97 Replies to “Safe and Effective®”

  2. Sadly you will be counting a long time if you are waiting for someone to be held accountable.

    1. I thought he was waiting for the usual suspect(s) to pop in to do their usual song and dance about “Peer Reviews” and unsubstantiated accusations. It’s like they have an alarm that goes off with every “vaccine” post.

  3. Where’s the Big Pharma rep guy, Killer Marmot?

    He is to medical science what Colonoscopy is to World War 2 economic history!

    1. So you think Big Pharma gives a krap about what people on this website think of their vaccines, do you?

      Pretty sure they don’t.

      1. I can’t help but notice you’re no longer claiming that “muh peer review” renders all studies impervious to criticism.

        2. I have never, ever made such a claim. In fact, I’ve said repeatedly that much criticism of peer review comes from a grossly inflated view of what peer review is capable of.

          1. I would say that much criticism of peer review comes from an expectation that it will be of some value, and not the mere wank that it so often proves to be. Perhaps we’re not so far apart on this.

          2. ebt:

            It is of great value, but it has poor defenses against outright dishonesty. Peer reviewers do not have the resources to repeat experiments to try to replicate the results. They have to trust that the reported results are truly the results. Only if the results beggar belief might alarms be raised.

            Nor can peer reviewers guarantee that a paper is actually correct. Science is a learning process, and peer reviewers are not God-like. Sometimes results won’t stand up even when competently peer reviewed.

            What it can assess is whether…

            o The study is carried out in a systematic, scientific manner.
            o The study is clearly and rigorously described,
            o The conclusions logically follow from the experimental results.
            o The authors have a competent and up-to-date understanding of the field.
            o All relevant previous work has been cited.
            o The figures are clear and properly annotated.

            And so on.

      2. I don’t think they care what anyone thinks about their products, since they have no liability and a captive market on the vaccine front. They are essentially self-regulating. Their only concern is convincing the CDC that another jab needs to be added to the overcrowded schedule.

      3. Why would they when the right people licked their boots for a wooden nickle, and in the case of the Covid shots they where all feeding from the same trough.

  4. So how long do the jabbed have left?

    People have been dying and sick, but not in large enough numbers to wake people up.

    1. Excess rates of D (banned word) are +20% in heavily jabbed countries.
      That rate started in early 2021, by the way, what a coinkydink.
      Dead Rat is on that list, no doubt. The more jabs, the worse off you are.
      I now know 2 people with cancer, 1 with myocarditis, and a 39 year old slim, non-smoking woman with a coronary, since 2021.
      Just coincidences, of course…..

  6. Meanwhile, CTV is running cover for Big Pharma with their reporting:

    “COVID-19 may increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes and deaths for three years after an infection, study suggests”.

      1. Which is harder on your organs: Covid, alcohol and cigarettes, or safe injection site drug use? Enquiring minds want to know!

  7. That the vaccines increase one’s chances of myocarditis and pericarditis has been known since 2021. The Daily Skeptic does their best to make this look like some startling revelation.

    What TDS doesn’t say is that COVID itself is an even greater risk for these ailments, and that by reducing the symptoms of COVID infection, the vaccines might overall REDUCE one’s chances of getting myocarditis and pericarditis. Such an effect, however, would only be apparent if one measured ailments over a much longer period than 12 days after vaccination, which is the duration for this study.

    1. And, just for argument’s sake, the figure could be much, much higher than 40% if a pre-existing condition made certain individuals (young and old) more susceptible to myocarditis. The 40% takes into account all recipients. But, there may (or may not) be a subset of those folks that were a much, much higher risk. The fact that we don’t know one way or the other is attributed to reckless application of an experimental process and drug.

      1. The vaccines can not, at this stage, be called experimental. The number of papers on COVID number roughly around one million (!), many of them studying the vaccines. These COVID vaccines might now be the most studied of any vaccine. And even in the development stage, there were no corners cut. The development was highly expedited, but the pharmaceutical companies went through all the stages required of any vaccine.

        https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccine-development-speed

        There might in fact be papers that have studied whether the vaccines reduce one’s overall risk of myocarditis. I’ve looked for them without success, but given the massive volume of papers, that’s probably not surprizing.

        1. They are not cross-sectionally experimental. That was never the contention. It is longitudinal study that has been missing. Like smoking, it may take a decade for the actual damage to become clearly noticeable. But it is there. And it will be noticeable. And people like you will be fleeing for their lives. As they should already be doing. The mob will not take kindly to what you and your industry have done to them.

