Hi folks, I really don’t know how any expert can say the jab was good in saving lives at least for a month but it sucked at stopping transmission. I seem to recall that the stats were bent to show you were still unvaxxed during the first 21 days after the jab - a period when many would have suffered injury or died. Such a statement also ignores the high death rates in age groups which were unlikely to suffer serious injury from the so-called virus in the first place and these death rates mapped closely to the jab rollout for each age group.
I had to stop at 4 minutes in I couldn’t take it anymore! This maybe because I’m a no virus supporter so his slick hubristic presentation was set in a context I could never agree with. He was also keen to adopt the typical whitewash approach of review commissions - don’t seek to lay blame on people, just criticise the system.
I agree his performance was impressive from his perspective. Brave, even. Though he had one eye on his career and the other on his actual duty to speak.
He said that Pfizer did attempt to remove the DNA by having it broken up into smaller fragments, using some enzyme or other agent.
He also said that the rogue DNA being in small fragments made it more dangerous.
He was careful not to put these two statements together; essentially they imply that rather than trying to make it safe, Pfizer were trying to cover up the DNA.
This is borne out by his view that the problem can be solved by a cleanup process.
This would have added to cost. Reduced profits? Oh my!
He also talks about other risks from this DNA: autoimmune problems, cancers and lethal cardiac arrests.
Wtf?
If he would still give this to his parents just to try to stop a virus then I’m a jabbed monkey’s mutant sibling progeny!
But I do admire his art, and am still grateful to him. Funny old world (not).
Agree with your sentiments @CJ1. Living in a professionally constructed bubble. I expect his career was on the line, had he crossed it. But he was still speaking to power.
He was asked, somewhat astutely, if it hadn’t been for the senate committee hearing - state level, only - where could he have turned to to report this information. He said nowhere; he had written to the FDA and got a nothing letter back. After that he had gone on Twitter. A real life antihero…we might need a revolution but to come about it needs to be fuelled by revelations like these!
OTOH, this episode makes me in awe of people like McCullough, Cremola, Paul Marik and Meryl Nass who are willing to pay a heavy price and look the monster in the eye.
orld-renowned Professor Wafik El-Deiry, Director of the Cancer Centre at Brown University and known for his work in identifying genes associated with cancer, added his voice to the conversation stating Buckhaults’ testimony was ‘good science raising concerns about contamination of Covid mRNA vaccines with DNA’. He adds:
‘[Buckhaults] explains how pieces of naked DNA allowed in protein vaccines at a certain threshold was not so problematic in a different era but that with encapsulation in liposomes they can now easily get into cells. If they get into cells they can integrate into the genome which is permanent, heritable, and has a theoretical risk of causing cancer depending on where in the genome they integrate. There is a need for more research into what happens in stem cells and I would add germ-line, heart, (and) brain. I am also concerned about prolonged production of spike for months with the pseudouridine in the more stable RNA.’
Hi folks, it’s interesting that it has taken some of these guys 2 years to notice that certain batches of jabs were toxic see the thread by @PatB here:
I looked at this very question in as much detail as I could a year or two back. I wasn’t able to find the correlations you mention. Has there been a good study on this subject that I missed at the time (or since)? I haven’t looked at it since then and would be interested to see it
“some of the information in the United States is STRANGELY no longer in the public domain, strange but true”
I distinctly recall seeing a set of graphs showing rises in deaths/injuries amongst the covid vaccinated in all age groups with graphs showing that these injuries closely followed the dates at which each of these age cohorts were given the vaccine. I can no longer find that information so I am afraid you either take my word for it or don’t. Maybe others recall the same graphs. These were similar to the Fenton ones covering age related statistics but actually linked the death and injury data to timing of vaccines which was a step too far for Fenton, I think.
Looking at the John Campbell video linked above it is clear that excess death statistics in 12 months post introduction of covid vaccines has produced 155,000 excess deaths in the vaccinated of the UK. The data was extracted from official statistics and links are there to that data.
Given the fact that these statistics are comparing just one factor -the rate of excess death in the vaccinated above the unvaccinated - i.e. the only difference between the 2 groups is vaccination - we must lay the blame for the excess death rate amongst the vaccinated squarely on the vaccine, what other excuse could there be?
I have often suggested that 5G or other EMF signals could bear responsibility but as these are randomly applied to everyone in a country the rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated would be the same, unless there was a, so far, undetected “signal” connection of some sort to the vaccinated cohort that hadn’t been possible before vaccination. Even then we are looking at vaccination as the sine qua non key killing factor.
Thanks for looking CJ. The level of censorship these days is frightening. If you find the graphs let me know. If not then c’est la vie.
I like JC and will have a look at the data he’s referring to. There’s definitely something bad happening in excess deaths that someone out there should be investigating.
I don’t exactly follow the 5G argument, though. What is the worry about 5G EMF? That it’s dangerous enough to kill people? Or that it can cause illnesses (cancer?) in people? How does that work? It’s an area I’ve not paid any attention to at all…
Also see Robert Temple’s latest book in the Chapter where he talks about Electric Bodies.
