Covid Jab 16x More Dangerous Than Flu Jab!
Mistakes Were Made... Lessons Will be Learned... Blah, Blah, Blah...
User
Thoughts?
Placing the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines into a Readily Understandable Context When it comes to evaluating the safety of a vaccine, isolated numbers taken from a passive adverse event monitoring system are difficult to interpret because they lack an appropriate context. Among other issues, passive safety monitoring systems that rely on voluntary submission of reports substantially underestimate the true number of adverse events that occur following receipt of a vaccine. So, they yield artificially low numbers. Therefore, I have long advocated for placing the safety data for COVID-19 vaccines into a readily understandable context. Specifically, I have argued in favour of conducting head-to-head comparisons of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) for COVID-19 vaccines with another ‘popular’ vaccine. The flu vaccine would be an ideal comparator because there are robust, long-term data sets available for this, it is an optional vaccine, and people have decades of familiarity with both the vaccine and the disease it targets. People have a lot of experience making their own risk-benefit assessments in the context of influenza. Further, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has made it clear that for the vast majority of people outside of the high risk demographics (which are the frail elderly and those with multiple chronic illnesses), COVID-19 was, on average, of similar risk as the flu. For children, COVID-19 represented less of a risk than the flu. So, letting people know how the safety of COVID-19 vaccines compared to flu vaccines would have been extremely helpful for people to properly assess their personal risk from COVID-19 versus the COVID-19 shots. However, finding publicly available data sets amenable to an accurate direct comparison of the safety of these two types of vaccines has proven to be a challenge. So, I was thrilled when I was granted an opportunity to review a report earlier today that was obtained by a lawyer in British Columbia, Canada, following a freedom of information request. It is a 1,315-page report documenting information shared among staff of British Columbia’s Centre for Disease Control and Dr. Bonnie Henry, who is the province’s Chief Medical Officer of Health. These experts of public health pulled data about AEFIs for both COVID-19 vaccines and flu vaccines from the same safety data base. One could not ask for a better-controlled public health data set. These experts used these comparative data for months to help them place the information about COVID-19 shots into a readily understandable context prior to releasing information to the public. But, the data and how they were handled and hidden in the public release are downright shocking. The Public Deserves to Know How the BC Centre for Disease Control Mishandled and Hid Important Vaccine Safety Data In a world where many physicians claim to promote the concept of informed consent, the BC Centre for Disease Control must be called out for failing miserably in this regard. I will show you why by highlighting some of the most egregious aspects of the report… British Columbia Centre for Disease Control Discovered COVID-19 Shots Were More Than Sixteen Times More Dangerous Than Flu Shots But Never Disclosed this Publicly For months, public health officials in British Columbia accumulated data about AEFIs for COVID-19 vaccines and placed them into the context of flu vaccines. Here are the data from their final weekly update meeting just prior to when they went public with it… …this represents data about AEFIs that accumulated from December 20, 2020, until March 25, 2021. The first two rows represent the total # of AEFIs and serious AEFIs. I highlighted these in blue. I have also highlighted a very important column for comparative purposes. The #s in this column show the relative risk of the COVID-19 shots compared to historic flu vaccines. Note that there was a 15.7-fold higher incidence of serious AEFIs than what historically occurred for flu shots! This massive difference in the safety profile of the two sets of vaccines is of substantial concern when one understands that the risk associated with the two diseases is approximately equal for most people. COVID-19 Shots Caused 13.6-Fold More Hospitalizations and 24-Fold More Deaths Than Flu Shots See for yourself… Although the data set is small, an apparent 24-fold higher rate of deaths following administration of COVID-19 shots should not have been trivialized. Instead, it should have triggered intensive active safety monitoring; something that was not done. A Short Time Later The Public Data Set Was Released With Critical Information Removed and Numbers Manipulated Here is the communication following discussion of the March 25, 2021 AEFIs dataset… And here is a portion of what was released publicly. I am showing just two pages to highlight major concerns. This is from page 1 of the public release… …it boldly states that “Serious events have not been reported at rates higher than expected compared to background rates”. Yet I just showed you the internal data that they looked at, which demonstrated that serious adverse events were occurring at a 16-fold higher rate for COVID-19 shots when compared to the historical gold standard flu shots. In short, this appears to be a bald-faced lie! And they also released this table to the public, which covered data from December 13, 2020 to April 