Ignorance is bliss, especially for those who profit from the 'ignorance' - perhaps induced by 'secrecy at all costs' - of the watchers. I think you hit the nail on the head when you observe:
"Perhaps the minute taken has taken liberties, and no one bothered to check the text."
From experience as minute taker on many occasions I can attest to this: nobody really checks the minutes and yes, one can 'take liberties', which makes minute-taking in the context of e.g. a politically 'charged' community group hugely important if one has an agenda, especially a secret one.
"PHE informed there are a group of people being tested as they developed symptoms post vaccination."
As Professor Fenton and colleagues pointed out, this problem was easily solved by deploying the "cheap trick". You are simply counted as "unvaccinated" for a period of time. What's in a word?
Unless and until MSM takes up the lack of transparency nothing will happen. The Government has the big tactical advantage that almost all those who fell for it cannot now bring themselves to investigate what went on, or they would have to think about the dire situation in which they have placed themselves, so things may have to get much worse before they get better.
Who knew that the oldest profession was so well represented among journalists and doctors?
We did know that the last person to enter Parliament with good intentions was Guy Fawkes.
This is the problem with the whole Covid issue - decisions, and analysis, are being conducted by the ignorant.
It amazes me that the Hallett Inquiry is interviewing relatives and suffers at length but does not appear to be calling any informed medical specialists.
As for minute-takers, there's a great rhyme which my father-in-law (a company secretary) had framed on his wall:
When the Board departs at last for its dinner
The secretary stays, growing thinner and thinner;
Racking his brains to record and report
The things that he thinks that they ought to have thought.
"When the MHRA was asked if any deaths had occurred in UK patients after vaccination, they replied: “that details of all suspected reactions reported in association with approved COVID-19 vaccines would be published along with its assessment of the data on a regular basis in the future.”
The MHRA response does not answer the question being asked. I also don't believe that the UK system for reporting would ever have flagged up a potential issue as the Norwegians did.
I am aware of very frail elderly people, similar to the Norwegian patients, who generally deteriorated and then died about 3 weeks after their first Astra Zeneca vaccine in Jan 2021. Though over the years I have yellow carded a number of people who died suddenly or had other cardiovascular, neurological, autoimmune or thrombotic episodes within a plausible temporal timeframe from covid novel vaccine injection, I did not Yellow Card those particular deaths in the frail elderly for the following reasons:
1. They were not unexpected deaths- in that any infection, even a common cold, can precipitate general deterioration in elderly people living with frailty, so clusters of deaths in the frail elderly at that time of year are not extraordinary. As an illustration, in Jan 2018 (the last 'bad flu' year before the pandemic) we saw an unusual peak of deaths in that month, 2/3 of whom had frailty/dementia, but only 2/17 had influenza recorded as a cause of death - other causes were given as dementia and cardiovascular, but a viral insult was a likely potential trigger. We didn't have PCR tests in 2018. For comparison, in May 2020 we saw a similar number of deaths from all causes, the majority being deaths this time attributable to SARS-Cov2.
2. The temporal relationship was not strong. Though physiologically I do think a vaccine with marked systemic effects could be a plausible trigger for a non-specific deterioration and death 3 weeks later in a person with significant co-morbidities (just as a common cold virus can trigger a systemic response culminating in death 3 weeks later), alternative explanations are just as plausible. If those deaths had occurred within a week of injection I may have Yellow Carded them, though am still not sure I would have.
3. I considered it possible that if I Yellow-Carded such events then my other Yellow Card reports would be taken less seriously (oh that one sees vaccine injury everywhere, just ignore them...). I was also immensely aware of my own potential cognitive biases - I had never paid attention to temporal associations with flu vaccines for example - was I just seeing patterns where none existed? That being said, I can't emphasise enough how much of a taboo there was over open discussion and acknowledgement of potential negative effects of these products in 2021, which may go part way to explaining this level of paranoia, which seems odd now.
I could never personally understand why clinicians weren't more cautious about eulogizing the Good News of the 'Safe and Effectives' on the back of industry data alone, and before we actually had any experience of using them. I think it may be because the drugs had been framed as the world's (and of course the NHS's) get-out-of-lockdown-free passes, but only if everyone took them. Weirdly, this perception only strengthened by the time 'waning immunity' could no longer be ignored. The propaganda, overt censorship, and the various conflicted interests constrained not just free speech, but I think also caused clinicians to self-censor their own thoughts. In my personal opinion I believe this toxic sequence of events led to preventable injury and deaths and will be an enduring stain on our profession and on the regulatory agencies. Just look at the people who were injured or died from VITT in the UK and then consider also those people in whom temporally related AEFIs will never be officially acknowledged as causal. Many were young and fit beforehand.
A safety system that is so reliant on a clinician making a subjective decision about whether to report, that is so dependent on the clinician's own belief in the safety of the product in question and is so time-consuming (a detailed report can take a good half an hour out of the working day) is unfit for purpose. The MHRA must know this, so unless they are referring to a parallel system for detecting deaths after vaccination, it makes their response to that question on deaths appear disingenuous at best. A better answer would have been to acknowledge the limitation of their systems and admit they could not answer this particular question, at least not in a useful timeframe.
