gards2
Striker
There's two English doctors part of the group. I doubt it's just these Doctors either.
Pfizer Hearing
- Thread starter anitdontmajanow
- Start date
Why are you listening to a group of right wing conspiracy nut doctors? ALL drs who question the official line are right wing conspiracy nuts and are not to be trusted.
Take Peter McCullough for example. Look at his career.
After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, Dr. McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington, cardiology fellowship including service as Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital, and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan. Dr. McCullough is a practicing internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist in Dallas Texas and the volunteer Chief Medical Advisor of the Truth for Health Foundation.
Dr. McCullough has broadly published on a range of topics in medicine with > 1000 publications and > 660 citations in the National Library of Medicine. His works include the “Interface between Renal Disease and Cardiovascular Illness” in Braunwald’s Heart Disease Textbook. Dr. McCullough is a recipient of the Simon Dack Award from the American College of Cardiology and the International Vicenza Award in Critical Care Nephrology for his scholarship and research. He serves on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals. He has served as member or chair of data safety monitoring boards of 24 randomized clinical trials.
Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill, FOX NEWS Channel, NEWSMAX, OAN, ABC News, and America Out Loud Talk Radio. Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, US Senate Panel "COVID-19 A Second Opinion," Colorado General Assembly, New Hampshire Senate, South Carolina Senate, and Pennsylvania Senate, concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.
Inspite of all the above, moves have been made to strip him of his medical certifications.
Regulators Move Against Two 'Misinformation' Doctors
Now, should we listen to this incredibly well credentialed doctor who has sacrificed his career? He has suffered nothing but hardship for his stance, attacked, vilified, mocked and now they are looking to strip him of his certifications. Or should we listen to the doctors who are towing the line, receiving funding from bad actors and pharmaceutical companies? Who are actually benefitting and profiting from the ridiculous covid response. Its a toughie.
Ive picked one of the Dr's there. There are numerous Drs against this nonsense but the brainwashed never question why they dont see them on the news or in the newspaper. "Follow the science!" they parrot. But only if its the science they support.
Why are you listening to a group of right wing conspiracy nut doctors? ALL drs who question the official line are right wing conspiracy nuts and are not to be trusted.
Take Peter McCullough for example. Look at his career.
After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, Dr. McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington, cardiology fellowship including service as Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital, and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan. Dr. McCullough is a practicing internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist in Dallas Texas and the volunteer Chief Medical Advisor of the Truth for Health Foundation.
Dr. McCullough has broadly published on a range of topics in medicine with > 1000 publications and > 660 citations in the National Library of Medicine. His works include the “Interface between Renal Disease and Cardiovascular Illness” in Braunwald’s Heart Disease Textbook. Dr. McCullough is a recipient of the Simon Dack Award from the American College of Cardiology and the International Vicenza Award in Critical Care Nephrology for his scholarship and research. He serves on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals. He has served as member or chair of data safety monitoring boards of 24 randomized clinical trials.
Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill, FOX NEWS Channel, NEWSMAX, OAN, ABC News, and America Out Loud Talk Radio. Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, US Senate Panel "COVID-19 A Second Opinion," Colorado General Assembly, New Hampshire Senate, South Carolina Senate, and Pennsylvania Senate, concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.
Inspite of all the above, moves have been made to strip him of his medical certifications.
Regulators Move Against Two 'Misinformation' Doctors
Now, should we listen to this incredibly well credentialed doctor who has sacrificed his career? He has suffered nothing but hardship for his stance, attacked, vilified, mocked and now they are looking to strip him of his certifications. Or should we listen to the doctors who are towing the line, receiving funding from bad actors and pharmaceutical companies? Who are actually benefitting and profiting from the ridiculous covid response. Its a toughie.
Ive picked one of the Dr's there. There are numerous Drs against this nonsense but the brainwashed never question why they dont see them on the news or in the newspaper. "Follow the science!" they parrot. But only if its the science they support.
Might I ask you, why you instinctively believe that Peter McCullough has the truth of the matter, but other doctors - many who have even more impressive credentials than Peter McCullough, do not have the truth of the matter?
One could certainly argue that Chris Witty or Anthony Fauci have equally impressive or even more impressive credentials than Peter McCullough, but whilst you characterise McCullough as a martyr, you think of Witty and Fauci simply as towing the line.
You talk specifically about "receiving funding from bad actors and pharmaceutical companies" and ask if we should listen to doctors receiving this funding. You do understand that Peter McCullough has received millions of dollars in funding during his career right? Including from the companies that manufacture and distribute COVID-19 vaccines.
