To make a point: Why were there reports from Norway early on at the beginning of the vaccination campaign in January 2021 of elderly in nursing homes who died just around their primary shots? You know: This is exactly the group of high risk people you are talking about. And these news were not the only ones in the world. I understand your way of thinking, but I am not convinced.
Remember I have always been cautious of stimulating the immune system when the virus triggers an overactive immune response.
However, since they put the population in the position of no early treatment, the only way forward was the vaccine. Therefore, who would have the most benefit, even if limited, was the question.
As far as I can remember, there were 17 deaths post injection 1 in Norway, in a single nursing home at that time. I watched the "health correspondent" (geezus) of our national propagandists (RTE) report on it, and their reassuring message to the public was that the deaths were among those who were "old and frail ". I shit you not.
Now, I have a couple of issues with this. As you said, if it was this cohort the injection was supposed to save, why didn't the jab keep them alive. Also, why was it acceptable that the "old and frail" died post vaccination but not acceptable that this particular age group were dying from Covid in large numbers, especially in nursing homes, forcing everyone else into lock downs and jab mandates?
Perhaps I did not express myself correctly: That‘s exactly what I was always thinking. I still doubt that the shots did a benefit for the „old and frail“. Perhaps in the first couple of months - that‘s what I saw in our hospital. But - what contradicts to this: what about this exact group of elderly dying soon after the shots? All this doesn‘t make any sense to me.
Phillip.....Now I know luck could hve been on their side, but could you or someone give me simple answer to my questions please.
1.The original study that gave the 95 percent, was based on the number of reduced infections.
But since this and any vax has never been able to stimulate the mucosal system, how is this measurement even possible.
2. If boosters were required to maintain protection, is this not proof that it never created B cell immunity in the recipients, something I thought was a requirement in any Vax
Re the study Im not convinced of any benefits these days, given how skewed the data has been collected, but maybe Im just in black hole, unable to see the light
The original study was a 95% relative risk reduction. Meaning in the study of 40,000 people, the placebo was about 160 reduced to 10 infections with the vaccine.
However an injectable vaccine will stimulate systemic immunity, not mucosal.
Additionally, the vaccine had too strong an effect and the immune system is still producing antibodies mainly to the original virus, not the updated variants.
This I understand.......relative risk etc......but the study to get to the 95 percent, was based on relative infections, and not outcomes. The innate immune system, whether stimulated or not can only make a difference to outcomes, such as duration of illness or severity.
These were not the endpoints that were measured, so I submit my original question, unless my understanding of mucosal stimulas is incorrect
Dr. Norman Fenton has a brilliant video where he shows by delaying vaccinated status by two weeks (which they did) even a placebo is 95% effective, then 90%, then 85% etc. Until it is time for a "booster".
Dear Dr. McMillan. I came across two interresting graphs at CDC. Would you mind to take a look?
https://www.cdc.gov/resp-net/dashboard/ shows a significant rise in C19 infection related hospitalizations and additionally https://www.cdc.gov/nwss/index.html (set it to 'all results' over time that is) states a nationally 'very high' virus load in wastewater at this time - in the middle of summer. I don't want to 'cry wolf' but i do wonder if there is something going on.
BTW thank you very much for your work, I do appreciate it much.
Since I am no paying subscriber I let you know this way, it belongs to your latest article. It surely will interest you, since the paper states a 3 % (sic) fatality rate in vaccinees. I am speechless... Quote: "Conclusions - The vaccination-related mortality rate stands at approximately 3 % of those who received the vaccine, with the majority of cases occurring among individuals under the age of 60, who were not hospitalized and had received their initial vaccine dose."
There is not one drop of proof that it was the vaccine and no other factor that saved anyone. They point to number of vaccinated deaths vs number of unvaccinated deaths. They do not factor in the exposure factor. The vaccinated were locked down. The unvaccinated were the working class who could not work from home.
What study link can you provided me that demonstates the benefit, other than the ones that simply quote numbers of cases of the two groups. Those studies fail to take exposure into account, which according to the efficacy rules m ust be included. Eighty percent of the population was locked down out of harms way. Twenty percent could not work from home. The overwhelming amount of cases, documented in Britain, and talked about in the U.S. were the working class who did not lock down. In the US, at the end of April 2020, media quoted the death rate of the vaccinated at 2 percent, without stating the difference for the unvaccinated. It was 1.82 percent. It was less. Does the vaccine lower immunity?
From what I have seen in the last few years….strokes, heart attacks, late stage cancers, cancer reoccurrence, myocarditis, tinnitus…..and that is just in the group of people I know, something is not right with what I presume is the vaccines but nobody is looking into it.