          1. Like smoking, it may take a decade for the actual damage to become clearly noticeable.

            If it takes that long for the dangers to be made clear, how do you know the dangers exists?

            At any rate, the timeline keeps getting pushed out. The first dire warning I heard was from Doloris Cahill, an Irish professor of immunolgoy, who said “anyone who’s over 70 who gets one of these mRNA vaccines will probably be — sadly die within about two to three years.”

            That was in 2020.

        2. You are just striving hard to convince yourself that you won’t die prematurely because you’ve gladly taken the clot shots.

        3. LoL. Fat Rodent, you really are first class in misdirection. Again, who is it that pays you to do this?

          “The combination of vaccination and natural SARS-CoV2 infection was associated with the development of severe heart failure and cardiogenic shock in patients with STEMI, possibly related to an increased serological response.”

          https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126305

          1. He is either a Pharma rep or he works for a government health agency. He has a massive conflict of interest. He is likely under some sort of NDA. His posts pretty much give the game away. Funny that he seems ashamed to admit it, though. They way he blabbers on about it, when the world has long moved past the “efficacy” of his stupid experimental prophylactic, you’d think he’d be proud of his role.

    2. Does TDS have anything to say about ENORMOUS RAT GENITALS??

      The statement that “COVID can damage major organs” is pure backformation. It’s as credible as the “safe and effective” bollocks. At this point to determine whether COVID does damage major organs would require comparing the long-term mortalities of people who had never been exposed to COVID with the unvaccinated who were. And since there’s now no one left on the planet who hasn’t been exposed to COVID, it’s a meaningless statement.

      And it should be pretty damned obvious by this point that the vaccines do not reduce the symptoms of infection, no matter what you and the giant rodent balls say.

        1. I would say that it’s the fella who reads that rebuke and sees in it only rat genitalia, who is the one obsessed with rat genitalia. Look, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, it may well be natural and normal for a marmot. Just pointing it out.

    3. They were said to be safe and effective. Are you saying that they were lying, Killer? The myocarditis in Covid is essentially only in those critically ill patients with multiorgan failure.

      1. No vaccine is perfectly safe nor perfectly effective. It can’t be. People’s bodies are too dissimilar. All we ask of vaccines is that the benefits greatly outweigh the drawbacks on average.

        If somone told you that the vaccines were perfectly safe and effective, take it up with them. I doubt it was an active researcher, though.

      1. There are countless scientific studies that have found that the vaccines reduce symptoms. Here’s a meta analysis of some of them:

        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(23)00015-2/fulltext

        To quote:

        For booster doses, which covered mostly omicron studies, vaccine effectiveness at baseline was 70% (56–80) against infections and 89% (82–93) against hospitalisations, and reduced to 43% (14–62) against infections and 71% (51–83) against hospitalisations at 112 days or later.

        What IS made up is the contention that it’s made up.

    1. If he were smart, he’d be emigrating quietly, getting the eff outta dodge before the mob goes after him and his Pharma buddies.

      Booked that plane ticket yet, Mr. Pharma rep?

      History is a very cruel teacher. And the mob is always fickle, … and hungry to enjoy the misfortune of others. They just need an excuse.

      1. You may be surprized to learn I’m not in the least bit intimidated by the anti-vaxxers. Don’t take this personally, but you guys don’t seem in the least bit tough.

        1. It isn’t anti-vaxxers you should be worrying about. It is the people whose health, or whose loved ones’ health was ruined by your bullsh*t genetic f**kery. They will be howling for your blood.

          2. For the douchebag response from KM: where have I threatened you?

            But since you want to be such a tough guy about this, I’ll bite. “I’m your huckleberry. Say when”.

          3. Telling me I’d better flee for my life? Yeah, no threat there.

            Seriously, you are a child, wallowing in childish fantasies.

      1. sooooooo basically all manner of disputing going both ways, who the fcuk know the rock bottom truth, so the reaction is to kill more of us due to the stresses and side effects of losing ones job, business, friends, loved ones locked away in the retirement home, suicides up etc up the friggin wazoo.

        stfu smarmynot

      2. I decided to trust my instincts when after it was determined three decades ago that I had high blood pressure and my doc told me I had to cut butter, fatty meats, cold cuts, eggs, etc. from my diet. What a pile of BS that was. That was what the studies recommended and perhaps still do till this day.

        1. Good idea. Reject medical advice. I’m sure you know better than all those doctors.

          1. All those doctors have been proven to be full of shit. And, no, I’m not going to waste my time searching out the studies that I read years go on the matter. Do your own research.