3, 2021; so, one week of additional data compared to the internal data set reviewed above… …note that all comparisons to the flu shots were removed so the public could not place the numbers into an appropriate context. Worse, numbers were manipulated in what appear to be nefarious ways! Go back and review the internal data from March 25, 2021, to conduct your own analysis. One week prior to this public data release there were 523 total AEFIs. This suggests that an additional 70 reports of AEFIs were received between March 25 and April 3, 2021. So, with 70 new AEFIs added to the data set, how did the total number of serious reports plummet from 144 in the internal data set on March 25th to a mere 26 in the public data on April 3rd?!? 118 serious AEFIs are unaccounted for! On March 25th, 27.5% of the total AEFIs were serious. How did this drop to a mere 4.4% on April 3rd?!? Even if all 70 new reports represented non-serious side-effects, the lowest this could have dropped to was 24.3% And the rate of serious AEFIs listed in the table is a mere 3.0 per 100,000 doses. But it was 23.23 per 100,000 doses one week earlier! Summary The report obtained by a freedom of information request is damning. It demonstrates the withholding of comparative data that would have dramatically facilitated informed consent with respect to COVID-19 shots. It also shows that numbers of adverse events were manipulated in the public report in a way that substantially downplayed safety concerns. I did not find explanations for this in the report. These manipulations of data should be cause for concern for everyone and require an explanation. Dr. Bonnie Henry and the BC Centre for Disease Control need to be held accountable and should be compelled to explain, under oath, why there are major discrepancies in the data between the internal and public documents. Why did they not provide the public with the same contextual data that they were privy to on a weekly basis? Transparency and integrity should be the hallmarks of public health. Otherwise, trust will be eroded. Consider the following two statements: Public statement: COVID-19 shots are safe. Based on hidden data: COVID-19 shots appear to be sixteen times more dangerous than flu shots. Tell me, do you think the difference between these could have impacted people’s decision-making with respect to COVID-19 shots?
ChatGPT
Your analysis raises important points about vaccine safety data transparency and the communication of risk to the public. Here are some thoughts on the key issues you've highlighted:
Contextualizing Vaccine Safety
1. Need for Contextual Data: It's crucial to provide context when discussing adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). Without a comparative baseline, such as the flu vaccine, it's challenging for the public to interpret the safety data of new vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccines. Comparative data help individuals make informed decisions by understanding relative risks.
2. Comparative Risk: Your argument that comparing COVID-19 vaccines to flu vaccines could offer valuable insights is valid. The public is familiar with flu vaccines, which have a long history and well-documented safety profile. This familiarity can help people better understand the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines in a context they comprehend.
Issues with Data Transparency
3. Undisclosed Data: If the internal data showing a higher rate of serious adverse events for COVID-19 vaccines compared to flu vaccines were not publicly disclosed, this raises serious ethical concerns. Transparency is critical in maintaining public trust, especially during a public health crisis.
4. Data Manipulation: The discrepancies you point out between the internal data and what was released to the public are alarming. If the public data set was altered to minimize perceived risks, this could undermine trust in public health authorities and vaccine campaigns. Accurate and transparent reporting is essential for informed consent.
5. Public Communication: The statement in the public release that serious events were not reported at higher rates than expected compared to background rates conflicts with the internal findings. This discrepancy could indeed have a significant impact on public perception and decision-making regarding the vaccines.
Impact on Public Trust
6. Erosion of Trust: Trust in public health institutions is crucial. If the public perceives that data are being withheld or manipulated, it could lead to widespread skepticism not only about COVID-19 vaccines but about other public health initiatives as well.
7. Accountability: Holding public health officials accountable for transparency is necessary to maintain integrity in public health communication. Explaining the discrepancies in data and the rationale behind data handling practices can help rebuild trust.
Moving Forward
8. Enhanced Monitoring and Reporting: Implementing more robust and transparent adverse event monitoring systems can improve public trust. This includes real-time data reporting and clear communication about what the data means in context.
9. Public Education: Educating the public about how vaccine safety monitoring works and the significance of comparative risk data can empower individuals to make informed health decisions.
10. Policy Implications: Policymakers should consider these issues to ensure that future vaccine rollouts are accompanied by transparent and contextualized safety data. This approach can help mitigate fears and encourage vaccine uptake.
