Did the horns appear before or after
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I don't.So you think the vaccines did not save millions of lives?
Do you know a way of proving they did? Irrefutable proof? Or do you know anyone who can tell us?
Thatās your opinion. There is research and data collated by scientists and researchers worldwide. The same can be said for the polio, smallpox and other vaccines - they have saved millions of lives.
How can there be data that can determine whether a jab potentially saved a life? There isn't a way to measure. That's a fact and not an opinion?
So that's a no then for irrefutable proof.
www.theguardian.com
"These are not statistics in the usual sense; researchers cannot magically count the people who would be dead in parallel universes in which vaccines were not available. They need to build mathematical models of what would have happened in these ācounterfactualā worlds.
Itās good to explore the same question through competing approaches. Many independent teams come up with different estimates of the reproduction number R, from which a committee has to come to a consensus. We return to George Boxās quote: āAll models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.ā No model will be ācorrectā, and the quoted uncertainty interval of 26,100-28,400 deaths should be taken with a pinch of salt, as it assumes the model is the truth. While the modelling approaches differ, both methods agree vaccines saved thousands of lives."
Interesting to read article sept 2020 listing other recent rushed safe and effective vaccines and the disastrous results. Warning of the dangers of lack of long term data.
Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be ācolossally stupidā
""This could do substantial damage," Kinch said. Kinch, who is a patient in one of the vaccine trials himself, said the clinical trial process needs to be followed to the end. A too-early EUA for a vaccine could cause a "nightmare scenario," for a few reasons.
One, the vaccine may not be safe. Two, if it is not safe, people will lose faith in vaccines. Three, if a vaccine doesn't offer complete protection, people will have a false sense of security and increase their risk. Four, if a substandard vaccine gets an EUA, a better vaccine may never get approval, because people would be reluctant to enroll in trials and risk getting a placebo instead of a vaccine."
Covid vaccines saved lives in England, but why do estimates differ? | David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters
Two Public Health England estimates of averted deaths use different approaches
www.theguardian.com
Itās good to explore the same question through competing approaches. Many independent teams come up with different estimates of the reproduction number R, from which a committee has to come to a consensus. We return to George Boxās quote: āAll models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.ā No model will be ācorrectā, and the quoted uncertainty interval of 26,100-28,400 deaths should be taken with a pinch of salt, as it assumes the model is the truth. While the modelling approaches differ, both methods agree vaccines saved thousands of lives."
Interesting to read article sept 2020 listing other recent rushed safe and effective vaccines and the disastrous results. Warning of the dangers of lack of long term data.
Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be ācolossally stupidā
""This could do substantial damage," Kinch said. Kinch, who is a patient in one of the vaccine trials himself, said the clinical trial process needs to be followed to the end. A too-early EUA for a vaccine could cause a "nightmare scenario," for a few reasons.
One, the vaccine may not be safe. Two, if it is not safe, people will lose faith in vaccines. Three, if a vaccine doesn't offer complete protection, people will have a false sense of security and increase their risk. Four, if a substandard vaccine gets an EUA, a better vaccine may never get approval, because people would be reluctant to enroll in trials and risk getting a placebo instead of a vaccine."
We know vaccines have saved lives over the decades they have been used. This is fact.
---
How can you say it is a no? Diseases have been eradicated thanks to vaccines = saving lives.So that's a no then for irrefutable proof.
"These are not statistics in the usual sense; researchers cannot magically count the people who would be dead in parallel universes in which vaccines were not available. They need to build mathematical models of what would have happened in these ācounterfactualā worlds.Covid vaccines saved lives in England, but why do estimates differ? | David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters
Two Public Health England estimates of averted deaths use different approaches
Itās good to explore the same question through competing approaches. Many independent teams come up with different estimates of the reproduction number R, from which a committee has to come to a consensus. We return to George Boxās quote: āAll models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.ā No model will be ācorrectā, and the quoted uncertainty interval of 26,100-28,400 deaths should be taken with a pinch of salt, as it assumes the model is the truth. While the modelling approaches differ, both methods agree vaccines saved thousands of lives."
Interesting to read article sept 2020 listing other recent rushed safe and effective vaccines and the disastrous results. Warning of the dangers of lack of long term data.
Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be ācolossally stupidā
""This could do substantial damage," Kinch said. Kinch, who is a patient in one of the vaccine trials himself, said the clinical trial process needs to be followed to the end. A too-early EUA for a vaccine could cause a "nightmare scenario," for a few reasons.
One, the vaccine may not be safe. Two, if it is not safe, people will lose faith in vaccines. Three, if a vaccine doesn't offer complete protection, people will have a false sense of security and increase their risk. Four, if a substandard vaccine gets an EUA, a better vaccine may never get approval, because people would be reluctant to enroll in trials and risk getting a placebo instead of a vaccine."
I thought they could never produce a successful coronavirus vaccine before, what changed!
The goalposts lol.
Hygiene and education also eradicated a lot of disease as much as vaccines ever did.
The description!
Hmm even they say it doesn't work as it was sold to everyone.
And didn't have to.
Doesn't explain how unvaccinated people who were NOT sick with the virus couldn't travel, work or eat indoors.
lionessofjudah.substack.com
" the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have been licensed or authorized for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. This is directly stated in the relevant labeling for each productāin the Indications and Usage section of the Prescribing Information for the approved products, and on the first page of the healthcare provider and recipient Fact Sheets for the authorized products.51 The vaccines are not licensed or authorized for prevention of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or for prevention of transmission of the virus, nor were the clinical trials supporting the approvals and authorizations designed to assess whether the vaccines prevent infection or transmission of the virus. In the clinical trials supporting the initial authorization of the vaccines, the primary efficacy endpoint was incidence of COVID-19, i.e. incidence of the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Specifically, for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, the primary efficacy endpoint was incidence of COVID-19 among participants without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection before or during the 2-dose vaccination regimen,52 and for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine the primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction of incidence of COVID-19 among participants without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection before the first dose of vaccine in the period after 14 days post-dose 2.
Petitionās assertion that there is a āwidespread (but inaccurate) notion that efficacy against infection and transmission have been established by substantial evidenceā is supported only by references to selected statements by U.S government officials suggesting that vaccination against COVID-19 may prevent infection or transmission, as well as one statement from Pfizer and one from Moderna. Your Petition also does not account for countervailing statements made by some of these officials. For example, Dr. Fauci has stated that the vaccines were not developed to protect against infection,55 and Dr. Walensky has stated that high viral loads in vaccinated individuals āsuggest an increased risk of transmission[.]ā56 In responding to your Petition, we are not agreeing or disagreeing with any of the statements that are selected in the Petition. Rather, we are observing that the statements referenced by the Petition do not demonstrate a commonly held belief that the clinical trials provided substantial evidence of efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We are not convinced that there is any widespread misconception about this."
Edited to say, funny (not ) how everyone is rewriting history. I know what people told me ,on here and in real life about the vaccine and why everyman and his pregnant dog had to have it , and it was all bs!
And didn't have to.
Doesn't explain how unvaccinated people who were NOT sick with the virus couldn't travel, work or eat indoors.
FDA: āVaccines Do NOT Require Demonstration of the Prevention of Infection or Transmissionā
Yes you read it right
lionessofjudah.substack.com
" the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have been licensed or authorized for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. This is directly stated in the relevant labeling for each productāin the Indications and Usage section of the Prescribing Information for the approved products, and on the first page of the healthcare provider and recipient Fact Sheets for the authorized products.51 The vaccines are not licensed or authorized for prevention of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or for prevention of transmission of the virus, nor were the clinical trials supporting the approvals and authorizations designed to assess whether the vaccines prevent infection or transmission of the virus. In the clinical trials supporting the initial authorization of the vaccines, the primary efficacy endpoint was incidence of COVID-19, i.e. incidence of the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Specifically, for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, the primary efficacy endpoint was incidence of COVID-19 among participants without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection before or during the 2-dose vaccination regimen,52 and for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine the primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction of incidence of COVID-19 among participants without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection before the first dose of vaccine in the period after 14 days post-dose 2.
