As an RN working in the nursing home, the only benefits the covid 19 vaccines gave the residents was harm and deaths! In my 15 years of working in nursing home I never seen so many deaths like 4 deaths in just within 5 days or one week!! Falls and confusion skyrocketed! Frequent hospitalisation skyrocketed! Diagnosis of cancer and heart issues skyrocketed! Dying suddenly skyrocketed! Despite of nursing homes residents has multiple boosters we still gets Covid outbreaks. I loved where there are 3 nursing homes in my area and all of these 3 nursings still multiple outbreaks of Covid!
Using the six sigma tool of " Design of Experiments" would be a useful tool to define the issue.
Vaccines are safe and effective can never be proved or disproved because
-What is safe cannot be accurately defined
-What is effective cannot be accurately define.
Design of experiments forms a negative hypothesis
1/ Vaccines cause NO side effects. If we find one case of a side effect then the negative hypothesis is disproved and vaccines can cause a side effect.
2/ Vaccines do NOT stop infection. If we can fine one case of a vaccinated person becoming infected then the negative hypothesis proven and vaccines do not stop infection.
3/ Vaccines contain NO harmful chemicals. We find that Mercury is in Vaccines. the negative hypothesis is disproved and Vaccines
Now we come to definition
What is defined as safe
" Only 50% of people experience side effects"
or " Only 0.00005% of people experience side effects
What is defined as effective
"85% of NZ population were vaccinated 65% of population became infected "
" 2% of Haiti population were vaccinated 3% became infected
The Lying with Statistics part comes when
" If you get VAX you will stop the transmission of COVID"
Quoting statistical results of experiments that were not undertaken
" If you get VAX you will not catch COVID"
Quoting preliminary results on 50 mice then ignoring human results.
" Vaccines are safe and effective:
Safe and effective was and still is not defined
"The only way to stop COVID is by Vaccines "
Makes statements that cannot be supported by facts and ignores natural immunity as demonstrated by Amish Community
" Wearing a mask will stop you catching or transmitting COVID "
Based on a Newspaper report in 1921 on Spanish Flu which killed 100 million people. The report Quoted a troopship study of 1918 that showed that ships where troops worn masks had decreased infection rates. What was omitted was, earlier no infected troops were allowed to board, troops were to spend as much time on deck as practical. No masks were worn and infection rates rapidly dropped. The additional introduction of masks to later sailing had no effect on infection rates. The statistical lie is ignoring time lines
California law requires autopsies in several circumstances, two of which are sudden or unrelated deaths, and deaths due to medical procedures. Both of these circumstances were largely ignored in every jurisdiction during Covid and post-vax rollout. Initially it was, “He must have died of Covid” (gimme my $40k) then it became, “He didn’t die from vaccination” with no testing to determine the actual-factuals. One other point, when discussing mechanisms of action, almost no one mentions Killer T-cells. With spike proteins being presented by gazillionz of cells, Killer T’s are having a field day wiping out endothelial cells. There doesn’t even need to be a “cytokine storm” and the spike protein doesn’t need to be toxic— its presence alone will trigger a Killer T onslaught against the most sensitive tissues in the body.
Wilf also includes Australia as an example of no ED for countries that managed to contain the lurgy during shot rollout. This is demonstrably false even on the national level but if you look at individual states (Eg Queensland and Western Australia) that had no COVID, then the data is even clearer.
Of note regarding the ABS methodology, the results for 2021 are only using 2015 - 2019 to calculate the baseline. Had 2020 been used for 2021 baseline, then the resultant ED is much worse.
The 2015-2019 average baseline used by ABS is too low because Australia has an increasing trend in deaths per year because of the aging population.
At Mortality Watch Australia has only about 1.3% excess deaths in 2021 relative to a 2010-2019 linear baseline: https://www.mortality.watch/explorer/?c=AUS&t=deaths&e=0&df=2004. And there's 162,680 deaths in 2020 which is higher than the 2015-2019 average (161,191).
The only way any figures can be arrived at with regard to effect, is post the event in question; why? Because, how can you know in advance the outcome regarding in this case specifically, who was going to get infected and die, but the outcome was changed by any form of medication? You may think you can claim that the jab saved all of those that didn't get the bug you claimed to prevent by your intervention measures, but it is no more than mere speculation. The only sure method to tell the effects of your intervention is via post mortem, following exhaustive medical history recording, individualised, and even then it could be they had comorbidity issues.
