Mar 13·edited Mar 13Liked by Canary In a Covid World
Of course most of the data that supposedly shows that the elderly benefit from Covid vaccines are seriously flawed. As Prof. Norman Fenton showed with his placebo simulation: When one counts the only once vaccinated towards the unvaccinated, or when one counts those who were vaccinated until 7 days or 14 days after their 2nd injection to the unvaccinated, then even if the Covid injection has in fact zero efficacy, one would obtain a vaccine benefit merelyby applying this trick.
Clearly, and as admitted by ONS, the flawed ONS data from UK should have not been used by scientists to draw any conclusions about health outcomes in vaccinated groups versus unvaccinated groups. Yet scientists like Dr. Martin Kulldorff based his opinion on similarly flawed data when coming to the conclusion that the elderly benefit from Covid vaccines.
And did Kulldorff take into consideration that many people would simply not report blood clots, heart attacks, paralyses, shingles and autoimmune diseases that elderly people suffer after Covid injections, because it is considered as a mere coincidence, and because doctors and nurses are told that elderly people are not at risk of blood clots and myocarditis, and that there is no safety signal? Does Dr. Martin Kulldorf take into consideration that many doctors or nurses would not report such incidences to VAERS or other adverse effects reporting systems because they say to themselves "It is an elderly patient whose heart attack, blood clot, lung embolism, paralysis, epileptic seizure may have coincidentally occurred a couple of days after his/her injection, therefore I don't bother reporting it to VAERS. It is too time consuming. After all there are many cases like his/hers."
It is scientists like Martin Kulldorff who seem to ignore the work of Dr. Denis Rancourt et al. about excess mortality going along with vaccine rollouts and do not consider the plausability of Marc Girardots Bolus Theory that is in fact totally persuasive and extremely difficult to refute.
This is because the Bolus Theory and Rancourt et al. go completely against Martin Kulldorf's narrative of "vaccines are in general safe and effective" or "Covid Vaccines are safe and effective for the elderly". I would like to ask Martin Kulldorf: Why did we see when the very elderly in residential homes in Germany were prioritzed and received often 2 or at least 1 Covid vaccine dose in January 2021, why was there a huge 29 percent rise in exactly that age group of above 80 years? Marc Girardot says that a medical Armageddon is caused by occasionally hitting a blood vessel during vaccine administration (this goes for all vaccines not only the covid vaccines), which is rather common since the WHO recommended against aspiration, i.e. against drawing back the plunger of the syringe to make sure that no blood comes. Therefore we can assume that it happens quite frequently ( one in 1000 times perhaps?) that the vaccine is going directly into the blood stream. In January or February 2022 the German Robert Koch Institute recommended aspiration when injecting Covid vaccines to prevent myocarditis after having done studies in rodents and finding that the rodents developped myocarditis after injecting into a blood vessel. And why do we not see a rise in excess deaths with the vaccine rollout in Sweden and Denmark? The answer seems to be: Because they used aspiration in Sweden and Denmark, i.e. the doctors and nurses administering the Covid vaccines did not inject the vaccines as often into the blood vessel in Sweden and Denmark as in other countries.
When will scientists and the medical establishment truly start questioning the safety of vaccainations? Will doctors only churn out case study after case study, thousands of case studies with potential vaccine harms? With the mighty guys at CDC always saying that there are no statistically significant safety Signals?
It is utterly ridiculous when one takes into account how much of a statistically relevant safety signal one would in fact need with elderly people since elderly people frequently experience heart attacks, strokes, paralyses, blood clots, lung embolisms, cancers, autoimmune diseases, seizures. It is not feasible that such loads of adverse events that certainly occurred in the elderly days after their flu or Covid vaccine administration did all get reported as they should have been. Therefore all these medical occurrences that certainly happened in temporal correlation with vaccinations are in the vast majority of cases NOT reported, especially not when it comes to elderly patients. Since this is real: how can scientists claim that a vaccine that is causing myocarditis or a vaccine that is causing blood clots is not safe for younger people but CERTAINLY safe for the elderly? This is so very much out of touch with reality. It is completely reckless to make such claims.
Mar 13·edited Mar 13Liked by Canary In a Covid World
It is not that I don't like Kulldorf's article. He is showing the medical establishment is not open to logical argumentation. But likewise he seems not open towards logical argumentation when it comes to the elderly vaccinees (safety) or to vaccine efficacy. Main considerations are just being ignored.
It is true that there are knowledgeable people who question the smallpox vaccine legend. We cannot really know for sure what happened during that time. It would seem likely from my understanding that smallpox vaccination campaigns must have often led to outbreaks of smallpox infections since they used live vaccines in a very primitive way that would have caused infection in vulnerable people. One can only assume that such vaccination was in fact not all that safe and effective.
On Wikipedia it says: "Variolation was the method of inoculation first used to immunize individuals against smallpox (Variola) with material taken from a patient or a recently variolated individual, in the hope that a mild, but protective, infection would result. Only 1–2% of those variolated died from the intentional infection compared to 30% who contracted smallpox naturally. Variolation is no longer used today." And elsewhere on Wikipedia: "The collateral smallpox cases spread by variolated subjects shortly after variolation began to outweigh the benefits of the procedure."
How can one say that a vaccination where 1-2% of the vaccinated died and that causes smallpox cases is anything else but quackery?
And the smallpox vaccines they developped later were not all that safe either:
And then there is Marc Girardot's Bolus Theory that says that a certain amount of vaccinees are badly vaccine injured if they are unlucky and if the syringe with which the vaccine is administered hits a blood vessel instead of being administered into the muscle.