You are 100% right, in 2021 the vaccine thing became very political especially here in Canada with our PM totally losing his marbles just for cheap political gain…..and then so many of the public followed his lead vilifying anybody that dared to even ask a question, never mind refuse a jab.
Had the question of why just the spike protein was targeted ever answered adequately or why methylated pseudo uridine was swapped into the vaccine without any further testing?
Dear Phillip, I am very suspicious of any study that shows that the vaccine saved lives. As some of your other commenters pointed out, how come Steve Kirsch's research shows huge increases in mortality in nursing homes just after the vaccine rollout. Also when you listen to the stories being recorded by CHD of what happened to the unvaccinated older people who went to hospital with covid or caught it there, it is as if the hospitals were trying to kill them. I know you have to be balanced, and I know we all need to remain scientific and open minded, but honestly I smell a rat. Plus if they had kept following the cohorts studied for a much longer period, I wonder whether the results might have been reversed due to horrific side effects from the vaccine causing deaths...
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think anyone can survive these injections. If the adverse reactions don’t kill them the coming immune escape virus will. We are at the beginning of what could be called a mass extinction event and there is nothing we can do stop it.
Still waiting for the actual.physical, non computer generated gnome. If there was no virus, only toxins, it could appear older female population more endangered
To make a point: Why were there reports from Norway early on at the beginning of the vaccination campaign in January 2021 of elderly in nursing homes who died just around their primary shots? You know: This is exactly the group of high risk people you are talking about. And these news were not the only ones in the world. I understand your way of thinking, but I am not convinced.
Remember I have always been cautious of stimulating the immune system when the virus triggers an overactive immune response.
However, since they put the population in the position of no early treatment, the only way forward was the vaccine. Therefore, who would have the most benefit, even if limited, was the question.
As far as I can remember, there were 17 deaths post injection 1 in Norway, in a single nursing home at that time. I watched the "health correspondent" (geezus) of our national propagandists (RTE) report on it, and their reassuring message to the public was that the deaths were among those who were "old and frail ". I shit you not.
Now, I have a couple of issues with this. As you said, if it was this cohort the injection was supposed to save, why didn't the jab keep them alive. Also, why was it acceptable that the "old and frail" died post vaccination but not acceptable that this particular age group were dying from Covid in large numbers, especially in nursing homes, forcing everyone else into lock downs and jab mandates?
Since the Elderly most likely are collecting Old Age Government Payments it benefits the Government if many of them pass away.
Agreed. They needed to be taken off the payroll.
Perhaps I did not express myself correctly: That‘s exactly what I was always thinking. I still doubt that the shots did a benefit for the „old and frail“. Perhaps in the first couple of months - that‘s what I saw in our hospital. But - what contradicts to this: what about this exact group of elderly dying soon after the shots? All this doesn‘t make any sense to me.
What do you mean by: „I shit you not“??
Phillip.....Now I know luck could hve been on their side, but could you or someone give me simple answer to my questions please.
1.The original study that gave the 95 percent, was based on the number of reduced infections.
But since this and any vax has never been able to stimulate the mucosal system, how is this measurement even possible.
2. If boosters were required to maintain protection, is this not proof that it never created B cell immunity in the recipients, something I thought was a requirement in any Vax
Re the study Im not convinced of any benefits these days, given how skewed the data has been collected, but maybe Im just in black hole, unable to see the light
The original study was a 95% relative risk reduction. Meaning in the study of 40,000 people, the placebo was about 160 reduced to 10 infections with the vaccine.
However an injectable vaccine will stimulate systemic immunity, not mucosal.
Additionally, the vaccine had too strong an effect and the immune system is still producing antibodies mainly to the original virus, not the updated variants.
This I understand.......relative risk etc......but the study to get to the 95 percent, was based on relative infections, and not outcomes. The innate immune system, whether stimulated or not can only make a difference to outcomes, such as duration of illness or severity.
These were not the endpoints that were measured, so I submit my original question, unless my understanding of mucosal stimulas is incorrect
Dr. Norman Fenton has a brilliant video where he shows by delaying vaccinated status by two weeks (which they did) even a placebo is 95% effective, then 90%, then 85% etc. Until it is time for a "booster".
I'm sure that you already know, but the claimed 95% was really only 0.84% when using actual risk, rather than relative risk.
I'm instantly sceptical of all research that claims any benefit to the pfizertoxin*, as we know that the bastards always lie.
*Collectively all brands of jab juice.