In Figure 1 from the Hungarian study, the survival probabilities are not adjusted for age. Table S1 shows that during the period displayed in Figure 1, the average age was about 45.6 for unvaccinated people, 45.0 for Janssen, 50.1 for Sputnik, 56.9 for Moderna, and 57.9 for Pfizer: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vaccines10071009/s1. So it explains why the survival probability was low for Moderna and Pfizer but high for Janssen and Sputnik.
---
Your 2010-2019 linear baseline for CMR in Hong Kong might not be accurate, because the trend in CMR in 2014-2019 seemed to be curved upwards, and even 2019 was already clearly above the 2010-2019 trend: https://www.mortality.watch/explorer/?c=HKG&t=cmr&df=2005&bf=2010&bt=2019. In fact there is a fairly smooth curved trend in 2016-2020 but 2021 seems to be below the curve.
Wilf didn't claim that Singapore had no excess deaths until 2022, because he pointed out that excess deaths in Singapore started in "Oct-2021, with Delta". However my plot here shows that Singapore had close to 0% excess deaths in the first half of 2021 when people got vaccinated: https://i.ibb.co/DG6SPZK/owid-singapore-hongkong-korea-australia.png. My plot also shows that in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Australia, the PCR positivity rate also remained close to zero until 2022, but in 2022 there was a sharp spike in excess deaths which coincided with a sharp spike in the PCR positivity rate. Why would vaccines not result in excess deaths in 2021 but they would only result in a short-lived sharp spike in deaths in 2022? In South Korea the spike did not even coincide with the booster rollout because the booster rollout had peaked about 3 months earlier.
I saw this repot had two sections, so I wrongly presumed one was to demonstrate that the experimental vaccine improved resistance to the disease and the other to show that the experimental vaccine was "safe and effective". I was disappointed to observe that both sections were pretending the experimental vaccine was "safe and effective". So that to tells me neither report is credible. The author apparently omitted any report on the reasons for the enormous effort to block any description of alternates such as Ivermectin which was actively blocked without any supporting or believable evidence. A shame!
Steve - you discounted my Africa smoking gun argument with the same argument made by the MSM and Vax supporting governments. You said that the reported mortality rate was based on bad data and therefore implied Covid deaths must have been "undercounted".
The conventional wisdom of the people you are debating that low African mortality is from bad data and undercounting is very suspect as the reported ACM is very consistent with reported Covid mortality rates.
The Trusted News Genocidal Initiative writes off the Africa Smoking gun of the lowest Covid Mortality in the world because of undercounting rather than not being vaccinated.
If this were true, and Africans were dying en masse because they were not vaccinated (WHO has always stated that vaccinated people were at a much lower Covid bioweapon mortality risk) the actual deaths would simply shift to unclassified areas and the overall rate would skyrocket. This did not happen.
The All Cause Mortality for Africa during the Covid years increased slightly and as expected given the reported Covid Mortality rates for Africa showing slight increases in mortality. Also, South Africa had vax rates similar to the West which if the smoking gun theory is true would skew rates up instead of down which is what WHO said it should not do as it saves lives. Thats exactly what happened..
'Specifically, Southern Africa registered the highest crude death rate, counting 12 deaths per 1,000 inhabitants, while the lowest levels of mortality were recorded in Northern Africa."
If South African deaths were omitted, the overall Africa mortality rates would barely have moved up. The Smoking Gun conclusion is therefore highly likely that Covid was a non-issue for Africa because of low vaccination rates and use of conventional treatments not used in the West.
In summary if you are correct on the Vax generally,.the Smoking Gun in Sub Sahara Africa would be real. It is.
An example of lying with statistics using measles and factious numbers.
In 1930 There were 100,000 cases of measles and 5,000 deaths
In 1950 a measles vaccine was introduced .
Two years later measles cases dropped to 2,000 and 20 deaths
The statistical lie is to make claims like" the introduction of the measles Vaccine decreased infections by 98% and deaths by 100,000% based on 1930 figures
This sound marvelous however in 1948 before the vaccines was introduced. measles had dropped to 2,000 cases and 20 deaths. A cohort study would compare infections 2 years before the vaccine was introduced with the rates 2 years after.
The statistical lie would compare the 1930 infection rate to the rate just after the vaccine was introduced.
Comparative analysis would compare two large groups one vaccinated and one not and compare the outcome. Cleveland clinic did a study of 55,000 cases and found more vax more covid.
Its playing Vaccine Roulette where there is no COVID benefit and the documented side effects are considerable.
Its a case where the COVID VAX is taken and nothing happens or there are side effects
The article said: "The vaccinated population accounted for 95% of all COVID-19 deaths between January and May 2023. Despite 30% of the UK population remaining unvaccinated, vaccinated individuals disproportionately suffered."
However unvaccinated people are underrepresented in the ONS dataset for mortality by vaccination status, so in January to May of 2023 unvaccinated people accounted for only about 15.5% of total person-years: `t=fread("http://sars2.net/f/ons.csv");t[ed==9&month%like%2023&cause=="All causes"&age=="Total"&status%like%"accin",sum(pop),status]`. In the elderly age groups which account for most deaths the percentage was even lower, so for example in ages 80-89 it was only about 2.2%.
Unvaccinated people were also much younger than vaccinated people, so during the first 5 months of 2023, the average monhtly COVID ASMR per 100,000 person-years was about 86 in unvaccinated people but about 43 in vaccinated people: `t[ed==9&month%like%2023&cause=="Deaths involving COVID-19"&age=="Total"&status%like%"accin",mean(asmr),status]`.
I calculated an age-standardized hospitalization rate by vaccination status in the Czech Republic here: sars2.net/czech3.html#Age_standardized_hospitalization_rate_by_vaccination_status. In March 2021 the rate was about 8.4 times higher in unvaccinated people than vaccinated people, but it fell to about 5.0 in November 2021, 3.5 in February 2022, 1.8 in October 2022, and 1.5 in December 2023. The reason for the gradual decrease might be that unvaccinated people gained natural immunity over time, or that the protective effect of vaccination gradually wore out over time. So it's not surprising that in the ONS data by 2023 unvaccinated people would only have about twice as high COVID ASMR as vaccinated people.
In 2021 the ratio between unvaccinated COVID ASMR and vaccinated COVID ASMR was also much higher in the ONS data:
Many of us got the shots after the ones with the worst quality control in the winter of 2020-21 had been given. I checked my Moderna two shots on "how bad is my batch" and the adverse consequences were not that significant however I experienced night sweats for days and I was extremely physically active at that time doing heavy lifting (100-200# logs) as well as hiking 20 or so miles a week on challenging terrain. I did get subsequent bouts of a covid like illness for a week at a time in the following couple years. You have to wonder how many people got placebos or weak batches? Most of us do a lot of reading and try to make decisions based on the best thinking out there. I've been in the natural health and healing movement since the 1970s avoiding all drugs and unhealthy inputs, and I've seen quite a bit of quackery in the natural health movement, soy foods, promotion of lean diets and vegetable oils over quality grass fed beef and butter. A butcher recently told me he found grass fed beef to be "gamy" in its taste, which I have never found; I guess we have to keep the Nebraska feedlots in business. My fraud radar/detector is quite advanced, at least I hope so. Thanks Steve for all your hard work that has saved a lot of lives! Best wishes for you in 2025.
Top article this one. Will be sharing it with some who are still in denial. In Australia, they continue to push the boosters despite a government and private inquiries which did not come up with any good news or success stories. Yesterday's local rag in my city, was a scarefest of "Covid Cases Explode". The reason, people have not gotten their six monthly boosters. Whilst we have witnessed the immediate carnage, I am still wondering what the next phase of vaccine fallout will look like. We are already seeing, the hyper aggressive cancers and heart failures. What does the long term look like, that is the big question.
As an RN working in the nursing home, the only benefits the covid 19 vaccines gave the residents was harm and deaths! In my 15 years of working in nursing home I never seen so many deaths like 4 deaths in just within 5 days or one week!! Falls and confusion skyrocketed! Frequent hospitalisation skyrocketed! Diagnosis of cancer and heart issues skyrocketed! Dying suddenly skyrocketed! Despite of nursing homes residents has multiple boosters we still gets Covid outbreaks. I loved where there are 3 nursing homes in my area and all of these 3 nursings still multiple outbreaks of Covid!
So, yes 0 benefits! It only harmed and killed
Using the six sigma tool of " Design of Experiments" would be a useful tool to define the issue.
Vaccines are safe and effective can never be proved or disproved because
-What is safe cannot be accurately defined
-What is effective cannot be accurately define.
Design of experiments forms a negative hypothesis
1/ Vaccines cause NO side effects. If we find one case of a side effect then the negative hypothesis is disproved and vaccines can cause a side effect.
2/ Vaccines do NOT stop infection. If we can fine one case of a vaccinated person becoming infected then the negative hypothesis proven and vaccines do not stop infection.
