endlessly pushing ideas of reward without assessing risk is not medicine, it's marketing
I was a little shook when I read the abstract of the new CDC study. How could this be so contrary to the Cleveland Clinic Health System and Israel data?
Then I found out they didn't bother to publish the absolute risk, only an OR.
Then I further saw they didn't bother to clarify if any of these reinfections were symptomatic or even severe, let alone fatal.
Then I FURTHER saw they didn't even bother to confirm through sequencing they were, in fact, true reinfections.
As long as the a priori assumption is that any COVID-positive test in and of itself = death sentence and is to be avoided at all costs, the nightmare clown world will continue.
Thank you. I spend too much time on that blue bird site and needed this before I try to go to sleep tonight. Now, if only I could convince more people - I do bookmark your references and share- but some just won't bother to even take a peek at real data, real studies and how corrupt people are using this to take down entire cities/countries.
They’re not even pretending any longer. Whether it’s Covid, immigration, street violence, racism, gvt spending, censorship or anything else, facts, logic, the law, science, economics all no longer matter. It’s become all out war and oppression by those in power against those that disagree.
In reading this, I was struck by a thought: if mandates are in, and the pressure is on for everyone to get the vax, then what is the point of informed consent, warning labels, etc? On one side, we are presented with a so called honest view of potential side effects to inform us, but then, asked to not consider this information whatsoever in making our decision.
Again. We are being asked to put utmost trust in companies that have been caught committing fraud for products they are actually liable for— and this trust is being requested for products for which they have no liability and the govt is their pusher.
It’s dishonest. It’s manipulative. It’s propaganda. It’s criminal.
Thanks, gato! It's definitely crazy they are telling recovered people to get the jab. And how convenient of the CDC to ignore many studies out there stating natural immunity is superior (and more durable) to jab-induced immunity, so no need to get jabbed.
Even more crazy is that many doctors are parroting exactly the same, and some even go as far to say that jab-induced immunity is superior to natural immunity. Go figure
Please keep up the good work you do
I live in Jonestown where the Flavor Aid is no good unless EVERYONE drinks it. Let’s not. Let’s just skip the the part where Jim Jones offs himself.
Great analysis. It's a tough task to counter "CDC says" because it invariably takes an explanation of this quality and detail to overcome the presumption of CDC competence. For kids the CDC made it a bit easier when Walensky stated 1 million vaccinations among 12-17 year olds would avoid 200 hospitalizations while CDC V-safe showed those 1 million vaccinations would put 3,000 kids in the ER or hospital. Yet somehow they don't put this together and just keep pushing vaccines on kids. https://twitter.com/Dierenbach/status/1408489103860064260?s=20
I've wondered if this push to vaxx C19 recovered patients is a vain attempt to cover up the vaxx immunity failure we're now seeing in many countries. They want to use natural immunity to prop up the claim that the jabs work, risks and consequences be damned. This is especially disturbing in light of Dr. Ryan Cole's testimony that he is seeing sustained CD8 suppression in the vaxxed.
silver's 538 did a gish gallop on "why get the [dangerous] vaxx.
first point: 'it is safe billions of people have had it since nov 2020'.
they presume rate of presentation of adverse effects is independent of time in the body, as if the human body was 'failing' like an integrated circuit.
the assumption is false human frailty is like wearing a brake pads.
why the catherdal bans anyone that says safety takes years of observing!
the rest of the gish gallop is equally bad assumptions.
Gato, any thoughts on this from Karl Denninger re: non-sterilizing vaccines? The scenario he presents doesn't look good. At all. But I haven't looked into several of his claims about the science (yet) so...
They want us all vaxxed so they can tell everyone that they have a mild case of the flu this flu season! Then the stenographers can tell us that the experts were right - Covid will be declared endemic and Saint Tony will get his Nonel prize. As for the huge uptick in cancer, heart disease, diabetes, suicide iteration and overdosed? Long COVID silly. Based on what we have seen so far, anyone care to argue?