          2. Well to be clear, the medical advice by doctors years ago was the stress caused stomach ulcers and God knows how many vagus nerves were cut as a result.

          3. Art:

            So you demand absolute perfection of all medical results, or else it’s all a bunch of hooey. No middle ground for you, is there?

            My advice: Go with the best scientific advice available. It won’t always be spot on, but it beats any alternative.

      3. I will defer to those who are not paid by governments and/or Big Pharma to “debunk” studies, usually using shifty techniques, massive hidden assumptions and fudged data.

        Clearly you choose differently. Of course your salary and mortgage depend on you playing ball with the Big Guys. I get it. I don’t judge you for staying loyal to the people paying you the bug bucks. I just wish you’d stop passing yourself off as if you didn’t have a conflict of interest the size of Australia sitting in the middle of every one of your posts.

        You have to worry not just about the mob, but about future governments who may decide to recoup the massive social and medical costs of the product you spent a decade or so pushing, and in so doing, help themselves to your assets in the process.

        1. Of course your salary and mortgage depend on you playing ball with the Big Guys.

          Actually, I’m a semi-retired geophysicist / mathematician who has no need for a salary. Big Pharma inexplicably seems to have no need of my services.

          You guys don’t do your credibility any good by making wild guesses. It just reveals your level of thinking.

          2. I always look forward to any discussion regarding vaccines in the comments section here. It’s predictably lively. Always question your physician. If he/she can’t give you good answers to you questions or they ridicule you, try to find another. I personally have experienced a long list of events within my circle, where they were I’ll served by their doctor/ specialist. So yes, I sometimes know better than they. She’s, they aren’t perfect.
            And for the ground varmint, vaccines are now considered sacrosanct by you and most medical professionals. Doctors do not receive training in vaccines, except as to their administration and the schedule. The safety studies are woefully lacking. To say otherwise is naive.

          3. The safety studies are woefully lacking.

            Incorrect. The scientific literature on the safety of COVID vaccines is massive.

          4. BS. If you truly claim to be what you are, then the statistics regarding the Quackzine SCREAMS VAX INJURY SIGNALS.
            As a statistician, if true, you would be VERY curious regarding all stat sets, looking for variances and then investigating said variances.
            Instead, you’re just a narrative parrot.
            Clearly, you’re a shill, ignorant of anything beyond your Big Gov narrative.
            If you’ve taken 3 or more shots, your life is in danger, in far more danger than getting a Wuhoo Flu.

          5. DanBC:

            “VAX INJURY SIGNALS”

            Signals are not evidence. They only indicate possibilities, things that should be investigated properly using systematic controlled studies. Anyone that draws firm conclusions based on signals doesn’t care about being right.

          6. There is way too much evidence that the mRNA vaccines do considerable damage. I refer you to the work of Edward Dowd.

          7. Edward Dowd is a portfolio manager. His book “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths In 2021 & 2022” doesn’t stand up to even cursory examination.

            At any rate, if the COVID vaccines were as deadly as Dowd claims, it would shown up clear as a bell in the numerous scientific studies of vaccine safety. It doesn’t.

      4. Why should we believe those “hundreds of scientific papers”? There were hundreds of scientists in Nazi Germany who assured the world that the Germans were a master race.

        1. Guy is publishing comments that instantly become available to almost everyone on the face of the earth denying that science works.

      5. @KM: You really are a total moron: do you know any history, you idiot? Do you know what happens throughout history to the tinpot fascists and their “scientific studies” when the mob goes wild?

        Do some f###king reading, toerag.

  10. Excuse me for a second while I grab another pint. I never get tired of Vincent van Gopher re-runs.

    1. Next thing the Drowned Rat will suggest is that he worked under Herr Fauci as his right hand Rat, and did the trials himself.

  11. Killer unDORK
    Is a semi retarded mathematician, who numerically illiterate?
    Sounds about rite!

    1. Congratulations! You are 48 for 48 for vacuous insulting posts on this topic. I eagerly await the day that you have something substantive to say, but I suspect we’ll all be dead by then.

      1. The gentleman compliments you on being a good Mason, and you disparage him. Manners, Mr. Marmot!

      1. So? Why are you so obsessed? I don’t buy your semi-retired mathematician schtick. The links you post to to “debunk” various analyses are so “pop” and full of holes, your mathematics was either as a grade 10 teacher, or you are lying. I am going with government health agency employee. Maybe you had a brief gig in epidemiology, before they kicked you out for being unable to code and actually build and test predictive models robust enough to withstand a sharp validation team or internal audit function. It is still conflict of interest.

