Mind boggling? $1k/s is around $31 billion. First of all, just Pfizer brought in more money than that last year -- around $10 billion more. But let's set that aside for now, because they're slated to bring in twice as much this year.
You think Pfizer and Moderna are somehow coordinating a global censorship campaign to defend that income? Sure, Pfizer's projects $82 billion in revenue is real money. But it's less than half of Amazon's income. Facebook brings that much in every year. Apple and AT&T crush these numbers, but nobody's going around deleting every tweet about how Mac OS has gone downhill or AT&T's cell service sucks.
In other words, it's just not enough money to have this kind of pull. Even if Pfizer and Moderna were lying their asses off to everyone who would listen, they just don't have the cash to buy off every medical expert and microbiologist of any standing -- and even if they did, the relevant government agencies can't accept hush money and aren't particularly interested in advancing some cartoonish corporate ruse.
Biological and medical research is a competitive field; most of these people slogged through six or eight years of underpaid postdoctoral work just to build the qualifications to participate in meaningful research as PI. Are there crooks who will take a check to parrot a party line? Sure. Is that common enough to enable the kind of overwhelming consensus we see today? Absolutely not ... but let's say I'm wrong: there just isn't enough money to pull it off.
This is why the current crop of conspiracy nuts insists the scheme isn't just about profits but also about some kind of vague assault on unspecified civil liberties -- it's necessary to ascribe actual evil to the movitation before it's even remotely believeable.
Supposedly they are not buying everyone off. Look, 2008 happened, why couldn't similar thing that happened in financial industry happen in medicine industry?
The motivations, rushing of everything could be just aligned enough to cause all of this. Safety studies excluding some participants, some important data. All you'd have to pay off is to exclude certain data, for which there are ALREADY reports coming out for. For example Maddie de Garay's injuries excluded, there's report of someone else's vaccine injury being excluded from the original study.
BMJ coming up with the article of falsified data etc.
The way Pfizer reportedly conducted side effect studies. E.g. asking participants to report their side effects on 7th day in the app without any freeform text or custom symptoms - only predetermined symptoms. For any custom symptom you had to contact the doctors, who may have just ignored you or determined your symptoms to be irrelevant since they didn't have motivation or time to deal with you.
Pfizer just pressuring subcontractors just enough for them to provide data that favours vaccine safety, and there's just not enough time to double check everything so all of it just flies by.
Mainstream media has reported absolutely none of it. None of the excluded participants, nothing about the BMJ article. Nothing about how Pfizer conducted the studies. Everyone is clueless about that. There's already so much PR built towards hating "anti-vaxxers" and considering them uneducated and unintellectual, so the word "vaccine" is already associated in everyone's mind as something good, safe and effective. The PR is already there, you just have to work out something that you could call "vaccine", and help out people in the current very desperate situation.
Very few are actually closely looking into the data and there are actually plenty of scientists and doctors talking about it, but they are getting debunked using very superficial arguments and just finding anything slightly wrong or misleading about what they are saying and they are immediately considered "debunked".
Similarly during 2008, very few people were predicting this crash and everyone just wanted to pretend together that everything was going well. All the experts, economists etc. And human anatomy is somehow simpler than financial system?
> "Sometimes these people even have a specific theory for why elites are covering up ivermectin, like that pharma companies want you to use more expensive patented drugs instead. This theory is extremely plausible. Pharma companies are always trying to convince people to use expensive patented drugs instead of equally good generic alternatives. Ivermectin believers probably heard about this from the many, many good articles by responsible news outlets, discussing the many, many times pharma companies have tried to trick people into using more expensive patented medications. Like this ACSH article about Nexium. Or my article on esketamine. Given that dozens of studies said a drug worked, and elites continued to deny it worked, and there are well-known times where elites lie about drugs in order to make money, it was an incredibly reasonable inference that this was one of those times.
> If you have a lot of experience with pharma, you know who lies and who doesn’t, and you know what lies they’re willing to tell and which ones they shrink back from. As far as I know, no reputable scientist has ever come out and said ‘esketamine definitely works better than regular ketamine’. The regulatory system just heavily implied it.