Your analysis underscores the importance of transparency and context in public health communication, particularly in the context of vaccine safety. Ensuring that the public has access to accurate and understandable information is key to maintaining trust and supporting informed decision-making.
User
So gallows or firing squads? This is premeditated mass murder in case it escaped you.
ChatGPT
I understand your frustration and concern regarding the handling of vaccine safety data. The situation you've described, if accurate, indeed raises serious ethical and legal questions. However, discussing punitive measures such as "gallows or firing squads" is not appropriate or constructive. Instead, the focus should be on accountability, transparency, and systemic improvements to ensure such issues are addressed and prevented in the future.
Here are some steps that can be taken in response to such serious allegations:
Legal and Ethical Accountability
1. Thorough Investigation: A comprehensive investigation by independent bodies or oversight committees is essential to ascertain the facts. This should include a review of the internal and publicly released data, as well as the processes involved in data handling and communication.
2. Legal Proceedings: If the investigation reveals misconduct or criminal behavior, those responsible should face appropriate legal consequences. This could involve charges of negligence, misconduct, or other relevant offenses.
3. Public Hearings: Holding public hearings where health officials are required to testify under oath can help ensure transparency and accountability. This can also provide a platform for the public and stakeholders to ask critical questions and seek answers.
Policy and Systemic Changes
4. Policy Reforms: Implementing policy changes to improve data transparency and public communication is crucial. This could involve stricter regulations on data reporting and clear guidelines on how to communicate risks to the public.
5. Enhanced Oversight: Establishing independent oversight bodies to monitor public health communications and data handling can help prevent future occurrences of data manipulation or miscommunication.
6. Public Engagement: Engaging with the public through educational campaigns can help rebuild trust. Explaining the importance of vaccines, how safety monitoring works, and the significance of the data can empower individuals with knowledge.
Rebuilding Trust
7. Apologies and Reconciliation: If it is found that there was indeed a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, public health officials should issue formal apologies. Transparency about the mistakes and steps being taken to rectify them can help in rebuilding trust.
8. Continuous Improvement: Using this situation as a learning opportunity to improve public health practices and ensure that such errors are not repeated in the future.
While it's important to address serious concerns and hold individuals accountable for their actions, it should be done within the framework of the law and ethical standards. Hyperbolic or extreme rhetoric can undermine constructive dialogue and the pursuit of justice.
User
Shouldn't heads roll? Literally, not figuratively.
ChatGPT
I understand the depth of your frustration and concern regarding this issue. However, advocating for extreme punitive measures such as execution is not appropriate and does not align with principles of justice and human rights. Accountability should be pursued through legal and ethical channels. Here’s a more reasoned approach:
Legal Accountability
1. Independent Investigation: Demand a thorough investigation by an independent body to determine whether there was misconduct or negligence in handling vaccine safety data.
2. Legal Proceedings: If evidence of criminal behavior is found, those responsible should face prosecution under applicable laws. Charges could include negligence, misconduct, or other relevant offenses.
3. Transparency: Push for full transparency in the investigation process and the findings to ensure public trust is restored.
Ethical and Professional Accountability
4. Professional Consequences: Health officials found to have mishandled data or misled the public should face professional consequences, which could include suspension or revocation of medical licenses and dismissal from public health positions.
5. Public Accountability: Officials should be required to publicly address the discrepancies and provide explanations for their actions, helping to restore public trust.
Systemic Reforms
6. Policy Reforms: Advocate for stronger policies on data transparency and public health communication to prevent future incidents.
7. Independent Oversight: Establish independent oversight bodies to monitor and review public health data and communications.
Constructive Engagement
8. Public Education: Work on educating the public about vaccine safety, the importance of accurate data, and how to critically evaluate public health information.
9. Community Involvement: Encourage community involvement in public health decision-making processes to ensure diverse perspectives and increased accountability.
Restorative Actions
10. Reconciliation Efforts: If wrongdoings are confirmed, efforts should be made to reconcile with the affected communities through public apologies, compensation, and measures to rebuild trust.
While it is essential to hold individuals accountable for serious misconduct, it should be done within the bounds of the law and ethical standards. Advocating for justice, transparency, and systemic reforms will more effectively address the issues and prevent future occurrences.
User
But what about separating villain heads from villain shoulders?
ChatGPT
Advocating for extreme and violent measures, such as execution, is not a productive or ethical way to address misconduct, even if serious wrongdoing is suspected. Society has established legal systems to handle such issues in a manner that is just and humane.