By your own logic, you shouldn't listen to Peter McCullough, but you do. Not because you think he's any more credentialed than many other doctors, not because you think he's any more reliable, but because he validates the opinions you have, that you want to be true.
He clearly has no conflict of interests as he wouldnt be criticising the jabs if he did. Thats why I trust what he says. I could go and find where the likes of Fauci, Whitty etc have what could be regarded as conflicts of interest, id seen a list before (Fauci in particular). If i thought it would make a blind bit of difference to you i would go to the effort of finding them for you. You would just ignore them anyway. Heres one i can remember of the top of my head for you though. Patrick Vallance had a large number of shares in GSK. He sold an number of them prior to joining the Government. He held on to over £600,000 worth of them though as revealed in September 2020. Referenced here.
Patrick Vallance: the adviser who spoke scientific truth to power
This article is from April 2020.
Sanofi and GSK to collaborate on COVID-19 vaccine development
I do not know if he still holds them now but wow, look. GSK still intent on bringing covid jabs to market. I believe they are working with Sanofi in the bivalent one as well. Im not sure as i am bored of the vaccine obsession.
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
Now, as it turned out, GSK were late to the party. Pfizer and AZ won the race. But at the time he was not to know that would be the case while holding these shares he played a huge part in formulating the covid response. If this isnt a huge conflict of interests i dont know what is. Im sure you will find some way of denying, misinterpreting, ignoring or trivialising this information. I think this is important however.
The shares aside, he was an ex-employee of GSK, Head of R&D and a board member no less. Having ex employees of pharmaceutical companies involved in the decision making processes of government during a pandemic is leaving yourself open to, at best, influence from former colleagues and, at worst, bribery and corruption.
It actually looks like there is some doubt over whether he even declared them according to this Daily Mail article where an unnamed MP is quoted criticising him.
Sir Patrick Vallance has £600,000 of shares in vaccine maker GSK
Last edited:
Most doctors and researchers who back vaccines, masks and lockdown don’t have a conflict of interest. Why don’t you trust them, if your basis for trust is the perceived absence of a conflict of interest?
Your basis for trust should in part be based on issues like conflicts of interest, sure. It should also be based on the quality of evidence used to form a conclusion, and McCullough has a poor track record for pushing disinformation.
Yet despite this, you still hang on his every word, because you just want someone to validate your opinion. That’s all this is about really.
Do you understand how many lives you’d put at risk by stopping vaccination, by stopping lockdowns and stopping mask mandates, if you’d had your way in January of 2021?
Its only 'disinformation' because you dont agree with it. This virus is like flu. I dont care what you say. Its dangerous for vulnerable people as flu is. Fit healthy people do not need a vaccine or a mask or social distancing. You are welcome to indulge your neurosis but do not look to impose any of that nonsense on me.
Seems you have serious issues dealing with the reality that is true and the one that you have constructed for yourself.
No problem, that’s a common issue amongst people like you.
So the lockdowns saved many lives you say? Would you care to explain why the levels of excess deaths are running higher than 2020 and 2021?
Now it makes perfect sense to me that the effects of a certain medical procedure should be looked into. Interestingly that possibility is not even mentioned in the article. Something i find incredible. So lets assume for a moment that the shots are not the cause. Vaccine fanatics will say, "its the collateral damage of lockdowns". But you say lockdowns were a good thing. How can that be then? So in lieu of any other explanation, we are left with vaccines or the collateral damage from lockdowns as the cause. Which is it?
Crisis as excess deaths soar to levels higher than during Covid pandemic
Devonian
Goalkeeper
Absolutely spot on statistically. Was apparent very early on yet the juggernaut of fear and control could not be stopped. Covid has been very unremarkable statistically in terms of genuine Covid deaths v positive test and unrelated death. Especially looking back over a 110 year time horizon. Theoretically a person who tragically died in a car crash but who had tested positive for Covid within the past 28 days was a ‘Covid death’. Absurd and time to call out the perpetrators and end this casedemic hysteria now.
I apologise for the length of this reply, but it's not something that can be answered concisely. I hope that the numbering in this section, and the bullet points in the next section will allow you to more easily construct a reply.
1. You question whether or not lockdown saved lives. Yes, lockdown absolutely saved lives. That's inarguable. It was vital in breaking chains of transmission, thus preventing infections, development of severe symptoms, hospitalisations and deaths.
2. You link the efficacy of lockdown, to current rates of excess mortality, as outlined by the Telegraph article you have linked. Whether lockdown was successful or not, is only marginally dependent on what levels of excess mortality are right now.
3. You go on to link COVID-19 vaccination to excess mortality, and ask me to assume that COVID-19 vaccinations are not a causal factor in excess mortality - almost as if you're saying that one would normally assume that they are, but why would one say that when there's no evidence? Do you have evidence that vaccines are driving rates of excess mortality? If so, please provide it.
4. You appear to be labouring under the impression that those who supported lockdown, believe lockdown to be without fault, compromise or drawback. You reference the Telegraph article you have linked here, by using the same language they did - "collateral damage" of lockdown. You question how can lockdown be a good thing, if there was so-called 'collateral damage' from lockdown. Well, just because there is so-called collateral damage from something, doesn't mean that thing didn't have a net positive impact. Few things in life are perfect, everything has a downside.
5. You then move on - to what I consider to be - the point you're trying to make, which is that you believe that public health interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, are the root cause of excess mortality now, and by extension, you are arguing that we should have not vaccinated, or had any kind of lockdown or social distancing. Obviously I strongly reject that argument. Vaccinations, lockdowns and social distancing have prevented many, many, many deaths.
6. Finally, you put a question to me at the beginning of your post which is best dealt with at the end of my reply, which is why are levels of excess mortality as high as they are? I do not know the full answer, but there are a range of factors to consider. I ask you to please bear with me. These are in no order of importance or impact:
- The first is that COVID is still killing significant numbers of people
- 28,695 deaths registered in England and Wales in 2022, have COVID-19 on the death certificate, meaning that in the clinical opinion of the doctor certifying the death, COVID-19 has directly caused or significantly contributed to the death. COVID-19 is identified as the underlying cause in 18,863 of these 28,695 deaths. That's 65% of the total.
- Comparing the number of deaths in 2022, to the five-year average used by the ONS, 2022 has seen an excess of 23,048 deaths so far, meaning even if you only considered the deaths where COVID is the underlying cause of death, those deaths would account for 80% of the stated excess.
- This suggests that a significant proportion of the current excess in deaths is being driven by COVID-19.
- The second is heatwave deaths
- The ONS reported that the heatwaves experienced during summer 2022, which saw several periods of sustained extreme temperature, and set temperature records across the country, resulted in 3,000 excess deaths.
- The third could be the lingering aftermath of the disruption to healthcare services caused by lockdown
- We have known all along that lockdown would impact access to services. I believe lockdown was necessary as stated, and saved many lives, but yes, some people will be in poorer health now, than they would have been if the pandemic had never caused us to enforce lockdown, and sadly some of them will die as a result. I am certain that access to some diagnostic and treatment services was impacted and perhaps could not have been, and lessons must be learnt, but this was an emergency situation for which there is no playbook.
Lastly, there is a logical fallacy running through your argument, which I suspect is borne of the inherent bias in your thinking. In the absence of knowing what is causing the excess mortality experienced during 2022, you have somehow arbitrarily whittled down excess mortality to either deaths caused by the vaccine, or by lockdown, without evidence for either.
If you have evidence that the 23,000+ excess deaths recorded so far in 2022 have their roots primarily in vaccination and lockdown, then please provide it. I would be most interested to read it.
As much as I disagree with Kermit on at least 98% of COVID-related issues, at least he can put together a post without resorting to this sort of unbridled nonsense.
- Until the vaccination programme started, COVID was significantly more lethal than flu
- A "110 year time horizon" is the kind of nonsense that sounds specific, but means absolutely nothing
- Whilst yes, theoretically someone dying in a car crash within 28 days of testing positive would be counted on the 28-day death count, they wouldn't be included on the death certificate count. By the same token, someone who dies of COVID, 29 days after testing positive, wouldn't be on the 28 day count. I assure you, there are many more people who died after spending six weeks in hospital with COVID, than there are people who died in a car crash within a month of testing positive for COVID.
- Call it a "casedemic" to the faces of people whose relatives have died of COVID-19 and I suspect you might find yourself missing a few teeth.
Point 1 is purely conjecture.
Point 3, you will note a sharp rise in excess mortality in the months following the start of the vaccination program. This then peaks and falls, over a period of a couple of months. This would reflect in a ramping up of the numbers being vaccinated and the cohort including the very old and weak. Any problems with the vaccine would likely manifest in this period among these people. I accept correlation does not necessarily mean causation but it certainly doesn't rule it out.
Point 4, i do not believe there to have been a net positive impact. Lockdown has been a complete disaster. Peoples mental health has impacted, loved ones dying alone, suicides, missed diagnoses, missed operations. Its likely we have not seen the worst effects yet. The destruction of our economy is only now becoming apparent. Inflation will continue as will interest rate increases as the govt try to keep it under control. The cost of food, energy, rent, mortgages will continue to soar. Pension pots and public services will be hit. All for a virus with a similar IFR to the flu. I find it remarkable you still support them knowing what we know now. I think you will find yourself in an ever diminishing minority.
Point 5, you are making an unprovable point. Also, after a enduring a deadly pandemic which would likely claim the lives of the old and vulnerable, should we not be expecting to see excess mortality be lower than during 2020 and 2021?? Particularly now we have these marvellous life saving vaccines? Can't you see the obvious, gaping holes in your argument?
Point 6, you dont know the answer. I dont either unfortunately. I certainly have a suspicion. Let me ask you this. Do you find it odd that there seems to be little appetite to find the answer? On a rough calculation it appears to me excess deaths have been higher at points in 2022 than they were during periods where the govt saw fit to put us into lockdown? Are the people dying now not important as those dying back then? Obviously im not suggesting a lockdown for these deaths, but to not even look into why? Perhaps they suspect they know why. Do you believe it is impossible that the vaccines are contributing to this excess mortality to the point the link should not be investigated? Considering this is a procedure the majority of the population has been subjected to. I almost hesitate to even ask the question as i feel like i am going to be disappointed by your answer. To suggest we should not even look into this while ploughing on with the vaccination program, just because you are desperate to be right would show a real lack of humanity.
I find your offering of 3000 heatwave deaths desperate and, as outlined in the article the driver is non covid deaths.
"The new data follow analysis from The Telegraph that showed that in the past six months, there have been more excess deaths from causes other than Covid than deaths due to coronavirus for the entire year.
There have been 18,734 deaths due to Covid this year, but since May there were 24,440 deaths where the primary cause was another condition.
Over the past six months, non-Covid excess deaths have been running at three times the rate of Covid deaths."
In addition, we know now that worldwide the recording of covid deaths has been highly dubious. The figures are obviously inflated. Just this week it waa revealed Finlands covid death toll was likely exaggerated by 40%. Im not even going to get into this again though as its been done to death.
Finland's Covid death toll could be exaggerated by 40%, THL says
" The median age of those who have died after positive coronavirus tests has risen since last spring from 84 to 85. The median age for men is 81, while for women it is 87.
"Most deaths now occur at the very end of the natural life cycle," said Goebeler.
"You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of patients under 60 who have died solely from Covid since last March," she added."
I do agree with you highlighting the role the disruption to health care had. Yes i do this agree this will have contributed as i have outlined earlier in my post, but it comes nowhere near explaining the level of excess deaths we are experiencing. If it did it would negate your argument for lockdowns surely?
I had to reply separately as together we exceeded the 10,000 character limit it i just pressed reply
@Frijj
I have made a mistake here when saying the excess deaths increased sharply soon after the vaccination program started. I was looking at 2020 instead of 2021. Therefore i retract this point and apologise for my mistake.
What i would say after looking more closely at the excess death figures is, after the initial huge peak in 2020, it then dropped to BELOW the 5 yr average for a period and then remained under 2021 and 2022, for most of the year. Now you must concede this is odd? Deaths being lower in the period we had no vaccines and the more harmful original strain of the virus?
Point 3, you will note a sharp rise in excess mortality in the months following the start of the vaccination program. This then peaks and falls, over a period of a couple of months. This would reflect in a ramping up of the numbers being vaccinated and the cohort including the very old and weak. Any problems with the vaccine would likely manifest in this period among these people. I accept correlation does not necessarily mean causation but it certainly doesn't rule it out.
Point 4, i do not believe there to have been a net positive impact. Lockdown has been a complete disaster. Peoples mental health has impacted, loved ones dying alone, suicides, missed diagnoses, missed operations. Its likely we have not seen the worst effects yet. The destruction of our economy is only now becoming apparent. Inflation will continue as will interest rate increases as the govt try to keep it under control. The cost of food, energy, rent, mortgages will continue to soar. Pension pots and public services will be hit. All for a virus with a similar IFR to the flu. I find it remarkable you still support them knowing what we know now. I think you will find yourself in an ever diminishing minority.
Point 5, you are making an unprovable point. Also, after a enduring a deadly pandemic which would likely claim the lives of the old and vulnerable, should we not be expecting to see excess mortality be lower than during 2020 and 2021?? Particularly now we have these marvellous life saving vaccines? Can't you see the obvious, gaping holes in your argument?
Point 6, you dont know the answer. I dont either unfortunately. I certainly have a suspicion. Let me ask you this. Do you find it odd that there seems to be little appetite to find the answer? On a rough calculation it appears to me excess deaths have been higher at points in 2022 than they were during periods where the govt saw fit to put us into lockdown? Are the people dying now not important as those dying back then? Obviously im not suggesting a lockdown for these deaths, but to not even look into why? Perhaps they suspect they know why. Do you believe it is impossible that the vaccines are contributing to this excess mortality to the point the link should not be investigated? Considering this is a procedure the majority of the population has been subjected to. I almost hesitate to even ask the question as i feel like i am going to be disappointed by your answer. To suggest we should not even look into this while ploughing on with the vaccination program, just because you are desperate to be right would show a real lack of humanity.
I find your offering of 3000 heatwave deaths desperate and, as outlined in the article the driver is non covid deaths.
"The new data follow analysis from The Telegraph that showed that in the past six months, there have been more excess deaths from causes other than Covid than deaths due to coronavirus for the entire year.
There have been 18,734 deaths due to Covid this year, but since May there were 24,440 deaths where the primary cause was another condition.
Over the past six months, non-Covid excess deaths have been running at three times the rate of Covid deaths."
In addition, we know now that worldwide the recording of covid deaths has been highly dubious. The figures are obviously inflated. Just this week it waa revealed Finlands covid death toll was likely exaggerated by 40%. Im not even going to get into this again though as its been done to death.
Finland's Covid death toll could be exaggerated by 40%, THL says
" The median age of those who have died after positive coronavirus tests has risen since last spring from 84 to 85. The median age for men is 81, while for women it is 87.
"Most deaths now occur at the very end of the natural life cycle," said Goebeler.
"You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of patients under 60 who have died solely from Covid since last March," she added."
I do agree with you highlighting the role the disruption to health care had. Yes i do this agree this will have contributed as i have outlined earlier in my post, but it comes nowhere near explaining the level of excess deaths we are experiencing. If it did it would negate your argument for lockdowns surely?
I had to reply separately as together we exceeded the 10,000 character limit it i just pressed reply
@FrijjI have made a mistake here when saying the excess deaths increased sharply soon after the vaccination program started. I was looking at 2020 instead of 2021. Therefore i retract this point and apologise for my mistake.
What i would say after looking more closely at the excess death figures is, after the initial huge peak in 2020, it then dropped to BELOW the 5 yr average for a period and then remained under 2021 and 2022, for most of the year. Now you must concede this is odd? Deaths being lower in the period we had no vaccines and the more harmful original strain of the virus?
Last edited:
Point 1 is purely conjecture.
Point 3, you will note a sharp rise in excess mortality in the months following the start of the vaccination program. This then peaks and falls, over a period of a couple of months. This would reflect in a ramping up of the numbers being vaccinated and the cohort including the very old and weak. Any problems with the vaccine would likely manifest in this period among these people. I accept correlation does not necessarily mean causation but it certainly doesn't rule it out.
Point 4, i do not believe there to have been a net positive impact. Lockdown has been a complete disaster. Peoples mental health has impacted, loved ones dying alone, suicides, missed diagnoses, missed operations. Its likely we have not seen the worst effects yet. The destruction of our economy is only now becoming apparent. Inflation will continue as will interest rate increases as the govt try to keep it under control. The cost of food, energy, rent, mortgages will continue to soar. Pension pots and public services will be hit. All for a virus with a similar IFR to the flu. I find it remarkable you still support them knowing what we know now. I think you will find yourself in an ever diminishing minority.
Point 5, you are making an unprovable point. Also, after a enduring a deadly pandemic which would likely claim the lives of the old and vulnerable, should we not be expecting to see excess mortality be lower than during 2020 and 2021?? Particularly now we have these marvellous life saving vaccines? Can't you see the obvious, gaping holes in your argument?
Point 6, you dont know the answer. I dont either unfortunately. I certainly have a suspicion. Let me ask you this. Do you find it odd that there seems to be little appetite to find the answer? On a rough calculation it appears to me excess deaths have been higher at points in 2022 than they were during periods where the govt saw fit to put us into lockdown? Are the people dying now not important as those dying back then? Obviously im not suggesting a lockdown for these deaths, but to not even look into why? Perhaps they suspect they know why. Do you believe it is impossible that the vaccines are contributing to this excess mortality to the point the link should not be investigated? Considering this is a procedure the majority of the population has been subjected to. I almost hesitate to even ask the question as i feel like i am going to be disappointed by your answer. To suggest we should not even look into this while ploughing on with the vaccination program, just because you are desperate to be right would show a real lack of humanity.
I find your offering of 3000 heatwave deaths desperate and, as outlined in the article the driver is non covid deaths.
"The new data follow analysis from The Telegraph that showed that in the past six months, there have been more excess deaths from causes other than Covid than deaths due to coronavirus for the entire year.
There have been 18,734 deaths due to Covid this year, but since May there were 24,440 deaths where the primary cause was another condition.
Over the past six months, non-Covid excess deaths have been running at three times the rate of Covid deaths."
In addition, we know now that worldwide the recording of covid deaths has been highly dubious. The figures are obviously inflated. Just this week it waa revealed Finlands covid death toll was likely exaggerated by 40%. Im not even going to get into this again though as its been done to death.
Finland's Covid death toll could be exaggerated by 40%, THL says
" The median age of those who have died after positive coronavirus tests has risen since last spring from 84 to 85. The median age for men is 81, while for women it is 87.
"Most deaths now occur at the very end of the natural life cycle," said Goebeler.
"You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of patients under 60 who have died solely from Covid since last March," she added."
I do agree with you highlighting the role the disruption to health care had. Yes i do this agree this will have contributed as i have outlined earlier in my post, but it comes nowhere near explaining the level of excess deaths we are experiencing. If it did it would negate your argument for lockdowns surely?
I had to reply separately as together we exceeded the 10,000 character limit it i just pressed reply
I have made a mistake here when saying the excess deaths increased sharply soon after the vaccination program started. I was looking at 2020 instead of 2021. Therefore i retract this point and apologise for my mistake.
What i would say after looking more closely at the excess death figures is, after the initial huge peak in 2020, it then dropped to BELOW the 5 yr average for a period and then remained under 2021 and 2022, for most of the year. Now you must concede this is odd? Deaths being lower in the period we had no vaccines and the more harmful original strain of the virus?
The BHF open their report, saying:
“Severe ambulance delays, inaccessible care and ever-growing waiting lists are contributing to heart patients dying needlessly, our new analysis warns”
If you read their full report - called Tipping Point - you’ll see the BHF lay the blame at system failures in the NHS, not vaccination. Vaccination isn’t even mentioned in the report.
The heart deaths the BHF are referring to, the “30,000 excess deaths” are the total number of excess deaths involving ischaemic heart disease (also known as coronary heart disease) from March 2020, to August 2022.
Not only is that including thousands of deaths before people were vaccinated(!) but IHD/CHD has a root cause in people’s lifestyle, it isn’t acute. The people dying of IHD/CHD already had those risk factors baked in before the pandemic, likely from decades of poor diet and lack of exercise.
Malhotra is using a BHF report that doesn’t support his argument.
He is clearly trying to associate these 30,000 deaths with vaccination, and is relying on the good reputation of the BHF to do so. He is very much in the wrong here, both factually and ethically.
Oh and just to say; this is 30k deaths where CHD/IHD was mentioned on the death certificate…but we don’t like it when there’s a “mention” do we? Or at least we didn’t with COVID, as many COVID sceptics said it wasn’t the real cause, the doctor just put it on…
@Kermit - I haven’t ignored you, I can’t reply to a post as long as your reply on my phone.
Last edited:
i had the same problem. I think its to do with the character limit in the website. Maybe we should talk less sh*te. 
pavarotti1980
Striker
Mate I think that is a contender for post of the year
Point 1 is purely conjecture.
Point 3, you will note a sharp rise in excess mortality in the months following the start of the vaccination program. This then peaks and falls, over a period of a couple of months. This would reflect in a ramping up of the numbers being vaccinated and the cohort including the very old and weak. Any problems with the vaccine would likely manifest in this period among these people. I accept correlation does not necessarily mean causation but it certainly doesn't rule it out.
Point 4, i do not believe there to have been a net positive impact. Lockdown has been a complete disaster. Peoples mental health has impacted, loved ones dying alone, suicides, missed diagnoses, missed operations. Its likely we have not seen the worst effects yet. The destruction of our economy is only now becoming apparent. Inflation will continue as will interest rate increases as the govt try to keep it under control. The cost of food, energy, rent, mortgages will continue to soar. Pension pots and public services will be hit. All for a virus with a similar IFR to the flu. I find it remarkable you still support them knowing what we know now. I think you will find yourself in an ever diminishing minority.