> I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!"
> I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably assume anything could be a lie. And if you don’t know which statements about pharmaceuticals are lies, “the one that has dozens of studies contradicting it” is a pretty good heuristic!"
We currently have a unique situation. Never in the world have scientists, experts or doctors been as pressured to direct people to current vaccines. There's a clear risk to losing your credibility and your job if you were to contradict. Even if you were to think that something may be wrong, it would be a herculean task for you to prove it and is it really worth it to sacrifice your career and everything else? Maybe you are just 50/50 or 80% sure, and incase of that 20% uncertainty you definitely don't want to risk your life work.
Also chicken and an egg problem. Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective are discredited, so after they have made their claim you can just call them misinformation spreaders and tell again "no credible scientist has said X" and if that credible scientist says X, you will just stop considering them as credible.
But my point is more oriented towards vaccines than Ivermectin honestly. I'm not a proponent of Ivermectin, but I'm just trying to discuss what results might current motivations in the world yield, and I believe it's definitely possible that Ivermectin COULD be improperly discredited in current ecosystem of everything.
With all the social pressures, dire situation, debates being blocked, people labelled immediately misinformation spreaders if their conclusions don't fit the mainstream narrative, I would say very many untruths are possible.
I myself can't trust MSM at all any longer, and I am 95% sure that vaccines are not as safe and effective as MSM is trying to portray them as. I don't know exactly how unsafe or how ineffective they are, but that's mostly because proper debate is not allowed. Until this clears up, I'm going to skip on vaccines.
> Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those?
I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of?
> For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling?
Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to have there is some vaguely formed speculation.
> For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling?
Be specific, what claims are you making and what evidence do you think backs them up?
> What about countless anecdotal stories of similar persistent adverse effects and VAERS reports?
Perhaps you could count them, and investigate to understand if the anecdotes and VAERS reports are true or not, and at what rate they occur. VAERS is by design a catch-all and self-reported, so the data there is interesting but not necessarily trustworthy. Anecdotes are not data, after all.
I can't reply to your last comment because it's too deep, so I'll comment here:
> According to your graph, excess mortality for ages 0-14 for this year is lower than it was in 2019, before the vaccine or the pandemic hit. And the excess mortality in the 15-44 age group is maybe 5000 people across 28 countries
See week 18-42, for 0-14 age group. Yes it has barely got to 2019 levels, but consider that beginning of year they died much less due to lockdowns, so summer high rate was enough to make up for 2019 where both winters the starting and ending saw very high climb. Again, it's about having that type of velocity during summer, not winters. It's 500-800 children compared to other summers. Since 3 millions of vaccinations given out it could mean around 1 out of 6,000 deaths per vaccination.
So all in all, it wouldn't be possible for me to prove it even if vaccine was causing a lot of harm? Because what else can I use besides excess deaths (as much data that as it's possible to gather), adverse event reporting tools etc, anecdotal stories. There's just no way.
To myself, there are too many signs pointing towards it, but I guess there's no point to really crusade at all even if it is causing harm.
> Since 3 millions of vaccinations given out it could mean around 1 out of 6,000 deaths per vaccination.
It could, or it could mean something else entirely, and it could be within normal trends. Which is what it looks like to me if all cause mortality is lower than 2019 levels.
> So all in all, it wouldn't be possible for me to prove it even if vaccine was causing a lot of harm?
Not from this data, no.
> Because what else can I use besides excess deaths (as much data that as it's possible to gather), adverse event reporting tools etc, anecdotal stories. There's just no way.
Real research and analysis, not "I looked at some very high level graphs with fairly shallow data and decided that it fit my preconceptions".
If you're thinking "I don't have easy access to that information, and I don't have the time or the funding to investigate", you're quite right. Medical researchers will have to carry the can here.
> If you're thinking "I don't have easy access to that information, and I don't have the time or the funding to investigate", you're quite right. Medical researchers will have to carry the can here.
