. You mean the quick fix that you were promising until the goalposts shifted, … again?
        Next to shift: side effects.

      3. Would change things for better or for worse? I don’t think the vaccination rate is the problem here. Most vulnerable people have been vaccinated. I think the underlying problem is damage being done by the vaccines — under reported.

  9. Remember when they told us one dose is all we’d need, now they include one dosers as not vaccinated. This isn’t science people, it’s munipulated propaganda and it should be illegal to include the vaccinated in the same group as the non-vaccinated. Is it me or are the so called health experts now part of the big pharma movement?

  10. I submitted the following to the BMJ but for some reason I keep getting a server error at the BMJ.

    Are we missing adverse vaccine reactions days 1-14 in Canada, (1-21 in Saskatchewan)?

    Re: Covid-19: Stronger warnings are needed to curb socialising after vaccination, say doctors and behavioural scientists [https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n783/rr]

    Examining the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization Review Memorandum, note on page 41 Pfizer reports “Two serious cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 were reported, both in the vaccine group.” Pfizer attributes this to one of three possibilities. “It is possible that this event represented reactogenicity following the second vaccination, a COVID-19 case with false negative test that occurred less than 7 days after completion of the vaccination series, or an unrelated infectious process.”

    I am aware of a young woman age 35 who had a previous case of confirmed COVID illness two months before she received her vaccine. Eight hours after her first Pfizer dose she became severely ill with headache, cough, fever, facial swelling and red rash, vomiting, diarrhea, shaking, inability to ambulate without assistance, strange visual and auditory hallucinations, swollen tongue, and dyspnea, which she partially recovered from after another ten hours. She was left with extreme fatigue being unable to get out of bed without assistance and unable to function properly for three more days after she was able to get out of bed. In the midst of her worst illness, her frantic husband contacted the official Government of Manitoba Health Links number. He was informed that her reaction did not fit the description of known reactions to the vaccine and therefore she must have acquired the virus before the vaccine and became symptomatic with COVID after the vaccine. He was advised that they must both self isolate for fourteen days and get a PCR test at the earliest opportunity. He was also advised that he not take her hospital or call an ambulance since she was likely highly infective and would endanger medical personnel and other patients. When she recovered enough to walk, she visited her family doctor who refused to take a report of an adverse reaction because the doctor considered this reaction to be within the normal parameters of vaccine response. Also due to the fact that any illness that occurs between day 1-14 is by government policy classified as COVID, she was included in the provincial statistics are a suspected COVID case in an unvaccinated person.

    As a retired Human Geneticist with extensive experience in the epidemiology of genetic variants, I was absolutely appalled by her situation. If the Government of Manitoba is routinely classifying any illness in days 1-14 post vaccination as COVID then many cases of potential adverse vaccine reaction are being missed. Further, many cases of COVID may be adverse vaccine reactions not COVID. The 1-14 day standard is used all over Canada. The next door province of Saskatchewan recently changed their standard from 1-14 days to 1-21 days!

    We simply must begin seriously considering if the COVID illnesses we see in days 1-14 in any region with this standard (1-21 in Saskatchewan) is in fact an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Are these adverse reactions are being classified incorrectly as COVID? We also need to know if the PCR tests of those who are being diagnosed as COVID cases during this period are actually detecting spike protein being released into the bloodstream after administration of the vaccine. I worry that our intense fear of causing vaccine hesitancy during a pandemic is also causing us to overlook potential adverse reactions. The multiple anecdotal reports coming from antivaxxer social media where hospital personnel complain ERs full of COVID patients are actually vaccine reactions may have some basis in truth. If this puzzling issue of days 1-14 (1-21 in Saskatchewan) is not resolved we will only increase vaccine hesitancy among antivaxxers because it will appear we are deliberately trying to conceal something.

  11. Being a bit of a science and data nerd, I can see no logical reason to include 1 shot people with 0 zero shot people in the same column for any reason. It’s incredibly easy to add a column(s) for 1 shot people with less than 14 or 21 days from injection. I doubt any legitimate, independent data analyst would condone this obvious data manipulation.

    It’s yet another type of lie from the Saskatchewan government. Another reason to think they’re lying about other things or maybe everything. I have no confidence or trust in our government or public health experts. At this point I wouldn’t accept a tictac endorsed by these people.

    Unvaccinated means 0 shots. Zero. Period.

  12. Pretty obvious that the vast majority of hospitalizations are now with the vaxxed. And that’s just for the wu-flu, add all the adverse reactions, and the vaxxed are getting very ill indeed.

    1. Good! This is my schadenfreude smile—> :):):)

      Time to start charging for jab-related health care. And denying hospital entry.