Petitionās assertion that there is a āwidespread (but inaccurate) notion that efficacy against infection and transmission have been established by substantial evidenceā is supported only by references to selected statements by U.S government officials suggesting that vaccination against COVID-19 may prevent infection or transmission, as well as one statement from Pfizer and one from Moderna. Your Petition also does not account for countervailing statements made by some of these officials. For example, Dr. Fauci has stated that the vaccines were not developed to protect against infection,55 and Dr. Walensky has stated that high viral loads in vaccinated individuals āsuggest an increased risk of transmission[.]ā56 In responding to your Petition, we are not agreeing or disagreeing with any of the statements that are selected in the Petition. Rather, we are observing that the statements referenced by the Petition do not demonstrate a commonly held belief that the clinical trials provided substantial evidence of efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We are not convinced that there is any widespread misconception about this."
Edited to say, funny (not ) how everyone is rewriting history. I know what people told me ,on here and in real life about the vaccine and why everyman and his pregnant dog had to have it , and it was all bs!
Google 100 Days Mission a 5 year plan
- Quote from CEPI website
What if it took 100 days to make a safe and effective vaccine against any virus?
CEPI and the UK Government recently hosted the Global Pandemic Preparedness Summit to explore how we can respond to the next āDisease Xā, by making safe, effective vaccines within 100 days.
www.gov.uk
- Quote from CEPI website
What if it took 100 days to make a safe and effective vaccine against any virus?
CEPI and the UK Government recently hosted the Global Pandemic Preparedness Summit to explore how we can respond to the next āDisease Xā, by making safe, effective vaccines within 100 days.
Joint statement on delivering the 100 Days Mission
This joint statement between UK government, CEPI and Industry Associations commits to taking forward specific steps needed for future pandemic preparedness.
Isnāt it odd how itās acceptable to speculate a personās death was due to suicide or drugs but not vaccine related!
Hmm it's the whole new way of " inclusive thinking " that involves shouting "misogynist, racist, anti-vaxxer,ct ,disrespectful " to anyone who dares to think differently from you while being vile and hateful to anyone whose lives differ from yours. ( especially those pesky children and old people). Some tatters excel at it
It's like a collective projection. I think it causes doubts in some jabbed people and they just don't want to think about that possibility.
Thereās people who say they believe in choice when it comes to terminating human life but they donāt extend this same autonomy to rejecting CV even under emergency use
So easily dismissive labelling people anti vaxx and conspiracy theorists even going as far as saying most have homophobia are racist antiemetic
If you took CV that makes you a stakeholder you have more of a vested interest than anybody to understand what has happened and how to make sure those getting harmed get early intervention that would be a better use of time than trying to control what other people discuss online it really is ridiculous
You can be satisfied in the decision that you have made but you canāt be blind to the fact that the choice was heavily influenced and you didnāt have enough information to be fully informed
So easily dismissive labelling people anti vaxx and conspiracy theorists even going as far as saying most have homophobia are racist antiemetic
If you took CV that makes you a stakeholder you have more of a vested interest than anybody to understand what has happened and how to make sure those getting harmed get early intervention that would be a better use of time than trying to control what other people discuss online it really is ridiculous
You can be satisfied in the decision that you have made but you canāt be blind to the fact that the choice was heavily influenced and you didnāt have enough information to be fully informed
I must be the exception lol, I definitely want to know if itās a contributing factor ,not that it can be undone just so current and future generations are aware .
---
Surely weāre still gathering information on vaccine side effects, it amazes me how some people think itās all cut and dried and thereās ānothing else to see here ā
Last edited:
UKHSA says adolescent vaccination rates have faltered, leaving many at risk of catching deadly diseases.
amp.theguardian.com
Vaccine uptake among children in England has fallen since start of pandemic | Vaccines and immunisation | The Guardian
UKHSA says adolescent vaccination rates have faltered, leaving many at risk of catching deadly diseases
Must be due to the world suddenly changing to CT ā¦ All in sync too 
ā¦
---
If you hear a ringing itās not the gov catastrophe alert
www.nbcnews.com
ā¦ All in sync too ā¦---
If you hear a ringing itās not the gov catastrophe alert
New theories of the possible link between Covid shots and tinnitus are emerging
People who have developed life-altering ringing in their ears after Covid vaccinations demand deeper investigation into this potential side effect.
Last edited:
Sky reporting it too it must be true
news.sky.com
COVID vaccines could have links with causing tinnitus as new theories emerge
While there is no proof yet that vaccines cause the hearing condition, there are now theories which have surfaced among researchers - here's what you need to know about tinnitus and the causes of the condition.
news.sky.com
- Status