        I will follow the research of people who risked their lives and livelihoods to challenge the work of public health and Big Pharma charlatans, rather then people paid by my tax dollars to load the dice against me and mine.

        So f##k off already, you lying, corrupt, self-absorbed PoS.

        1. So f##k off already, you lying, corrupt, self-absorbed PoS.

          I think it’s past someone’s beddy time.

          1. Ha, you admit it. We are getting somewhere.

            So when did the WHO fire you for your shoddy analytics work? Or was it Provincial Health in Canada?

    2. Powerful testimony of the immeasurable resilience of humans.

      Want to reduce such things in the future? Improve baseline health. Almost everyone needs that.

      Vaccines are not needed.

    1. Read it again. The study says…

      Among both adolescents and children, myocarditis and pericarditis were documented only in the vaccinated groups

      This can be interpreted in at least two ways. The obvious interpretation is that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were only kept track of in the vaccinated group, NOT that these ailments only occurred in the vaccinated group. Perhaps the reason for not keeping a record in the control group is that the authors did not collect the data themselves, but instead used the OpenSAFELY dataset.

      1. You cherry-pick with the best of them. By the way mathematics does NOT prepare you well for the inductive reasoning required in data analytics amd modern data-driven modeling.

        As an active practitioner in this field, I call bullsh*t on most of the reasoning you try to give here. Give it up. Drift off into retirement (if that is even true) and stop trying to keep up with the big dogs in modern analytics.

      2. Wait, did you mean to clip this?

        “However, they discovered that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis only emerged in the vaccinated group.”

        Because that is a copy and paste direct from the link provided. Or were you quote-mining something else?

        1. I quoted from the scientific paper itself.

          You quoted from the Slay article, which is quite possibly a misinterpretation.

      3. One of the linked papers has this conclusion: did you bother to read it?

        “This study identifies a significant link between COVID-19 infection and an increased incidence of new-onset asthma in children, with higher risk in vaccinated individuals. These findings underscore the need for ongoing monitoring and targeted healthcare strategies to mitigate long-term respiratory impacts in children.”

        Interesting. I am going to pull the data from OpenSAFELY and my team and I can hit it with some fun analytics. If we are permitted, of course.

        1. @KM – define “scientific”. You didn’t give a definition. For you slobois, glib anecdotes are not definitions.

  14. “At any rate, if the COVID vaccines were as deadly as Dowd claims, it would shown up clear as a bell in the numerous scientific studies of vaccine safety. It doesn’t.”

    From Pfizer’s ongoing survey of Adverse Events of Special Interest (in other words vaccine injuries) from the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 genetic therapeutic.

    HR greater than 1.00 means Adverse Events observed.

    https://catalogues.ema.europa.eu/system/files/2024-06/C4591021%20Interim%205%20Study%20Report%20Abstract%20_0.pdf

    How’s that ringing in your ears?

    1. So you think an HR greater than one equates to people dropping dead all over the place, do you?

    2. If a vaccine has no adverse reactions, you expect roughly half the HRs to be greater than one.

      You need an HR where the entire 95% confidence interval is greater than one. Preferably well above, since being on the boundary of a 95% CI means you’re going to be wrong one out of twenty times.

      1. 95% has an alpha of 1 in 20. That is pretty shifty confidence to lock up an entire population over, c##t. That is more frequently than once a month if you use a frequentist definition of probability. The problem wuth an axiomatic definition is that you have to have a reason to suppose the existence of a fixed distribution and destiny/ mass for the entire population. Which begs the damned question.

        But since the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations are both self-selected, most of your stats work is horseshit. But you knew that of course.

    3. I trust a portfolio manager long before I trust a PoS like KM. A portfolio manager lives or dies by his data analytics capabilities. KM and his Health Department pals are sub-standard buffoons in analytics, who wouldn’t even get an interview as a quant at any serious hedge fund.

      1. I don’t ask anyone to trust anything I say. That’s why I’m constantly providing links to papers and articles to back up my claims.

        1. Again, all you do is appeal to authority. Provide an argument for why we should believe any of these things. Give a justification for your position. Given that you can’t even define the term “scientific”, I am not hopeful of Western governments ever solving any problems of any material impact, ever. Your career in “science” was a giant waste and a boondoggle. Until you justify your claim that spamming links at us somehow proves your position, get stuffed. You are lazy and incompetent. Likely both since you are former government.

          Now screw off to bed, and leave the grown ups to manage things.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation