Pfizer Hearing



harryCLSsafc

Full Back
I mean how transparent is this? By the way im not disputing this poor fella passed away and im not denying its possible. Of course it is. Just as people die of flu. But come on? Picture the scene when this unfolds.

'Glenn Barratt passed away in the Diana, Princess of Wales hospital in Grimsby after fighting coronavirus for weeks. The 51-year-old, from Cleethorpes, had opted not to have the vaccine. But his final words to bedside nurses and doctors were: “I wish I had.”'

These were his final words? Really? You could even think this, you could even say it. But to keep them as your final words as you depart this world. Its so obviously written to elicit an emotional response its laughable.
Unfortunately we have a section of our population who simply won't wake up to what has gone on with these jabs.

As you say the truth is now coming out about what's gone on here and the spike in excess deaths and stillborns is frankly frightening.

I dont believe a word our government tells us, or the BBC/Sky and have no faith at all in organisations like the UN and WHO. The self evident corruption and co-ordinated on message between these corrupt governments, international organisations and the likes of Thunberg (related to the Rothschilds)/NGOs etc. is so painfully obvious.

Events such as manufactured wars, problems with supply chains, this vaccine/COVID carry on, the climate change scam are all out in the open now; and once you see it, you cant unsee it. I'm afraid that the 0.1% at the top of the food chain dont like us and an increasing number of people around the globe are now realising it.
 
Do you know where the data is from?

If you do, then you'd understand it isn't evidence of increased miscarriage or stillbirth at all.

Anyone can report into VAERS. Something being reported in VAERS doesn't mean there's a link.
You made the same mistake before trying to claim data from VAERS showed something it didn't. Seems you've learnt nothing the past year.
Here's the results of some actual studies into pregnancies and vaccines.

Logon or register to see this image


from Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy - Nature Communications

Although miscarriage rate was reported in multiple studies20,24,27,29, only two compared vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and accounted for time-varying confounding27,29. The pooled odds ratio meta-analysis showed no significant effect of vaccination on miscarriage (pooled OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.92–1.09, 15,684 vaccinated vs. 108,249 unvaccinated population, P = 0.988, I2 = 19.8%, Fig. 6). These findings were consistent with data from five randomised trials1,2,35,36,37 that reported miscarriage rates after inadvertent exposure to COVID-19 vaccination in early pregnancy. As the number of reported exposures was small (N = 4–43) and the vaccine types varied (i.e., two mRNA and three viral vector), quantitative synthesis was not undertaken.
 
Last edited:
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.
I explained why it was a shit example to use. Not only do Bulgaria have a poor record on COVID deaths and repeated spikes in excess mortality, there are several countries with similar rates of current excess mortality that have high vaccination rates. You'd have known this if you'd researched the matter beyond the surface.
 

Poacher

Central Defender
Any chance you can say what the origin of the graph is? Not sure random Twitter is a source
Also less than 100 miscarriages in a calendar year? Are you having a laugh?
Vaers
Do you know where the data is from?

If you do, then you'd understand it isn't evidence of increased miscarriage or stillbirth at all.

Anyone can report into VAERS. Something being reported in VAERS doesn't mean there's a link.
You made the same mistake before trying to claim data from VAERS showed something it didn't. Seems you've learnt nothing the past year.
Here's the results of some actual studies into pregnancies and vaccines.

Logon or register to see this image


from Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy - Nature Communications

Although miscarriage rate was reported in multiple studies20,24,27,29, only two compared vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and accounted for time-varying confounding27,29. The pooled odds ratio meta-analysis showed no significant effect of vaccination on miscarriage (pooled OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.92–1.09, 15,684 vaccinated vs. 108,249 unvaccinated population, P = 0.988, I2 = 19.8%, Fig. 6). These findings were consistent with data from five randomised trials1,2,35,36,37 that reported miscarriage rates after inadvertent exposure to COVID-19 vaccination in early pregnancy. As the number of reported exposures was small (N = 4–43) and the vaccine types varied (i.e., two mRNA and three viral vector), quantitative synthesis was not undertaken.
Yes this past year I learned the truth is coming out
 
Last edited:
Vaers


Yes this past year I learned the truth is coming out
You realise that “California Today” is produced by NTD, a media group founded by a Chinese religious sect, and is currently part of the same media group that produces the far right Epoch times newspaper.

Yet again, people on your side of the argument have an incredibly low bar for evidence. It’s bullshit propaganda!
 

Kermit

Central Defender
You realise that “California Today” is produced by NTD, a media group founded by a Chinese religious sect, and is currently part of the same media group that produces the far right Epoch times newspaper.

Yet again, people on your side of the argument have an incredibly low bar for evidence. It’s bullshit propaganda!
Ah the lazy "far right" insult. Everyone not waving a Ukraine flag and getting a weekly injection is far right these days. Another example of how easily empty vessels can be programmed. Always the same, dont align with what the Ministry of Truth have told us to think and its, "tin foil hat", "far right", "conspiracy theorist". Always the same kind of language. Do useful idiots get issued with some kind of textbook?
 
Ah the lazy "far right" insult. Everyone not waving a Ukraine flag and getting a weekly injection is far right these days. Another example of how easily empty vessels can be programmed. Always the same, dont align with what the Ministry of Truth have told us to think and its, "tin foil hat", "far right", "conspiracy theorist". Always the same kind of language. Do useful idiots get issued with some kind of textbook?
I got issued with plenty of textbook when I did my masters in public health with a first in epidemiology. How about you?