Yeah, unfortunately, I've lost all my trust in anything that comes in from mainstream. I was to vaccinate myself, but then I found contradicting information, and from there I couldn't stop going to the rabbit hole, because this doesn't make sense. Mathematically and statistically if mainstream was only telling truth, what I'm seeing should be impossible.
It's a terrible situation for me to be in as it stresses me daily, ruins my focus and depresses me. Either I'm crazy and worried about nothing or things generally in the world are not going well and people are in mass hypnosis. Neither is a good side to be in.
> I was to vaccinate myself, but then I found contradicting information, and from there I couldn't stop going to the rabbit hole, because this doesn't make sense.
Dodged a bullet there! How fortunate that you went to look for contradicting information, what are the chances?
Not sure what you mean here? I didn't have bias towards being anti-vaxx. In fact I was arguing with anti-vaxxers before and doing calculations how many lives would 1 vaccinated person save during summer given different R values, vaccine efficiencies etc.
I have scanned through so many forums reading anecdotal stories, also downloaded VAERS data, and I definitely see a pattern, but this is not enough of compelling evidence for anyone.
But let's just focus on what could be causing excess deaths during summer.
See 0-14 age group excess mortality growth during summer (EU approved vaccines for 12+ in May). There has been similar rate variance in winters, but this can be explained by bad flu seasons, there's no such variance ever during summer. If vaccines really were the cause, it means only 12-14 group should be affecting the rate, this means that with 0-11 the growth could be 4x that assuming linear relation.
Also see 15-44 excess which has never been climbing that fast and is much higher than previously in total. You can also include other years from 2016 to compare.
These may not be vaccines, but what is causing this then and why specifically in younger demographics?
I'm honestly looking to understand what could be the explanation here.
which doesn't mean kids were vaccinated at any relevant rate at that point. In plenty places they only started that August or thereabouts. There has been some talk of delayed infections with various things due to school closures etc before, I do not know if that had any relevant impact on death rates though, but would explain why they shifted to later in the year.
> and why specifically in younger demographics?
Looking at the 44+ ranges, those are way more above or close to "substantial increase" - as you would expect with them at being higher risk from covid. Higher vaccination rates help, but aren't entirely stopping it. Potentially also some other medical factors, not aware of any good data on them (i.e. delayed treatments, risky delayed treatments now happening, ...)
> Also see 15-44 excess
Delta is affecting them more, for at least part summer you can't assume them to be vaccinated yet (and even today, in the badly hit places the vaccination rates are far from perfect - here in Germany "people in hospital" and "percentage unvaccinated" correlates quite well between regions). Delayed treatments again might hit here too, again unsure if relevant.
Could there be something hidden in there: sure. But it doesn't seem all that obvious that anything is weird about these numbers.
Can't answer to detaro either, so answering in my own comments. Delta and covid waves on average went really low during summer, so it should have less effect.
But maybe delayed treatments, risky delayed treatments now happening could have something to do with it potentially. Also there were talks about child suicides.
VAERS data is not verified, as I said, it's self reported. It's useful but not necessarily great for basing hunches on.
According to your graph, excess mortality for ages 0-14 for this year is lower than it was in 2019, before the vaccine or the pandemic hit. And the excess mortality in the 15-44 age group is maybe 5000 people across 28 countries. Without knowing the variance in previous years, which is not given in those graphs, that's meaningless and could easily be down to the disease itself. I personally know a lot of people in this age group who have come down with the disease now, as they are starting to go out and socialise a lot more than they were a year ago. It's hard to see how the 'normal range' is calculated on the pooled deaths graphs as there only appears to be about 4 years data there, which is not a lot to go on.
So as I said before, what you have here is vague speculation. You can't tell from there that anything unusual is necessarily going on at all, let alone what might be causing it.
But it did give him what he was looking for: a reason not to get vaccinated. All of the above is just that: justification for that decision, and once looked at through that lens it makes a lot more sense.
What you are saying is that I made the decision first and then looked for the material?
I was strongly pro-vax before that, and I was debating anti-vax people.
Why would I want to make such a decision that would make me be hated by so many, stress me out of my mind, make people think I'm some sort of anti-science or anti-intellectual, etc?