Of course most of the data that supposedly shows that the elderly benefit from Covid vaccines are seriously flawed. As Prof. Norman Fenton showed with his placebo simulation: When one counts the only once vaccinated towards the unvaccinated, or when one counts those who were vaccinated until 7 days or 14 days after their 2nd injection to the unvaccinated, then even if the Covid injection has in fact zero efficacy, one would obtain a vaccine benefit merelyby applying this trick.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkh6N-ZL3_k
Clearly, and as admitted by ONS, the flawed ONS data from UK should have not been used by scientists to draw any conclusions about health outcomes in vaccinated groups versus unvaccinated groups. Yet scientists like Dr. Martin Kulldorff based his opinion on similarly flawed data when coming to the conclusion that the elderly benefit from Covid vaccines.
And did Kulldorff take into consideration that many people would simply not report blood clots, heart attacks, paralyses, shingles and autoimmune diseases that elderly people suffer after Covid injections, because it is considered as a mere coincidence, and because doctors and nurses are told that elderly people are not at risk of blood clots and myocarditis, and that there is no safety signal? Does Dr. Martin Kulldorf take into consideration that many doctors or nurses would not report such incidences to VAERS or other adverse effects reporting systems because they say to themselves "It is an elderly patient whose heart attack, blood clot, lung embolism, paralysis, epileptic seizure may have coincidentally occurred a couple of days after his/her injection, therefore I don't bother reporting it to VAERS. It is too time consuming. After all there are many cases like his/hers."
It is scientists like Martin Kulldorff who seem to ignore the work of Dr. Denis Rancourt et al. about excess mortality going along with vaccine rollouts and do not consider the plausability of Marc Girardots Bolus Theory that is in fact totally persuasive and extremely difficult to refute.
This is because the Bolus Theory and Rancourt et al. go completely against Martin Kulldorf's narrative of "vaccines are in general safe and effective" or "Covid Vaccines are safe and effective for the elderly". I would like to ask Martin Kulldorf: Why did we see when the very elderly in residential homes in Germany were prioritzed and received often 2 or at least 1 Covid vaccine dose in January 2021, why was there a huge 29 percent rise in exactly that age group of above 80 years? Marc Girardot says that a medical Armageddon is caused by occasionally hitting a blood vessel during vaccine administration (this goes for all vaccines not only the covid vaccines), which is rather common since the WHO recommended against aspiration, i.e. against drawing back the plunger of the syringe to make sure that no blood comes. Therefore we can assume that it happens quite frequently ( one in 1000 times perhaps?) that the vaccine is going directly into the blood stream. In January or February 2022 the German Robert Koch Institute recommended aspiration when injecting Covid vaccines to prevent myocarditis after having done studies in rodents and finding that the rodents developped myocarditis after injecting into a blood vessel. And why do we not see a rise in excess deaths with the vaccine rollout in Sweden and Denmark? The answer seems to be: Because they used aspiration in Sweden and Denmark, i.e. the doctors and nurses administering the Covid vaccines did not inject the vaccines as often into the blood vessel in Sweden and Denmark as in other countries.
https://covidmythbuster.substack.com/p/a-flawed-medical-procedure-x-billions
When will scientists and the medical establishment truly start questioning the safety of vaccainations? Will doctors only churn out case study after case study, thousands of case studies with potential vaccine harms? With the mighty guys at CDC always saying that there are no statistically significant safety Signals?
It is utterly ridiculous when one takes into account how much of a statistically relevant safety signal one would in fact need with elderly people since elderly people frequently experience heart attacks, strokes, paralyses, blood clots, lung embolisms, cancers, autoimmune diseases, seizures. It is not feasible that such loads of adverse events that certainly occurred in the elderly days after their flu or Covid vaccine administration did all get reported as they should have been. Therefore all these medical occurrences that certainly happened in temporal correlation with vaccinations are in the vast majority of cases NOT reported, especially not when it comes to elderly patients. Since this is real: how can scientists claim that a vaccine that is causing myocarditis or a vaccine that is causing blood clots is not safe for younger people but CERTAINLY safe for the elderly? This is so very much out of touch with reality. It is completely reckless to make such claims.
It is not that I don't like Kulldorf's article. He is showing the medical establishment is not open to logical argumentation. But likewise he seems not open towards logical argumentation when it comes to the elderly vaccinees (safety) or to vaccine efficacy. Main considerations are just being ignored.
Dear oh dear...
No, no. The smallpox vaccine did not save millions of lives.
It is true that there are knowledgeable people who question the smallpox vaccine legend. We cannot really know for sure what happened during that time. It would seem likely from my understanding that smallpox vaccination campaigns must have often led to outbreaks of smallpox infections since they used live vaccines in a very primitive way that would have caused infection in vulnerable people. One can only assume that such vaccination was in fact not all that safe and effective.
On Wikipedia it says: "Variolation was the method of inoculation first used to immunize individuals against smallpox (Variola) with material taken from a patient or a recently variolated individual, in the hope that a mild, but protective, infection would result. Only 1–2% of those variolated died from the intentional infection compared to 30% who contracted smallpox naturally. Variolation is no longer used today." And elsewhere on Wikipedia: "The collateral smallpox cases spread by variolated subjects shortly after variolation began to outweigh the benefits of the procedure."
How can one say that a vaccination where 1-2% of the vaccinated died and that causes smallpox cases is anything else but quackery?
And the smallpox vaccines they developped later were not all that safe either:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/353655
And then there is Marc Girardot's Bolus Theory that says that a certain amount of vaccinees are badly vaccine injured if they are unlucky and if the syringe with which the vaccine is administered hits a blood vessel instead of being administered into the muscle.