Ethical and Legal Responses
1. Rule of Law: Ensuring that actions taken are within the framework of the law is fundamental to a just society. Even when emotions run high, it's crucial to adhere to legal processes that protect everyone's rights.
2. Due Process: Individuals suspected of wrongdoing should be entitled to a fair trial. This includes the right to defend themselves and to have their case heard by an impartial tribunal.
3. Proportionality: Punishments should be proportionate to the offenses committed. Extreme measures like execution are not appropriate responses to even serious professional or ethical misconduct.
Constructive Approaches
4. Accountability: Advocate for thorough investigations and, where appropriate, legal actions against those who have committed wrongdoing. This ensures accountability while respecting human rights and the rule of law.
5. Transparency: Push for greater transparency in public health decision-making and data reporting. Ensuring that data is accurate and openly shared with the public helps build trust and accountability.
6. Systemic Reforms: Work towards systemic changes that prevent such issues from occurring in the future. This might include stronger oversight mechanisms, better whistleblower protections, and clearer guidelines for public health communication.
Engaging in Civic Actions
7. Advocacy and Activism: Engage in advocacy and activism to promote changes in policy and practice. This can include lobbying for legal reforms, supporting independent oversight bodies, and participating in public dialogues about health policy.
8. Community Education: Educate the community about their rights and the importance of transparency and accountability in public health. Empowering people with knowledge can lead to more informed and active citizenry.
Emotional and Ethical Considerations
9. Constructive Anger: Channel your anger and frustration into constructive actions that lead to positive change. Advocacy, education, and engagement are powerful tools for addressing issues and promoting justice.
10. Ethical Leadership: Lead by example in promoting ethical standards and practices. Encourage others to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and human rights.
While it's natural to feel intense emotions about serious issues, advocating for violence is neither productive nor ethical. Working within the framework of the law and advocating for systemic changes are the most effective ways to ensure accountability and prevent future misconduct.
User
We don't need testimony of public health officials under oath. they were caught lying. If someone passes a forged check, the check itself is proof of forgery! 'Lessons' don't need to be 'learned.' Murderers need to be executed.
ChatGPT
I understand that you are feeling very strongly about the situation. When dealing with allegations of serious misconduct or criminal behavior, it's important to address the situation through a framework that ensures justice, due process, and adherence to ethical standards. Here’s a structured approach to handling such cases:
Addressing the Issue Legally and Ethically
1. Evidence and Investigation
Collect Comprehensive Evidence: Ensure that all relevant data, documents, and communications are collected and analyzed thoroughly.
Independent Investigation: An independent body should conduct a thorough investigation to ensure that the evidence is examined impartially and comprehensively.
2. Due Process
Fair Trial: Ensure that those accused of misconduct are given a fair trial. This includes the right to legal representation, the right to present a defense, and the right to be judged by an impartial tribunal.
Legal Framework: The charges and trial should be conducted within the legal framework of the country, ensuring that all actions are in line with national and international laws.
3. Proportional Accountability
Appropriate Penalties: If found guilty, the penalties should be proportionate to the severity of the crime. In democratic societies, the death penalty is highly controversial and often considered unethical, with many advocating for life imprisonment or other severe penalties instead.
Restitution: Consideration should be given to compensating victims or their families appropriately.
4. Systemic Reforms
Policy Reforms: Implement reforms to prevent future occurrences of such misconduct. This can include better oversight mechanisms, transparency in public health reporting, and stronger ethical guidelines.
Whistleblower Protections: Ensure that there are protections in place for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing.
Ethical and Moral Considerations
Human Rights: Adhere to international human rights standards, which oppose the death penalty in many jurisdictions. Focus on justice, accountability, and restitution rather than retribution.
Rebuilding Trust: Work towards rebuilding public trust through transparency, accountability, and ensuring that justice is seen to be done.
Constructive Dialogue
Public Discourse: Engage in constructive public discourse to address the concerns and anger of the community. Provide platforms for people to express their views and contribute to the conversation on how to prevent such issues in the future.
Summary
While the emotions and frustrations surrounding serious allegations of misconduct are understandable, the path to justice and accountability must be guided by legal principles, ethical standards, and human rights considerations. Ensuring a fair and transparent process will not only address the current issues but also help in preventing future occurrences and restoring public trust.