3/ Vaccines contain NO harmful chemicals. We find that Mercury is in Vaccines. the negative hypothesis is disproved and Vaccines
Now we come to definition
What is defined as safe
" Only 50% of people experience side effects"
or " Only 0.00005% of people experience side effects
What is defined as effective
"85% of NZ population were vaccinated 65% of population became infected "
" 2% of Haiti population were vaccinated 3% became infected
The Lying with Statistics part comes when
" If you get VAX you will stop the transmission of COVID"
Quoting statistical results of experiments that were not undertaken
" If you get VAX you will not catch COVID"
Quoting preliminary results on 50 mice then ignoring human results.
" Vaccines are safe and effective:
Safe and effective was and still is not defined
"The only way to stop COVID is by Vaccines "
Makes statements that cannot be supported by facts and ignores natural immunity as demonstrated by Amish Community
" Wearing a mask will stop you catching or transmitting COVID "
Based on a Newspaper report in 1921 on Spanish Flu which killed 100 million people. The report Quoted a troopship study of 1918 that showed that ships where troops worn masks had decreased infection rates. What was omitted was, earlier no infected troops were allowed to board, troops were to spend as much time on deck as practical. No masks were worn and infection rates rapidly dropped. The additional introduction of masks to later sailing had no effect on infection rates. The statistical lie is ignoring time lines
California law requires autopsies in several circumstances, two of which are sudden or unrelated deaths, and deaths due to medical procedures. Both of these circumstances were largely ignored in every jurisdiction during Covid and post-vax rollout. Initially it was, “He must have died of Covid” (gimme my $40k) then it became, “He didn’t die from vaccination” with no testing to determine the actual-factuals. One other point, when discussing mechanisms of action, almost no one mentions Killer T-cells. With spike proteins being presented by gazillionz of cells, Killer T’s are having a field day wiping out endothelial cells. There doesn’t even need to be a “cytokine storm” and the spike protein doesn’t need to be toxic— its presence alone will trigger a Killer T onslaught against the most sensitive tissues in the body.
Suggested edit provided there's still time:
In the ED Patterns over Time section:
Change "working aged works" to "working aged workers"
Wilf also includes Australia as an example of no ED for countries that managed to contain the lurgy during shot rollout. This is demonstrably false even on the national level but if you look at individual states (Eg Queensland and Western Australia) that had no COVID, then the data is even clearer.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/jan-2020-dec-2021#australian-deaths-by-week-30-december-2019-to-2-january-2022
Of note regarding the ABS methodology, the results for 2021 are only using 2015 - 2019 to calculate the baseline. Had 2020 been used for 2021 baseline, then the resultant ED is much worse.
The 2015-2019 average baseline used by ABS is too low because Australia has an increasing trend in deaths per year because of the aging population.
At Mortality Watch Australia has only about 1.3% excess deaths in 2021 relative to a 2010-2019 linear baseline: https://www.mortality.watch/explorer/?c=AUS&t=deaths&e=0&df=2004. And there's 162,680 deaths in 2020 which is higher than the 2015-2019 average (161,191).
This demonstrates how a 2015-2019 average baseline is inaccurate in New Zealand: https://i.ibb.co/5n6LT2M/new-zealand-baseline-types.png.
Here's my detailed rebuttal: Check out my detailed refutation of Wilf’s claims about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in the Kirsch/Wilf $2M vaccine debate!
https://www.usmortality.com/p/debunking-pro-vaccine-arguments-in
The only way any figures can be arrived at with regard to effect, is post the event in question; why? Because, how can you know in advance the outcome regarding in this case specifically, who was going to get infected and die, but the outcome was changed by any form of medication? You may think you can claim that the jab saved all of those that didn't get the bug you claimed to prevent by your intervention measures, but it is no more than mere speculation. The only sure method to tell the effects of your intervention is via post mortem, following exhaustive medical history recording, individualised, and even then it could be they had comorbidity issues.
In Figure 1 from the Hungarian study, the survival probabilities are not adjusted for age. Table S1 shows that during the period displayed in Figure 1, the average age was about 45.6 for unvaccinated people, 45.0 for Janssen, 50.1 for Sputnik, 56.9 for Moderna, and 57.9 for Pfizer: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vaccines10071009/s1. So it explains why the survival probability was low for Moderna and Pfizer but high for Janssen and Sputnik.