Point 5, you are making an unprovable point. Also, after a enduring a deadly pandemic which would likely claim the lives of the old and vulnerable, should we not be expecting to see excess mortality be lower than during 2020 and 2021?? Particularly now we have these marvellous life saving vaccines? Can't you see the obvious, gaping holes in your argument?
Point 6, you dont know the answer. I dont either unfortunately. I certainly have a suspicion. Let me ask you this. Do you find it odd that there seems to be little appetite to find the answer? On a rough calculation it appears to me excess deaths have been higher at points in 2022 than they were during periods where the govt saw fit to put us into lockdown? Are the people dying now not important as those dying back then? Obviously im not suggesting a lockdown for these deaths, but to not even look into why? Perhaps they suspect they know why. Do you believe it is impossible that the vaccines are contributing to this excess mortality to the point the link should not be investigated? Considering this is a procedure the majority of the population has been subjected to. I almost hesitate to even ask the question as i feel like i am going to be disappointed by your answer. To suggest we should not even look into this while ploughing on with the vaccination program, just because you are desperate to be right would show a real lack of humanity.
I find your offering of 3000 heatwave deaths desperate and, as outlined in the article the driver is non covid deaths.
"The new data follow analysis from The Telegraph that showed that in the past six months, there have been more excess deaths from causes other than Covid than deaths due to coronavirus for the entire year.
There have been 18,734 deaths due to Covid this year, but since May there were 24,440 deaths where the primary cause was another condition.
Over the past six months, non-Covid excess deaths have been running at three times the rate of Covid deaths."
In addition, we know now that worldwide the recording of covid deaths has been highly dubious. The figures are obviously inflated. Just this week it waa revealed Finlands covid death toll was likely exaggerated by 40%. Im not even going to get into this again though as its been done to death.
Finland's Covid death toll could be exaggerated by 40%, THL says
" The median age of those who have died after positive coronavirus tests has risen since last spring from 84 to 85. The median age for men is 81, while for women it is 87.
"Most deaths now occur at the very end of the natural life cycle," said Goebeler.
"You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of patients under 60 who have died solely from Covid since last March," she added."
I do agree with you highlighting the role the disruption to health care had. Yes i do this agree this will have contributed as i have outlined earlier in my post, but it comes nowhere near explaining the level of excess deaths we are experiencing. If it did it would negate your argument for lockdowns surely?
I had to reply separately as together we exceeded the 10,000 character limit it i just pressed reply
I have made a mistake here when saying the excess deaths increased sharply soon after the vaccination program started. I was looking at 2020 instead of 2021. Therefore i retract this point and apologise for my mistake.
What i would say after looking more closely at the excess death figures is, after the initial huge peak in 2020, it then dropped to BELOW the 5 yr average for a period and then remained under 2021 and 2022, for most of the year. Now you must concede this is odd? Deaths being lower in the period we had no vaccines and the more harmful original strain of the virus?
1. You claim that my statement that lockdown saved lives is conjecture. Conjecture is an opinion based on incomplete or missing information. We have clear evidence that lockdown was successful in preventing infections, and thus preventing development of severe symptoms, hospitalisations and deaths. Therefore it is not conjecture and you are wrong to claim it as such.
2. You claim that there is a "sharp rise in excess mortality in the months following the start of the vaccination programme". You associate this with deaths caused by the vaccine when you say "Any problems with the vaccine would likely manifest in this period". Excess deaths fell month-on-month during the first half of 2021, so how can there be a "sharp rise in excess mortality in the months following the start of the vaccination programme" when in those months, excess mortality fell?
3. You claim lockdown was a disaster because of health and economic impacts. Do you think that there would have been no health or economic impacts if we'd just let everyone carry on as normal? Do you think shops and businesses would remain open and viable with so many staff off sick? Do you think hospitals could keep running services with so many doctors, nurses and porters off sick? Yes, lockdown had negative impacts, but the government couldn't have prevented COVID-19 and so had to deal with it.
You also claim that COVID-19 has a similar IFR to influenza. This is the second claim you've made in your post that is entirely factually incorrect. Where do you get your information from? Numerous studies have reported that the IFR for COVID-19, prior to vaccinations and weaker strains, was significantly higher than flu. Please stop spreading false information.
4. You claim that excess mortality should be lower than average, because we've had a lot of excess. I have to say, this seems at odds with what you've argued previously. You've repeatedly downplayed COVID, but here you are accepting that there's been significant excess mortality. As for your claim that it should be lower than average, that doesn't quite stack up because of the numbers involved.