We are all very susceptible to emfs but some people have hypersensitivity where they have been forced to move from buildings with 5G routers installed because of the physical impact they suffer. The 5G rollouts in certain areas have a close correlation to health and death numbers - I thought this could be a confounding factor in looking at vaccines but the JC video seems to restrict the focus to vaccines. Although thinking about it there maybe a “geek” factor at play ( I include myself here!) - those who avoid 5G or emfs generally could be the same people who avoid vaccines?
Hi @admin , just to keep the data together I think this post by @Evvy_dense linking to data analysis of 17 Southern Hemisphere countries showing the timing connection between covid vaccination and excess deaths should be shown here. The link post dates the material which I had seen (but can no loner locate) for global stats but it must be a strong pointer towards the global position.
Thanks @CJ1. I’ll add it to the list I’m trying to work through together with Evvy’s recent post if a a paper on solar forcing. Maybe I’ll have a bit of time today and start having a read through.
I did read some of Rancourt on the climate stuff a year or two ago and I have to say that I was not at all impressed with his basic mistakes. For a physics professor he really got the basics surprisingly wrong.
But hopefully he’s better with the COVID stuff.
I’m just glad that folks are seriously looking at this subject at all. He gets points from me for that alone.
“I did read some of Rancourt on the climate stuff a year or two ago and I have to say that I was not at all impressed with his basic mistakes. For a physics professor he really got the basics surprisingly wrong.”
But were the wrong things peer reviewed by 5f staff?
Also, was it ‘basic errors’ in astrophysics (or perhaps scientific disputes!?) or basics in spreadsheet analysis.
I’m thinking 4 PhDs should be able to do this kind of thing.
Others have - there have been a few posts here, citing other competent analysts like Chudov.
Losing track of them. But I managed to find this post from last year.
It was just a quick look, which you can do in OurWorldInData as they have vax data and excess deaths. “Basic error” quite possible in my stuff…
In the post underneath that I extended to a few low vax countries and found excess deaths not behaving this way.
I said then that someone would put in booster dates or something - that’s what Rancourt an Co have done I think!?
Cheers
Actually in the John Campbell video posted at the top of that thread by @Rich (I think I branched off to get the data myself and forgot to return to the vid after I posted on it) I see JC later went into some other country comparisons. (you could jump in at around 6m for a quicker look).
Who can argue with John’s felt-tip pen?
This is very basic to do on OurWorldInData, though Rancourt and co have gone further with vax dates (they must have gone and got the actual data), seemingly getting a more definite link. Also they may have done some overall global type stats.
Don’t remember all the details but the things that stuck in my mind were
more humans breathing out increases the overall CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans don’t create CO2 out of thin air so to speak. We break down carbon that we eat and send it back out. It doesn’t change the overall level
he missed the basic physics lab experiments that show the mechanism by which CO2 molecules trap heat and instead seemed to claim it was impossible
he missed the experimental evidence of how temperatures change through the atmosphere, which is a key signature for what we expect for heating due to due to CO2.
Again, I would expect a layman to get these very basic things wrong, but an actual professor of actual physics?
Hmm.
Anyway, as I say, different topic altogether. Data analysis and correlation analysis of COVID deaths is a whole other ball game, and it takes a brave person to stick their neck out in this… Err… Climate.
I’m interested and will take a look.
Thanks for the other refs too. It’s really important to gather this data as it seems very few folks are doing that…
We don’t have the actual context or Rancourt’s precise statements so we can’t know that you are right. Maybe these were differences of opinion. Other erm, non-gaseous bodily emissions contain carbon…
I just think it needs context. We have to keep the standard of adhom on the board up, you know
But yeah important to keep in touch with these serious developments in some way. Trouble is, data updates add to admin requirement.
Btw I noticed many of the excess deaths in these graphs dropped off recently - could that be due to lower booster takeup!?
I suppose that’s right. The carbon still came from our environment into us and then back to our environment though… We are recyclers or carbon rather than producers. That’s not true of the carbon that’s been trapped for millions of years tht we dig out of the earth and release, like coal and oil.
The context was a bunch of blogs on his website as far as I can recall. As I said, I was reading through his counter climate arguments but was surprised at his lack of basic knowledge. Anyway, I don’t want to turn this thread into a climate one. We have plenty of others for that!
As far as excess deaths go
Yes. I think so. A good study shouldn’t be that hard to do, I would have thought… And it couldn’t be much more important. Especially as we go into another round of COVID spikes and “boosters” this winter…
…Well they’ve done the analysis. It’s nearly 200 pages long - because of all the country graphs. Couldn’t put that in a journal. I guess some other group should do some checking. We don’t need 200 graphs for that, just some data files.
It will out in time but meanwhile people are still dying in numbers, and getting boosters. The onus shouldn’t be on absolute proof in order to stop something that seems SO dangerous being given to everybody.
Yes - some people are putting together some work in this area. I think that’s great.
I’ll just say that it’s one thing to point to an increase in deaths but it’s a much more tricky thing to determine the cause.
Looks like Rancourt and his team are trying to match similar cohorts of vaccinated Vs unvaccinated. That’s a good start.
Although I accept, as I always have done, that the burden of proof should be on those who claim something is safe, rather than those who think it might be dangerous