---
Your 2010-2019 linear baseline for CMR in Hong Kong might not be accurate, because the trend in CMR in 2014-2019 seemed to be curved upwards, and even 2019 was already clearly above the 2010-2019 trend: https://www.mortality.watch/explorer/?c=HKG&t=cmr&df=2005&bf=2010&bt=2019. In fact there is a fairly smooth curved trend in 2016-2020 but 2021 seems to be below the curve.
Wilf didn't claim that Singapore had no excess deaths until 2022, because he pointed out that excess deaths in Singapore started in "Oct-2021, with Delta". However my plot here shows that Singapore had close to 0% excess deaths in the first half of 2021 when people got vaccinated: https://i.ibb.co/DG6SPZK/owid-singapore-hongkong-korea-australia.png. My plot also shows that in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Australia, the PCR positivity rate also remained close to zero until 2022, but in 2022 there was a sharp spike in excess deaths which coincided with a sharp spike in the PCR positivity rate. Why would vaccines not result in excess deaths in 2021 but they would only result in a short-lived sharp spike in deaths in 2022? In South Korea the spike did not even coincide with the booster rollout because the booster rollout had peaked about 3 months earlier.
---
I addressed some of your initial claims here: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/did-the-covid-vaccine-save-more-people/comment/83527021. Edit: Improved version with images posted here: sars2.net/rootclaim.html.
I saw this repot had two sections, so I wrongly presumed one was to demonstrate that the experimental vaccine improved resistance to the disease and the other to show that the experimental vaccine was "safe and effective". I was disappointed to observe that both sections were pretending the experimental vaccine was "safe and effective". So that to tells me neither report is credible. The author apparently omitted any report on the reasons for the enormous effort to block any description of alternates such as Ivermectin which was actively blocked without any supporting or believable evidence. A shame!
https://www.kla.tv/en
Great work! Links would be invaluable.
Steve - you discounted my Africa smoking gun argument with the same argument made by the MSM and Vax supporting governments. You said that the reported mortality rate was based on bad data and therefore implied Covid deaths must have been "undercounted".
The conventional wisdom of the people you are debating that low African mortality is from bad data and undercounting is very suspect as the reported ACM is very consistent with reported Covid mortality rates.
The Trusted News Genocidal Initiative writes off the Africa Smoking gun of the lowest Covid Mortality in the world because of undercounting rather than not being vaccinated.
If this were true, and Africans were dying en masse because they were not vaccinated (WHO has always stated that vaccinated people were at a much lower Covid bioweapon mortality risk) the actual deaths would simply shift to unclassified areas and the overall rate would skyrocket. This did not happen.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1227785/crude-death-rate-in-africa-by-region/
The All Cause Mortality for Africa during the Covid years increased slightly and as expected given the reported Covid Mortality rates for Africa showing slight increases in mortality. Also, South Africa had vax rates similar to the West which if the smoking gun theory is true would skew rates up instead of down which is what WHO said it should not do as it saves lives. Thats exactly what happened..
'Specifically, Southern Africa registered the highest crude death rate, counting 12 deaths per 1,000 inhabitants, while the lowest levels of mortality were recorded in Northern Africa."
If South African deaths were omitted, the overall Africa mortality rates would barely have moved up. The Smoking Gun conclusion is therefore highly likely that Covid was a non-issue for Africa because of low vaccination rates and use of conventional treatments not used in the West.
In summary if you are correct on the Vax generally,.the Smoking Gun in Sub Sahara Africa would be real. It is.
An example of lying with statistics using measles and factious numbers.
In 1930 There were 100,000 cases of measles and 5,000 deaths
In 1950 a measles vaccine was introduced .
Two years later measles cases dropped to 2,000 and 20 deaths
The statistical lie is to make claims like" the introduction of the measles Vaccine decreased infections by 98% and deaths by 100,000% based on 1930 figures
This sound marvelous however in 1948 before the vaccines was introduced. measles had dropped to 2,000 cases and 20 deaths. A cohort study would compare infections 2 years before the vaccine was introduced with the rates 2 years after.
The statistical lie would compare the 1930 infection rate to the rate just after the vaccine was introduced.
Comparative analysis would compare two large groups one vaccinated and one not and compare the outcome. Cleveland clinic did a study of 55,000 cases and found more vax more covid.
Its playing Vaccine Roulette where there is no COVID benefit and the documented side effects are considerable.
Its a case where the COVID VAX is taken and nothing happens or there are side effects
My first Statistics prof on first day of class wrote on Blackboard (that's how old I am): Statistics don't lie, but Liars figure Statistics.