If covid vaccines are truly safe and effective, I would have 0 motivation to believe in some sort of conspiracy, or not take it.
Either the VAERS data is broadly accurate, and the COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines ever released (which is not to say they aren't helpful in some populations); or the VAERS data is all just useless unverified anecdotes like you're saying, and so there is no useful system in the US to monitor patient- or doctor-reported adverse events at all, in which case nobody can effectively claim that they are safe for any event that happens more than 1/(number of people in the trials). Which is it? If the VAERS data is all garbage, and someone claims on Telegram that the vaccine gave them lupus or cirrhosis or something, I guess I can't go on VAERS and see that there aren't reported events beyond population baseline, then, and I'll have to take them at their word?
I have seen enough video stories to believe those anecdotal stories and VAERS, where people got a vaccine complication and nobody believed them, everyone gaslighted them and considered them anti-vaxxers - even though they did take the vaccine. Text based stories, you can never tell, but with video stories you can at least understand their sincerity. And after that it's possible to notice patterns within anecdotal reports as well.
And mainstream media has not talked about these side effects at all so I fully believe side effects are not being reported and what are reported is probably with less frequency, it's just difficult for me to tell what the exact frequencies of different side effects are.
I have got pretty obsessed now with trying to understand what the frequencies are, there's so much conflicting information.
If I had to guess I'd guess that there's some sort of age cut-off where harm may be greater than benefits. It would also highly depend on how social person you are and how much in risk situations, as if you are someone that works remotely, doesn't go out at all, and not in a risk group, then I don't think there's point in taking the vaccine.
VAERS will report all of the cases reported in, it is prior to analysis and once the analysis is done the final tally looks completely different. Any possible relation is reported (or actually, should be reported) to VAERS, so if you die the day after you took the vaccin, you will be listed there, whether or not that had anything to do with your vaccination will be determined later on.
For another viewpoint: if everybody was vaccinated there would be 7000 people dying the day after they got vaccinated for the USA alone. But that wouldn't mean anything at all, the big question is which of those deaths would not have happened if the vaccine had not been administered. So interpreting VAERS data in any other way than relative day-to-day is not very useful absent further background into those particular cases.
The "relative" interpretation of the VAERS data looks worse for the COVID vaccines than almost any other interpretation. There have been more adverse events reported in the past year for the COVID vaccines than for all other vaccines combined since the database's inception in 1990.
A drive? Every child born in the US is recommended to take 15+ doses of various vaccines. Most of them are required to enter public school. Multiple new vaccines (like HPV and shingles) have been launched with millions of doses delivered in the same time period.
As you are probably aware: people tend to die somewhere between 50 and 100 with high regularity, leading to more entries in VAERS if large numbers of people in that age range are vaccinated.
It's children that have not been vaccinated in large numbers this time around.
You think Pfizer and Moderna are somehow coordinating a global censorship campaign to defend that income? Sure, Pfizer's projects $82 billion in revenue is real money. But it's less than half of Amazon's income. Facebook brings that much in every year. Apple and AT&T crush these numbers, but nobody's going around deleting every tweet about how Mac OS has gone downhill or AT&T's cell service sucks.
In other words, it's just not enough money to have this kind of pull. Even if Pfizer and Moderna were lying their asses off to everyone who would listen, they just don't have the cash to buy off every medical expert and microbiologist of any standing -- and even if they did, the relevant government agencies can't accept hush money and aren't particularly interested in advancing some cartoonish corporate ruse.
Biological and medical research is a competitive field; most of these people slogged through six or eight years of underpaid postdoctoral work just to build the qualifications to participate in meaningful research as PI. Are there crooks who will take a check to parrot a party line? Sure. Is that common enough to enable the kind of overwhelming consensus we see today? Absolutely not ... but let's say I'm wrong: there just isn't enough money to pull it off.
This is why the current crop of conspiracy nuts insists the scheme isn't just about profits but also about some kind of vague assault on unspecified civil liberties -- it's necessary to ascribe actual evil to the movitation before it's even remotely believeable.