There's a clear statistical benefit for over 50 or high risk, just like Prevnar. However, when my company sent around notice in the spring to our now-mostly-remote workforce to let them when when you got the vaxx so they could expect you to be out for a day or two based on experience thus far - one must question the risk-reward. Also, I remain perplexed that if they're so serious about getting everyone vaxx'ed, why haven't we seen a new EUA since Trump left, e.g. Novavax or AZ? What changed...hmmm...?
Love the bad cat! And I am new to commenting here as I generally just read and digest all of the great articles and discussion.
I'm hoping what I describe here helps with the argument that prior infection is superior to vaxx...and that it is even acknowledged in the Pfizer blind study. But I'm definitely no expert on this, so want to have other's evaluate and maybe use to help stop some of this madness! Here goes...
I recently was reading the "Packet Insert" for the approved Comirnaty vaxx on FDA's website (https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/comirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine).
After the first few pages it actually gets into the published data from the vax vs. placebo tests. Interesting info used to define the vax efficacy based on study results of the blind tests. What I found most interesting is the short paragraph on PDF p. 17 which introduces the results of the vax benefit to reduce ‘severe Covid’. As illustrated in the prior pages, they had the full group of participants, then a subgroup where they split those with prior infection from those without.
I believe I’m reading the sentence correctly but may be missing something. What I believe it says is that the difference in severe cases in the “with and without” prior infection group is no different than the number of severe cases in the “without only” subgroup. That would mean there were NO severe cases in the placebo or the vaxxed group where the participant had prior Covid infection and ALL severe cases were in participants with no prior infection. Thus, prior infection provides protection that is NOT improved in any way by the vaxx. The vaxx study does seem to show fewer incidents of just being infected for those who were vaxxed – which they use to demonstrate its efficacy. But NO benefit to severe Covid (which is defined to include a hospital admission, not just ICU or death).
Seems like a pretty important finding that is just swept away by the blind testing results write-up (not surprised).
The takeaway would be that Pfizer’s own study shows NO added protection from severe Covid from the vaxx for anybody with prior infection. Thus, no need to vaccinate those with prior infection.
Does this make sense and can the government and Pfizer's own study documents be used as proof?
With apology for not reading your missive--yet--something occurred to me and I just wanted to run it up the flagpole. It seems to be that the argument that being unvaccinated poses a danger to someone else turns the risk versus reward argument on its head. It inverts the discussion. A person gets vaccinated to protect themselves. Ergo, a person who choses to NOT get vaccinated would seem to actually be in more danger, ceteris paribus. As such, to claim that the vaccinated, i.e., the protected, are in danger from the unvaccinated, i.e., the unprotected, is exactly backwards. This, regardless of the leakiness of the vaccine, the tendency of the vaccine to increase viral shedding with reduced symptoms, etc. (For the record, I am not advocating the vaccine, nor do I think it is appropriate to mandate it. Hell, I have my doubts on its safety and efficacy, but that is an entirely different discussion.) Am I incorrect in this assertion?
FYI, for those who are interested...
Fourteen of the worlds highest-profile doctors, all specialists in their own fields, come together to discuss the dangers that we all face from the Covid 19 pandemic. They discuss in detail the merits and the dangers posed by the vaccines that are being rolled out and pushed onto society.
Hear their honest opinions and learn about the censorship that they have all faced from speaking out. Discussing together in one place for the first time, learn from the experts and heed their warnings.
Presented by Katherine Macbean of The Awareness Foundation
Featuring the following specialist:
Professor Dolores Cahill
Dr Ryan Cole
Dr Richard Fleming
Dr Dmitry Kats
Dr Tess Lawrie
Dr Li-Meng Yan
Dr Robert Malone
Dr Peter McCullough
Dr Joseph Mercola
Dr Lee Merritt
Dr Sherri Tenpenny
Dr Richard Urso
Dr Sam White
Dr Vladimir Zelenko