Dear Dr. McMillan. I came across two interresting graphs at CDC. Would you mind to take a look?
https://www.cdc.gov/resp-net/dashboard/ shows a significant rise in C19 infection related hospitalizations and additionally https://www.cdc.gov/nwss/index.html (set it to 'all results' over time that is) states a nationally 'very high' virus load in wastewater at this time - in the middle of summer. I don't want to 'cry wolf' but i do wonder if there is something going on.
BTW thank you very much for your work, I do appreciate it much.
Kindest regards
Excellent link.
Certainly look into this.
Since I am no paying subscriber I let you know this way, it belongs to your latest article. It surely will interest you, since the paper states a 3 % (sic) fatality rate in vaccinees. I am speechless... Quote: "Conclusions - The vaccination-related mortality rate stands at approximately 3 % of those who received the vaccine, with the majority of cases occurring among individuals under the age of 60, who were not hospitalized and had received their initial vaccine dose."
"Evaluation of the effects of MERCK, MODERNA, PFIZER/BioNTech, and JANSSEN COVID-19 vaccines on vaccinated people: A metadata analysis" in "Informatics in medicine unlocked", Elsevier, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352914824001205
Sorry for bothering you, kindest regards.
Phillip.
Your doing a great job with the covid vaccine awareness.
I await your every post. Your guests are top notch. I pay for GVB info.
I hope GVB is wrong about mass death just around the corner. But my gut says he is going to end up being a Prophet.
Thank you.
GVB is most probably correct, but it is not clear when this happens.
There is not one drop of proof that it was the vaccine and no other factor that saved anyone. They point to number of vaccinated deaths vs number of unvaccinated deaths. They do not factor in the exposure factor. The vaccinated were locked down. The unvaccinated were the working class who could not work from home.
It is important to remain balanced in thinking.
The problem was not that vaccines didn't bring benefit to the high risk cohort, but that they were overused broadly in the population.
There are still risks and adverse effects that also have to be considered.
What study link can you provided me that demonstates the benefit, other than the ones that simply quote numbers of cases of the two groups. Those studies fail to take exposure into account, which according to the efficacy rules m ust be included. Eighty percent of the population was locked down out of harms way. Twenty percent could not work from home. The overwhelming amount of cases, documented in Britain, and talked about in the U.S. were the working class who did not lock down. In the US, at the end of April 2020, media quoted the death rate of the vaccinated at 2 percent, without stating the difference for the unvaccinated. It was 1.82 percent. It was less. Does the vaccine lower immunity?
From what I have seen in the last few years….strokes, heart attacks, late stage cancers, cancer reoccurrence, myocarditis, tinnitus…..and that is just in the group of people I know, something is not right with what I presume is the vaccines but nobody is looking into it.
You are 100% right, in 2021 the vaccine thing became very political especially here in Canada with our PM totally losing his marbles just for cheap political gain…..and then so many of the public followed his lead vilifying anybody that dared to even ask a question, never mind refuse a jab.
Had the question of why just the spike protein was targeted ever answered adequately or why methylated pseudo uridine was swapped into the vaccine without any further testing?
one
Agreed. I have yet to see ANY evidence that the shot actually saved ANY lives.
Hello Dr. McMillan,
could you please share your understanding regarding "Endotoxin content of Pfizer Multiple Myeloma Jab Elrexfio"
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/endotoxin-content-of-pfizer-multiple?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1264116&post_id=148063459&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=squl4&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
My preliminary research suggests that many medications and vaccines can trigger cytokine production.
https://swaresearch.blogspot.com/2024/08/what-medication-or-vaccination-triggers.html
I would appreciate your answer.
SWA
Dear Phillip, I am very suspicious of any study that shows that the vaccine saved lives. As some of your other commenters pointed out, how come Steve Kirsch's research shows huge increases in mortality in nursing homes just after the vaccine rollout. Also when you listen to the stories being recorded by CHD of what happened to the unvaccinated older people who went to hospital with covid or caught it there, it is as if the hospitals were trying to kill them. I know you have to be balanced, and I know we all need to remain scientific and open minded, but honestly I smell a rat. Plus if they had kept following the cohorts studied for a much longer period, I wonder whether the results might have been reversed due to horrific side effects from the vaccine causing deaths...
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think anyone can survive these injections. If the adverse reactions don’t kill them the coming immune escape virus will. We are at the beginning of what could be called a mass extinction event and there is nothing we can do stop it.
time difference for me on your disease X talk. Will you be posting it later.? Thanks for all your work.
Still waiting for the actual.physical, non computer generated gnome. If there was no virus, only toxins, it could appear older female population more endangered