...or pay via paypal

cards

Reactions

Comments that are not related to the topic of discussion will be deleted. Always keep comments respectful and substantive.

4 Comments
  1. Cees Mul

    Very interesting.
    The underlying question is what the effect of the 'vaccinations' has been in the first place. Very early in the process, I had read the difference between RRR (Relative Risk Reduction) and ARR (Absolut Risk Reduction). The pharmaceutical companies use the RRR, because it comes across as much more dramatic, and that has been blindly adopted by the governments. You could call that marketing, but you could also call it deception. I suspect that people who have been obediently vaccinated do not know this distinction.
    We know that the "vaccines" did not stop transmission. Even the manufacturers say that, and claim that they have communicated that from day 1. I always had the expectation of vaccines that they are meant to prevent disease transmission. It was then toned down to 'yes, but it does reduce the symptoms'. I don't believe that at all, and I don't see any evidence for it. It's trying to justify something afterwards that doesn't make sense.
    Perhaps it was never explicitly stated that the "vaccines" would stop transmission. But if you lock down the entire society because we have to wait for a life-saving 'vaccine', then expectations are high.
    If it turns out that transmission is not prevented, then the only argument left to convince people is that it reduces the symptoms. By the way, I do not believe that there is any evidence that vaccinations can prevent respiratory virus infections.
    Remains about the side effects.
    It all reminds me of Maurice's children's steering wheel.

    Reply
  2. V

    Aren't we also dealing with the so-called healthy-vaccine effect, in which very sick people (such as terminals) do not get vaccinated, but do count among the deaths among unvaccinated people? If you don't take this effect into account, then the vaccines seem to prevent more deaths than they actually did.

    Reply
  3. Gerrit

    They are not 'vaccinations' but ALL just harmful injections because it has never been possible to prove that even 1 disease is transmissible.
    https://telegra.ph/U-bent-voorgelogen-door-deskundigen-die-niet-beter-weten–the-hard-virus-truth-05-19

    Almost all of us have been poisoned since childhood, often damaged for life, but we should be happy that we survived. The damage is difficult to see due to the lack of a control group and this has been going on for 200+ years.

    After decades of aggressively promoting "vaccines," Dr. Stanley Plotkin finally admits that the safety of "vaccines" has never been thoroughly researched, as he has long claimed.
    Aaron Siri https://substack.com/home/post/p-146488873

    30% less child mortality during lockdown due to fewer 'vaccinations'
    https://needtoknow.news/2020/07/infant-deaths-decrease-30-during-lockdown-coinciding-with-sharp-drop-in-vaccinations/

    Reply
  4. Harald

    Overall, I think this is a good article with some surprising new insights (thank you very much). Then it is very unfortunate that there is a whopper of a mistake in it, which apparently has an effect on the conclusions.

    It claims:

    "As soon as the percentage of vaccinated people at the time of death would become equal to the vaccination rate, the efficacy of the vaccines will have dropped to zero."

    No, that's way too simplistic. The "confounder" is age (this has been widely known since 2021). Because the elderly who were most at risk were also the most vaccinated (which makes sense). That is why it is necessary to look at each age group.

    Extremely simplistic calculation example as an explanation:

    Stel dat een vaccin 90% effectief zou zijn voor een voor ouderen 100% dodelijke ziekte. En alle ouderen gevaccineerd maar geen jongeren gevaccineerd, met evenveel jongeren als ouderen -> vaccinatiegraad 50%.
    Then, for example, 10% of vaccinated people and 10% of unvaccinated people can still die. Then the percentage of vaccinated people at the time of death is equal to the vaccination coverage, 50%. With a 90% effective vaccine.

    For that reason, the 20% degree of protection is probably wrong, assuming it has been calculated as the article suggests. The second reason (mortality WITH corona) remains valid.

    Reply

Post a Comment

Je e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Required fields are marked with *