As mentioned above was the known development of lymphopenia (the depression of the numbers of white blood cells that we need to mop up other intruders) in the 2 weeks after the injections.
My understanding (I’m an interested non medic) is that makes an individual more likely to pick up an infection (any)? It almost certainly allowed the dodgy accounting - those 2 weeks counted as people being unvaccinated’ which skewed the data about the effectiveness of said vaccines & promoted those who chose not to have this stuff as granny killers. When quite the reverse was true - by having the vaccines you then became more vulnerable because of the potential development of lymphopenia to infections.(any) that finished off many unsuspecting individuals?
Until I read about what was known about lymphopenia here (thank you TTE wonderful people), I’d not understood exactly what had been going on - or may have gone on for some people - if the EWP didn’t start to pick up some of this stuff & ask questions - then how expert were they?
My head hurts, I thought I had a rudimentary grasp of transmission and antibody responses ,but now I don't think so. I don't have an oil sump own an electric car,so I am sumpless .
As I explained and referenced in my 2021 BMJ rapid response, the mmRNA-LIGAND dependent (shape of the molecule) DOWN-regulation of the immune system, can explain the mentioned EWG’s concern about the “increase in risk of disease in the short time period immediately after vaccination” and “observed deaths”.
The 2023 vaccine developers’ Nobel prize winners did not share this, when they were presented with the Nobel medal.
They made no mention that they purposefully designed the shape of the mmRNA molecule (the LIGAND effect) to dampens down the immune systems response to mmRNA.
However, this direct DRUG effect (before the action of mmRNA’s genetic sequence) can explain serious adverse drug effects (ADR) resulting in long term clinical consequences.
Vaccinating during a pandemic puts selection pressure on the virus creating a vast number of variants that evade vaccine induced antibodies .Continuing with boosters only increases this phenomenom- ..
Aside of this,I'd like to inform Carl that X is shadowbanning him - I 'follow ' his account but it doesn't appear in my X feed. Anyone else noticed the same?
Ignorance is bliss, especially for those who profit from the 'ignorance' - perhaps induced by 'secrecy at all costs' - of the watchers. I think you hit the nail on the head when you observe:
"Perhaps the minute taken has taken liberties, and no one bothered to check the text."
From experience as minute taker on many occasions I can attest to this: nobody really checks the minutes and yes, one can 'take liberties', which makes minute-taking in the context of e.g. a politically 'charged' community group hugely important if one has an agenda, especially a secret one.
"PHE informed there are a group of people being tested as they developed symptoms post vaccination."
As Professor Fenton and colleagues pointed out, this problem was easily solved by deploying the "cheap trick". You are simply counted as "unvaccinated" for a period of time. What's in a word?
Just a note to thank you for wading through these papers. I have never had much faith in the authorities. What little I had is fast disappearing.
“The EWG heard that coronavirus mutates much more slowly than the flu virus."
I distinctly remember a rapid succession of excitingly-named mutations. Was I dreaming?
Unless and until MSM takes up the lack of transparency nothing will happen. The Government has the big tactical advantage that almost all those who fell for it cannot now bring themselves to investigate what went on, or they would have to think about the dire situation in which they have placed themselves, so things may have to get much worse before they get better.
Who knew that the oldest profession was so well represented among journalists and doctors?
We did know that the last person to enter Parliament with good intentions was Guy Fawkes.
This is the problem with the whole Covid issue - decisions, and analysis, are being conducted by the ignorant.
It amazes me that the Hallett Inquiry is interviewing relatives and suffers at length but does not appear to be calling any informed medical specialists.
As for minute-takers, there's a great rhyme which my father-in-law (a company secretary) had framed on his wall:
When the Board departs at last for its dinner
The secretary stays, growing thinner and thinner;
Racking his brains to record and report
The things that he thinks that they ought to have thought.
Many a true word is spoken in jest!
The ignorance is staggering.
I think it's wilful ignorance.
"When the MHRA was asked if any deaths had occurred in UK patients after vaccination, they replied: “that details of all suspected reactions reported in association with approved COVID-19 vaccines would be published along with its assessment of the data on a regular basis in the future.”
The MHRA response does not answer the question being asked. I also don't believe that the UK system for reporting would ever have flagged up a potential issue as the Norwegians did.
