This publication it has turned out is just a money laundering scam? 

"Believe me, I take no pleasure in rubbing your collective noses in this, because virtually all my family, extended family, close friends, work colleagues and 96% of the people I know (according to government data, about 95% of eligible Victorians took the Covid vaxes), they all took these substances. I desperately wish all this information was false "



What information? You literally posted an ambiguous statement from a bad new source saying 'it could be partly to blame' and 'it needs to be investigated'

I know in the past a lack of actual evidence hasn't stopped you from believing in something before but this is ridiculous. 

No comment on this debunking? Just ignore any contrary information that doesn't suit your narrative? Just hope I'll forget and it'll go away? Move onto the next idiotic thing you want to post from some ridiculous website that also covers lizard people and child sex trafficking rings from basements under pizza shops?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9743686/

Discussion

Our findings, based on a large population of more than 20 million people, demonstrated that myocarditis occurred in about 0.2 out of 1000 patients who experienced and survived COVID-19 infection. Moreover, after COVID-19 recovery, subjects had a significantly higher risk of myocarditis within 1 year from the index infection. To the best of our knowledge, the present analysis represents the first attempt to comprehensively assess the risk of incident myocarditis in the post-acute phase of COVID-19 subjects. Currently, long COVID represents a worldwide epidemic, caused by long-lasting multiorgan involvement, including the cardiovascular system, that endures for weeks or months after the index SARS-CoV-2 infection has already subsided.¹⁵ Our results demonstrate that the incidence rate of myocarditis among survivors of COVID-19 is 2-fold higher than that observed in nonvaccinated subjects with COVID-related myocarditis in a recent study by Barda et al. (21 vs 11 cases per 100,000 individuals).¹⁶ Of note, in that analysis, 2 contemporary series of subjects (vaccinated and nonvaccinated) were followed for 42 days after the administration of the first dose of mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

I confess, you got me rattled there for a moment. But I took the trouble to check the actual article.

The key quotation is: "Whilst rare, all myocarditis and pericarditis events during the study period occurred in vaccinated individuals".

I found the location of that quote by searching the full-text of the article for the word "rare".

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.20.24306810v1.full-text

Muz, I credit you with fighting hard to maintain your ignorance. That's how it is with people like you throughout recorded history. People like you form the bulk of the population.

I suggest you read the discussion and conclusion of your linked article. 

In line with you trusting the system, ignoring money-corruption at all levels .... you have not seen the pattern of these journal articles on vaccines. The article will point to data of dangers, and then insert a statement that vaccines are ok.

That's because -- as we have seen in several cases -- any doctor that goes against the vaccine program will lose their job. University professors get sacked or slandered. So they insert a "save me" sentence, usually at the conclusion. But the data speaks for itself.

Here is today's news:

https://www.gbnews.com/health/covid-vaccine-side-effects-deaths

For the adults, this is an interesting listen about big pharma role etc and lobby groups, things that happen behind the scenes 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbWnEK7aTRA&ab_channel=NewYorkTimesPodcasts

So you link studies and papers but if they disagree with you they're not to be trusted? Have I got that right?

Peer reviewed studies OK if JS agrees with conclusion.....
Peer reviewed studies NOT OK if JS doesn't agree with conclusion.

Interesting.

Do you ever read your posted links? Genuine question.

Context matters 

It must be stressed that adverse events following Covid vaccination remain vanishingly rare and the benefits must be weighed against the risks.

More than 13.5 billion doses of Covid vaccines have been administered globally over the past three years, saving over one million lives in Europe alone.

The largest study of its kind ever carried out in the UK found that 7,180 of the 40,393 hospitalisations and deaths from COVID-19 could have been avoided had the population been fully vaccinated.

The safety of the vaccines has been extensively reviewed in both adults and children by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). And, given the vital protection that they offer against successive variants, NHS England is urging at-risk groups to get vaccinated against COVID-19 this spring.




And this last bit. Perfectly fine and reasonable to look into. No objection from my end.

Nevertheless, they conclude: “Excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of COVID-19 containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. This is unprecedented and raises serious concerns.

“Government leaders and policy makers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality and evaluate their health crisis policies.”

"Katie Lees, 34, took the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in July 2021, driven by her desire to 'do her bit' to help bring lockdown to an end. But just 13 days later her family were forced to make the harrowing decision to turn off her life support. Ms Lees ... had suffered a severe vaccine-induced blood clot in her brain."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13512289/Katie-Lees-AstraZeneca-vaccine-died.html

Some people scoff at this and say that young people dying happens all the time, and that it was a coincidence. When my friend's brother died 2 days after the jab, they said it was a coincidence. When my relative died 2 days after the jab, they said it was a coincidence. And even when they are told that the Pfizer document, forced out by Pfizer under Freedom of Information, says that the average latency of stroke after the jab is 2 days, most people still dismiss it.

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

When Melbourne man, Peter Lee, a mechanic from Box Hill, had a stroke 2 days after the Pfizer, TGA refused to give him compensation because they said it was a coincidence.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/melbourne-mechanic-suffers-stroke-two-days-after-pfizer-vaccine-doctors-say-cause-unknown/news-story/9832c32659dce2118dccfb7d68f8ebbd

I have accepted that the vast majority of people will never come around to even bothering to examine the evidence.

https://sciprofiles.com/publication/view/5a4999c7d7302813b67861f0bf644a75

Let's take the Abstract of this paper from Queensland University, sentence by sentence:

"The haste and scale of development, production, and distribution of these new pharmaceuticals is unprecedented in history."

Comment: you lot took a new technology gene-substance, that usually takes up to and around a decade to test - and you took the rushed vaccines - because you trusted your GPs.

"Key phase III clinical trials for these products are yet to be fully completed, despite administration to billions of people."