  13. I can forgive the government for incorrectly grouping data (e.g. grouping just vaccinated with unvaccinated until the vaccine magically kicks in 21 days later).

    But I can’t forgive the government for changing the categories as time goes on, in a way that makes the vaccines look better.

    Anyone who thinks the vaccines are working as advertised just hasn’t been paying attention. I believe they work (to some degree) and I’m still allowed to have an opinion (thanks Kate) but I can’t understand how the government can manipulate the data (to make the vaccines look more effective) and then not explain why.

    Why would you include children who cannot receive vaccines as unvaccinated? While technically true it distorts any comparison. The numbers should be 38 (46%) unvaccinated (not 66), 2 (2%) first dose, 42 (51%) second dose for a total of 82 (with a bit of round-off error). Now explain why more vaccinated are infected with covid than unvaccinated (possible answers: because the vaccines are less effective than advertised, and the number of unvaccinated is decreasing relative to the rest of the population).

    1. Why, to pollute the data. It won’t protect politicians or doctors when the lawsuits commence. Sure big pharma has legal immunity but the medical community along side the politicians have no such protection for their incompetence and plausable denyabiliity has been eroded to zero. They know we know the fake vaccines don’t work so skew the data and hope the media will carry their lying water.

      1. You are not aware how protected doctors are. This is the standard – to hold a doctor culpable you must prove they went through a stop sign. One that no other doctor would have went through. It has happened very few times in Saskatchewan. And there is a lot of doctors going through the stop signs in relation to covid. This is how a lawyer had explained it to me who had won one of the few case in saskatchewan at the time.

  14. The ever shifting data,lack of defined terms and categories and manipulation of statistics is government at its best.
    Policy based evidence manufacturing..
    And then these same cretins insist we must trust them.
    The current collapse of the magic vaccines meme is stunning,with one face we are assured the vaccines failed,you must get your booster shot.
    Other face,Get your Government Goo,or else.
    Who are you going to believe?
    Your bastion of “Good Government” or your own lying eyes?
    Time is on our side,the longer we resist or merely procrastinate the more time truth has to emerge.
    And the shape that is emerging is not pretty.
    The cost,in dollars and lives appears to exceed a real pandemic.
    The help,so far imposed upon us,has been more than “most unhelpful”.
    Who is going to pay for this fiasco?
    Who has been enriched by these hysterical edicts?
    What good resulted from the frantic grasping for power by our most useless and clueless citizens?
    Time,it is on my side.
    Except I forgive nothing.
    We have become the Monstrous Murderous State,that my fathers generation fought to destroy.
    We should be so proud?
    What did our elected fools and treacherous civil bandits believe they were saving?
    For the only group who have benefited to date is our Parasitic Overload.

  15. I originally wrote this comment on “No It Hasn’t”

    I think it is a stretch to say that the Sask government is manipulating data. They merely changed a heading. It is there for all to see. Nothing manipulative about that. The name change is irrelevant anyway. Kate was suggesting – I think – that they manipulated numbers to make the vaccine look more effective. But, of course, this is just not true. First, you have to understand that if you are considered “vaccinated” then you are more than 14 days past your second shot. If you are not at that point, you are not considered fully vaccinated.
    To measure the effectiveness of the vaccine we need to compare those who are vaccinated (14 days past second shot) to those who are not vaccinated. It is irrelevant if you group “first dose under 21 days” with the people who have no shots. They are all the same … they are NOT vaccinated.
    Kate does a nice little calculation to show that the vaccinated are still showing a 34% positivity rate. She was right to subtract out the kids. But her calculation was incomplete. She did not adjust her answer for the size of the sample pools. There are many more vaccinated people than unvaccinated. (ie. If everyone in the province was vaccinated and only one person got sick, then we would say that 100% of those vaccinated tested positive. We know this would be true but misleading. In fact, the vaccine would be considered highly effective)
    So to adjust for relative sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated population let’s work with the easy numbers of 85% and 15%, respectively. The unvaccinated population is 17.64% the size of the vaccinated population. (15/85=.1764) Then we would take Kate’s positivity number of 34% and multiply by .1764 to get just under 6%.
    Now we get a more true picture of the effectiveness of the vaccine. If the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups were of equal size, 6% of the positive tests would be from vaccinated people and 94% would be from the unvaccinated.
    Almost exactly the effectiveness promised.
    I am no doctor and I am not a government worker. I am just a guy trying to make sense of the numbers Kate used and to bring a little transparency and honesty to those numbers. After all, if we don’t want the government to manipulate the numbers, then we shouldn’t either.

Navigation