I am aware of very frail elderly people, similar to the Norwegian patients, who generally deteriorated and then died about 3 weeks after their first Astra Zeneca vaccine in Jan 2021. Though over the years I have yellow carded a number of people who died suddenly or had other cardiovascular, neurological, autoimmune or thrombotic episodes within a plausible temporal timeframe from covid novel vaccine injection, I did not Yellow Card those particular deaths in the frail elderly for the following reasons:
1. They were not unexpected deaths- in that any infection, even a common cold, can precipitate general deterioration in elderly people living with frailty, so clusters of deaths in the frail elderly at that time of year are not extraordinary. As an illustration, in Jan 2018 (the last 'bad flu' year before the pandemic) we saw an unusual peak of deaths in that month, 2/3 of whom had frailty/dementia, but only 2/17 had influenza recorded as a cause of death - other causes were given as dementia and cardiovascular, but a viral insult was a likely potential trigger. We didn't have PCR tests in 2018. For comparison, in May 2020 we saw a similar number of deaths from all causes, the majority being deaths this time attributable to SARS-Cov2.
2. The temporal relationship was not strong. Though physiologically I do think a vaccine with marked systemic effects could be a plausible trigger for a non-specific deterioration and death 3 weeks later in a person with significant co-morbidities (just as a common cold virus can trigger a systemic response culminating in death 3 weeks later), alternative explanations are just as plausible. If those deaths had occurred within a week of injection I may have Yellow Carded them, though am still not sure I would have.
3. I considered it possible that if I Yellow-Carded such events then my other Yellow Card reports would be taken less seriously (oh that one sees vaccine injury everywhere, just ignore them...). I was also immensely aware of my own potential cognitive biases - I had never paid attention to temporal associations with flu vaccines for example - was I just seeing patterns where none existed? That being said, I can't emphasise enough how much of a taboo there was over open discussion and acknowledgement of potential negative effects of these products in 2021, which may go part way to explaining this level of paranoia, which seems odd now.
I could never personally understand why clinicians weren't more cautious about eulogizing the Good News of the 'Safe and Effectives' on the back of industry data alone, and before we actually had any experience of using them. I think it may be because the drugs had been framed as the world's (and of course the NHS's) get-out-of-lockdown-free passes, but only if everyone took them. Weirdly, this perception only strengthened by the time 'waning immunity' could no longer be ignored. The propaganda, overt censorship, and the various conflicted interests constrained not just free speech, but I think also caused clinicians to self-censor their own thoughts. In my personal opinion I believe this toxic sequence of events led to preventable injury and deaths and will be an enduring stain on our profession and on the regulatory agencies. Just look at the people who were injured or died from VITT in the UK and then consider also those people in whom temporally related AEFIs will never be officially acknowledged as causal. Many were young and fit beforehand.
A safety system that is so reliant on a clinician making a subjective decision about whether to report, that is so dependent on the clinician's own belief in the safety of the product in question and is so time-consuming (a detailed report can take a good half an hour out of the working day) is unfit for purpose. The MHRA must know this, so unless they are referring to a parallel system for detecting deaths after vaccination, it makes their response to that question on deaths appear disingenuous at best. A better answer would have been to acknowledge the limitation of their systems and admit they could not answer this particular question, at least not in a useful timeframe.
You mean you couldn't call for an LNP panel???? How about those markers that were for "investigational use only".
Can't imagine why you were having a problem.....
As mentioned above was the known development of lymphopenia (the depression of the numbers of white blood cells that we need to mop up other intruders) in the 2 weeks after the injections.
My understanding (I’m an interested non medic) is that makes an individual more likely to pick up an infection (any)? It almost certainly allowed the dodgy accounting - those 2 weeks counted as people being unvaccinated’ which skewed the data about the effectiveness of said vaccines & promoted those who chose not to have this stuff as granny killers. When quite the reverse was true - by having the vaccines you then became more vulnerable because of the potential development of lymphopenia to infections.(any) that finished off many unsuspecting individuals?
Until I read about what was known about lymphopenia here (thank you TTE wonderful people), I’d not understood exactly what had been going on - or may have gone on for some people - if the EWP didn’t start to pick up some of this stuff & ask questions - then how expert were they?
And how come we all got done over?
My head hurts, I thought I had a rudimentary grasp of transmission and antibody responses ,but now I don't think so. I don't have an oil sump own an electric car,so I am sumpless .
stumped?
Sump or slump? Maybe a typo.
As I explained and referenced in my 2021 BMJ rapid response, the mmRNA-LIGAND dependent (shape of the molecule) DOWN-regulation of the immune system, can explain the mentioned EWG’s concern about the “increase in risk of disease in the short time period immediately after vaccination” and “observed deaths”.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n3079/rr-0
The 2023 vaccine developers’ Nobel prize winners did not share this, when they were presented with the Nobel medal.
They made no mention that they purposefully designed the shape of the mmRNA molecule (the LIGAND effect) to dampens down the immune systems response to mmRNA.
However, this direct DRUG effect (before the action of mmRNA’s genetic sequence) can explain serious adverse drug effects (ADR) resulting in long term clinical consequences.
Vaccinating during a pandemic puts selection pressure on the virus creating a vast number of variants that evade vaccine induced antibodies .Continuing with boosters only increases this phenomenom- ..
Aside of this,I'd like to inform Carl that X is shadowbanning him - I 'follow ' his account but it doesn't appear in my X feed. Anyone else noticed the same?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh BRAVO!!!!! The last paragraph is the BEST!!!