The Epoch Times is widely considered to be a far right media source.
 

Kermit

Central Defender
I got issued with plenty of textbook when I did my masters in public health with a first in epidemiology. How about you?

The Epoch Times is widely considered to be a far right media source.
Really? Which module covered the political leanings of various media outlets? Ah thats right, none of them. Your claims regarding your academic achievements are likely as baseless as the nonsense you spout on here. If not it is a sad indictment of the state of the profession and a likely explanation for the clown show of the last few years.
 
Really? Which module covered the political leanings of various media outlets? Ah thats right, none of them. Your claims regarding your academic achievements are likely as baseless as the nonsense you spout on here. If not it is a sad indictment of the state of the profession and a likely explanation for the clown show of the last few years.
Fortunately you don’t need any kind of higher education to spot a far right fake news outlet. They’re usually very obvious, which is why they typically fool only those without the skills to spot them, and those who have an agenda and so have no standards.

You can vent your frustrations at me, or you could do something productive like construct an argument in good faith on the basis of solid evidence.

I’m sure you’re more than capable of doing so and it would be refreshing to see you give it a go.
 
Ah the lazy "far right" insult. Everyone not waving a Ukraine flag and getting a weekly injection is far right these days. Another example of how easily empty vessels can be programmed. Always the same, dont align with what the Ministry of Truth have told us to think and its, "tin foil hat", "far right", "conspiracy theorist". Always the same kind of language. Do useful idiots get issued with some kind of textbook?
Well, unsurprisingly, you're wrong again.
Pretty much any health or science degree will cover appraising evidence in the first year, usually the first semester. One of the very first things you do when critiquing is to look for potential bias from the authors: culture, sponsor, publisher etc. It's a basic skill that many of those who are firm in their beliefs lack.

Clear examples of acquiescence and confirmation bias in this thread. @Poacher says he knows what VAERS is about, then makes a claim that the stats they present shows an increase in still birth, when it clearly doesn't and anyone who actually understands what VAERS is will know that.
 

Devonian

Subs Bench
As you will be aware education and academia is painfully left wing. The socialist bias is imparted at all levels. The overarching subtext is ‘left wing good, right wing bad’. We no longer have any meaningful mainstream political discourse as Labour and Tories parrot the same globalist tosh.
 

Kermit

Central Defender
Well, unsurprisingly, you're wrong again.
Pretty much any health or science degree will cover appraising evidence in the first year, usually the first semester. One of the very first things you do when critiquing is to look for potential bias from the authors: culture, sponsor, publisher etc. It's a basic skill that many of those who are firm in their beliefs lack.

Clear examples of acquiescence and confirmation bias in this thread. @Poacher says he knows what VAERS is about, then makes a claim that the stats they present shows an increase in still birth, when it clearly doesn't and anyone who actually understands what VAERS is will know that.
Ok, then please direct me to the module in frijjs Public Health Masters degree where they study the political leanings of media outlets and i will admit i am wrong. With proof ofcourse. Otherwise its just unevidenced bluster. A staple of yours. Interesting that frijj himself didnt push back on this point.
 
Last edited:
Ok, then please direct me to the module in frijjs Public Health Masters degree where they discuss the political leanings of media outlets and i will admit i am wrong. With evidence ofcourse. Otherwise its just unevidenced bluster. A staple of yours.
An example from Newcastle University Public Health MPH, PGDip

Maybe these bits
4) Ensuring quality in research
- The hierarchy of quantitative research evidence and causality
- Critical appraisal: Bias, confounding and effect modification
- Validity and reliability (and related concepts from qualitative research)
- Generalisability/transferability
- Research ethics

Reading list (session 6)
 
Last edited:

Kermit

Central Defender
Public Health MPH, PGDip

Maybe these bits
4) Ensuring quality in research
- The hierarchy of quantitative research evidence and causality
- Critical appraisal: Bias, confounding and effect modification
- Validity and reliability (and related concepts from qualitative research)
- Generalisability/transferability
- Research ethics
Errr quite a stretch. That is appraising evidence for bias not the general political leanings of a media outlet.
 
Last edited:

Kermit

Central Defender
They are intertwined as certain bias will be dictated by the media outlet
Its not at all. Quite desperate to try and get that to fit your argument. I can totally understand why bias would need to be considered when looking at research. It does not mean anyone who considers possible bias relating to research can declare themselves an arbiter of what is right wing. Quite a ludicrous position to take.
 
It’s always fun when people like Kermit argue the toss over a minor point. It’s because they don’t want to argue about anything substantive.

Let’s argue about whether or not universities teach students about biased sources, definitely not about the far right Chinese propaganda that he supports.
 
Its not at all. Quite desperate to try and get that to fit your argument. I can totally understand why bias would need to be considered when looking at research. It does not mean anyone who considers possible bias relating to research can declare themselves an arbiter of what is right wing. Quite a ludicrous position to take.
Not really a ludicrous position at all. You will factor in a lot of things when assessing research. Left or right wing leaning publications will be part of that. It just forms part of the thought processes.

Are there publications which may read and dismiss because of their "stance" or ideology?
 

Top