Comment: not only were the MRNA Covid vaccines rushed, to date they still have not yet completed Phase III trials. You mob were the Phase III trials.

"Mass vaccination of workforces has been mandated, and vaccine mandates correlate with excess mortality."

Comment: here they are reiterating the data from around the world that the increase in deaths coincided with the vaccine rollouts.

"Many independent data sets concur - we have experienced a pandemic of viral illness, followed by a pandemic of vaccine injury."

Comment: Note the phrase, "a pandemic of vaccine injury". And yet, the average village-bloke on a football website mocks and jeers at this notion of a mass wave of vaccine injuries.

"For Australia, matters have operated the other way around. Vaccination followed later by the main viral wave. Australian excess mortality data correlates with this."

Comment: this shows the vaxes did not work. After the vaccines, then the wave of sicknesses occurred. And then a wave of excess deaths.

"Neither risk nor cost can justify these products for the vast majority of people. Lack of efficacy against infection and transmission, and the equivalent benefits of natural immunity, obviate mandatory therapeutics."

Comment: you guys took the vaxes because you felt the risk of Covid was worth taking this new drugs. These researchers said: no, it wasn't worth the risk, based on the data.

"With the many gene-based pharmaceuticals planned, a new era of pathology lies ahead."

Comment: they're predicting lots of people getting sick in the future based on these gene-based pharmaceuticals. You guys are the ones driving the profits of Big Pharma into genetic modification of your own cells.

"We should pause, reflect, and reaffirm essential freedoms, welcome the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, embrace natural immunity, and lift all mandated medical therapy."

Those of you of the age of having children, an interesting study reviewed by Dr John Campbell correlating sperm motility and vaccine rollouts.

https://youtu.be/EHQCy0jighQ?

The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised” (Job 1:21)

lol hahah

Notice the difference in approach between a truth-seeker versus those that the Bible refers to as mockers.

tsf, when you write "lol hahah" you are intentionally using mocking as a weapon against those who disagree with you. Whereas there are other people in life who focus entirely on facts and evidence. Don't search for such people in your circle of friends, since the majority of people in life do not operate based on facts and evidence, but instead as a sheep - following those that they trust.

Facts and figures? Or merely speculative interpretation?

“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40).

I was laughing cause it was a witty line. 

Take stock of what was in your heart when you asked: "Or merely speculative interpretation"?

Were you attacking me (even mildly) to discredit me? Or are you seriously inquiring - how do we tell the difference between someone who respects facts/figures versus someone who just speculates?

The answer is: you test it by people's actions in their reaction to being presented with information.

We'll use, as an example, the phrase that become so popular in the Media, namely: "correlation does not equal causation".

You test this by seeing what the person does AFTER they say that.

Two parallel examples.

Example 1:

Person A asserts that if people drive faster than 150kmph on suburban side streets during school hours, it results in higher number of accidents. Politician B retorts that "correlation does not equal causation", then after that, does nothing. That would show they were merely using the "correlation/causation" statement to shut up Person A. But if the Politician B, realising that there was indeed a correlation - but which may, or may not equate to causation -- then he arranges tests and finds data of both scenarios, slow and fast driving, to scientifically find out if there is a link between high driving speeds and pedestrian mortality.

Example 2:

Person A asserts that the data points to MRNA vaccines leading to higher death rates in the population, compared to historical benchmarks. Politicians, government doctors and Media (B) retorts that "correlation does not equal causation", then after that, does nothing. That would show they were merely using the "correlation/causation" statement to shut up Person A. There has been no interest to create scientific tests to find out if the MRNA vaccines were responsible for the increase in deaths. Instead, there has been character-assassination of those doctors pointing to data that equates the deaths with MRNA vaccines, and threats of doctors being stripped of their licences if they criticise the system. Why not scientifically examine the data that these doctors are pointing to, rather than threaten them with losing their medical licences?

The average bloke in the street - and this includes highly qualified PhD and credentialed people - do not generally think like this. For the average bloke, if the Mainstream Media says something is a "conspiracy theory", then the average bloke shuts their ears.

One way to test how you, and your friends are - in respect of seeking truth - is how they handled the issue of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. In 2020 just weeks before the U.S. Election, 51 senior heads of intelligence agencies signed a joint letter saying they believed the laptop was Russian disinformation. For the bulk of my friends, that was enough. Facebook and Twitter banned the story from their platforms, and Google probably shadow banned it. Now, in 2024, we have the U.S. Department of Justice using the laptop as evidence in court, saying it is true. If you (NicCarBel) have not even heard of the Hunter Biden laptop issue - which many of my friends haven't -- and you still follow the Media's narrative against conservative politicians -- then, I don't care how many university degrees you have, but you'd be among the educated-sheep that make up every society who just go with the majority without thinking ... and put up standard arguments to insult those who attempt to investigate the evidence.

See if YOU pass the test.

Here's an article that cites papers that have data. Enjoy.

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-publication-covid-19-vaccines

"Compared to influenza vaccines given over 34 years, COVID-19 vaccines in 36 months of use had over 1,000-fold increased risk of most blood clot events, and compared to all vaccines combined administered over 34 years, this risk remained at over 200-times greater with COVID-19 vaccination."

Here's another:

"The US government agencies and big pharma are not funding research on what happens to the COVID-19 vaccines and their Spike protein products once injected into the body. "
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/lab-finds-mrna-derived-spike-protein?

i.e. they're not doing research because they don't want to uncover data that would incriminate them for forcing 95% of the population to take something that they prove to be deadly.

I don't need to pass shit, unless I'm in the bathroom, because you've already failed your own test. Whenever you're presented with any information, your view is just ignore, and say the opposite.

"actions in their reaction to being presented with information."

deleted. transferred to "dropping like flies" thread.