>actually supported my position.<
Here's some "interesting" reading, especially if it's reliable...
"Shocking report in the UK finds 95% of COVID-19 deaths were among the vaccinated"
https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-12-28-shocking-report-uk-95percent-covid19-deaths-vaccinated.html
The article said: "The vaccinated population accounted for 95% of all COVID-19 deaths between January and May 2023. Despite 30% of the UK population remaining unvaccinated, vaccinated individuals disproportionately suffered."
However unvaccinated people are underrepresented in the ONS dataset for mortality by vaccination status, so in January to May of 2023 unvaccinated people accounted for only about 15.5% of total person-years: `t=fread("http://sars2.net/f/ons.csv");t[ed==9&month%like%2023&cause=="All causes"&age=="Total"&status%like%"accin",sum(pop),status]`. In the elderly age groups which account for most deaths the percentage was even lower, so for example in ages 80-89 it was only about 2.2%.
Unvaccinated people were also much younger than vaccinated people, so during the first 5 months of 2023, the average monhtly COVID ASMR per 100,000 person-years was about 86 in unvaccinated people but about 43 in vaccinated people: `t[ed==9&month%like%2023&cause=="Deaths involving COVID-19"&age=="Total"&status%like%"accin",mean(asmr),status]`.
I calculated an age-standardized hospitalization rate by vaccination status in the Czech Republic here: sars2.net/czech3.html#Age_standardized_hospitalization_rate_by_vaccination_status. In March 2021 the rate was about 8.4 times higher in unvaccinated people than vaccinated people, but it fell to about 5.0 in November 2021, 3.5 in February 2022, 1.8 in October 2022, and 1.5 in December 2023. The reason for the gradual decrease might be that unvaccinated people gained natural immunity over time, or that the protective effect of vaccination gradually wore out over time. So it's not surprising that in the ONS data by 2023 unvaccinated people would only have about twice as high COVID ASMR as vaccinated people.
In 2021 the ratio between unvaccinated COVID ASMR and vaccinated COVID ASMR was also much higher in the ONS data:
> t[ed==9&cause=="Deaths involving COVID-19"&age=="Total",.(asmrratio=asmr[status=="Unvaccinated"]/asmr[status=="Ever vaccinated"]),month]|>print(r=F)
month asmrratio
2021-04 9.347518
2021-05 8.963636
2021-06 8.593750
2021-07 9.880658
2021-08 9.291845
2021-09 6.131498
2021-10 5.661631
2021-11 6.772464
2021-12 10.702847
2022-01 5.910747
2022-02 3.571618
2022-03 2.828418
2022-04 2.223361
2022-05 2.248731
2022-06 2.436293
2022-07 2.527903
2022-08 2.216895
2022-09 1.731061
2022-10 2.059900
2022-11 1.861671
2022-12 2.166983
2023-01 2.184588
2023-02 1.923434
2023-03 1.711744
2023-04 2.106870
2023-05 2.030837
month asmrratio
Many of us got the shots after the ones with the worst quality control in the winter of 2020-21 had been given. I checked my Moderna two shots on "how bad is my batch" and the adverse consequences were not that significant however I experienced night sweats for days and I was extremely physically active at that time doing heavy lifting (100-200# logs) as well as hiking 20 or so miles a week on challenging terrain. I did get subsequent bouts of a covid like illness for a week at a time in the following couple years. You have to wonder how many people got placebos or weak batches? Most of us do a lot of reading and try to make decisions based on the best thinking out there. I've been in the natural health and healing movement since the 1970s avoiding all drugs and unhealthy inputs, and I've seen quite a bit of quackery in the natural health movement, soy foods, promotion of lean diets and vegetable oils over quality grass fed beef and butter. A butcher recently told me he found grass fed beef to be "gamy" in its taste, which I have never found; I guess we have to keep the Nebraska feedlots in business. My fraud radar/detector is quite advanced, at least I hope so. Thanks Steve for all your hard work that has saved a lot of lives! Best wishes for you in 2025.
Top article this one. Will be sharing it with some who are still in denial. In Australia, they continue to push the boosters despite a government and private inquiries which did not come up with any good news or success stories. Yesterday's local rag in my city, was a scarefest of "Covid Cases Explode". The reason, people have not gotten their six monthly boosters. Whilst we have witnessed the immediate carnage, I am still wondering what the next phase of vaccine fallout will look like. We are already seeing, the hyper aggressive cancers and heart failures. What does the long term look like, that is the big question.