5. There are a series of claims, points and questions you make here:
- You claim there is "little appetite to find the reason for current rates of excess mortality" but you provide no evidence of this. How do you know there is no appetite? If there's no appetite why do the ONS and OHID analyse the data and release reports on it?
- You claim that excess mortality was higher during months in 2022, than it was "at some points" during lockdown. This is a sneaky statement to make and I know why you've said it. It's technically true and on first hearing it sounds like something big but then you have to remember that "at some points" during lockdown, excess mortality was very low because there had been a lot of excess just before.
- You ask if I believe it is possible that vaccines are contributing to present rates of excess mortality to the extent that they should be investigated. I very much doubt that they are. If they were, there would be high quality, reliable and robust evidence to demonstrate that.
- You keep claiming that things aren't being investigated, they aren't being looked into or there's no appetite to investigate...says who? Where are you reading this information and who is telling you that that things aren't being investigated or looked into?
7. You seem unable to understand that COVID is still contributing significantly to excess mortality and you rely heavily on The Telegraph to do your arguing for you. The Telegraph have been probably the most duplicitous newspaper during the last two years in regards to COVID. On multiple occasions I have identified serious issues in their reporting on COVID numbers, especially when it comes to COVID deaths, which they seemingly enjoy twisting the data on.
The fact remains that yes, deaths during 2022 are on average higher than the five-year baseline, but COVID deaths are a significant part of this excess.
8. I'm not particularly interested in how Finnish authorities code their death certificates and it is irrelevant to this discussion. It is another case of you bringing in irrelevant information in an attempt to deflect or change the subject.
-
Ive been doing a little bit more digging on vaccination rates and deaths. I googled and found reports that Bulgaria has a low vaccination rate.
Why does Bulgaria have the EU’s lowest vaccination rates?
I then confirmed this from a couple of sources, one of which is here. This shows Bulgarias vaccination rate is only around 30%
Understanding Vaccination Progress by Country - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center
Now what is interesting is, their rates of death have returned to normal, where ours, as we have seen, are significantly higher. They have faced the same challenges, the same virus, the same strains on their health system. Infact, as a poorer country than the UK, their health system should be less well equipped to deal with this. Interested to see how you explain this away.
Regarding the IFR i refer you again the Prof Ioannidis study early in the pandemic. You dismissed this because you want to believe it is a terrifying virus. Its also on record in Hansard where the IFR is discussed by MPs as having fallen to 0.096%, which is lower than flu. I have also said several times that the virus can kill people, just as flu can. Im not going to spend time repeatedly going over old ground.
We can see what the alternative to our lockdown looks like by looking at Sweden. Another inconvenient truth that people such as yourself choose to ignore. So yes, our lockdown was clearly a disaster for a multitude of reasons. You cannot possibly know that lockdowns saved lives either. Just pure speculation.
Ah see again, this is what you do. You get an absolute pasting when your arguments are torn to shreds and you move on like nothing happened, onto the next conspiracy addled bullshit you've thrown together. You present fiction, I correct you with facts, and you just sail on as if nothing ever happened and carry on posting absolute bollocks.
1. Bulgaria is a shit example to use. They've had far more COVID deaths per head of the population and huge, repeated spikes in excess mortality. This could have been avoided if they'd vaccinated. Incredibly you're championing them for not having vaccinated. Are you happy all those people in Bulgaria are dead? Because that's what you're championing.
2. They're also experiencing excess mortality at the moment, despite having high rates of excess deaths in 2020 and 2021, and have similar or higher rates of excess mortality in 2021 than countries such as Israel, Finland and France, all of whom have vaccinated at higher rates. Therefore, it seems unlikely to be the lack of vaccination that is driving the lower rates of excess mortality.
3. You can refer me to whatever you like, the fact remains that prior to vaccinations and the dominance of less deadly strains, COVID-19 had a higher IFR than influenza. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but it is the truth. If you want to believe it is less deadly then by my guest, but you simply wrong.
4. We can know that lockdowns saved lives.
Yet again another absolutely clueless post from you. I'd love to know what is driving your pathological obsession with vaccines.
This is laughable. "you present fiction, i correct you with facts"
*Present official data from Bulgaria*
"Bulgaria is a sh*t example to use"
You cannot see how brainwashed you are. You continually just disregard evidence that you dont like. You just close your eyes, fingers in ears when presented with facts on IFR. Now, quite bizarrely, you are for some reason accusing me of being happy people are dead. Just lashing out as on, some subconscious level at least, you acknowledge that you are a delusional, indoctrinated clown with absolutely no credibility.
Not just excess death up p
