Jan 28, 2023·edited Jan 28, 2023Liked by Joel Smalley
I'm sure it's coincidence that they pull the shots from the under 50s which are experiencing high excess deaths at the time all this is coming out in to the public arena.
On the flip side it would appear the 50 and older age group are being culled ,but the figures will be less noticeable in the 50s and up and it will save on state pensions so there are some benefits🇬🇧🍻👍it will help to reduce the overall excess deaths (good pr) so the body plie under the carpet should become less noticeable in time although it may be a bit smelly for a while yet 💉💉💉💉⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️🧚 safe and effective tm👍
Yes, many of my over-65 friends and neighbors are dropping dead, or barely surviving in some tremendously reduced capacity. It's exhausting to keep on with inane discussions or talk of illness with people who previously were sharp and healthy, at least reasonably so. I try to focus on helping the children, but can't ignore the huge losses and suffering of the older folks around me. Small consolation is that almost everyone has now been sick at least a few times, so they are less terrified to get near me - even share a hug! :-)
It's the younger age group in particular that have taken a hit and that's why there pulling the shots for the under 50s.They also know the older population watch MSM so there easier to manipulate with propaganda.I cancelled my TV license👍
The post vaccination death figures are due to be updated on 21st February, hopefully Joel, Norman and others will interrogate these too. Given the “tricks” used previously by ONS, let’s hope that the next figures aren’t fudged.
Is it still the case that they count a person dying with 14 days of having the jab as being unvaccinated??!!! I am not a vaccinologist or medically trained person, but to me if that is true that stinks and seems like a deliberate attempt to hide the true data!! Hard to know what is true and not sometimes??!! Keep up the great work Joel!!
That ruse no longer has an impact since no-one is getting newly vaccinated. Hence why they can't hide the true insights any more. I still think it enters into the booster analyses though.
It does still have an impact on the improper denominator - they're still counting "unvax" deaths back to the start of the outbreak (pre-shots) in many cases, and continue to add all the early vaxxed but mislabeled as unvax deaths into that denominator to further skew the numbers. And I've seen the same trick with the boosters by misalignment of those numbers into the "fully / 2X vaxxed" cohort to create false booster VE.
"It’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone who hasn’t done their research properly, especially if they are simply hell bent on defeating you, rather than seeking to draw out the truth of the situation."
This reality produces almost as much frustration as all the lies we've been told about this disease and how to handle it. I have found it particularly difficult speaking with family members who disagree. I guess those you love you also want the most to reach. It's odd though that their convictions can run so deep and yet be based on so little evidence (or so much false evidence). Not only that, but any suggestion that there actually is another side to the narrative is dismissed as everything from illogical conspiracy to hubris. Your quote is also a great reminder for me to make sure I've done my research properly. The last thing the world needs is another person who is ill-informed.
Actually, it's logical that dogmatic entrenchment goes hand-in-glove with ignorance. That's essentially the power of belief. You simply cannot crack it with reason.
Well said sir. Their stance is based on emotion not critical thinking, caution or reason. The emotion they’re feeling is based on fear. The evil doers know this and that’s why they knew in advance that their great scheme would be a fait accompli.
Absolutely. Except the government as a corporation have the police, a corporation, working for them, not us. And they all know what side their bread is buttered. Until the masses get their shit together and act as one, which I can’t see happening any time, seeing any of them changing ship or growing a pair in the meantime is just sadly not happening. Ideological capture x the need to get paid is winning. I do see more people waking up but as that happens many are going even more brain dead wrapped up in the next stage of their mind control, climate change.
I think this is why there's so much crazy shit going down, the one thing that scares the shit out of them is cohesion.We really have to try an not fight amongst ourselves,its devision they seek.
Things are changing that's why the bitch witch from New Zealand had to go ,it's damage limitation.Hong Kong Phoey he was a great guy🍻Its time to grow some balls😁
I agree and disagree. I think the strongest beliefs are built on reason and that dogmatic entrenchment can can in fact be cracked with reason. This of course is not usually the case and perhaps that is what you are saying. With ignorance there's an unhealthy mixture of fear or other primal emotion.
It is reason that helped me - and I think a lot of others - figure out that the "pandemic" has been handled and responded (reacted) to in the wrong way.
I think of it this way: if the shoe was on the other foot how would I act? In other words, if more and more data (based on actual scientific research) were to show that it was, say, climate change that was causing all these excess deaths (I'm being ridiculous), would my response be to reject it or would I use reason to adjust my beliefs? I'd like to think I'd use reason.
I am beyond horrified. It appears that the only review the MHRA carried out was a "Stakeholder" review [WEF-ism]. 28 organisations were asked 4 questions. Only 10 responded, the 18 who said nothing tell us everything.
Jan 28, 2023·edited Jan 28, 2023Liked by Joel Smalley
In my household of three, all supposedly at higher risk due to age (70 and 68) and our son's significant disability, we didn't believe the propaganda, mainly because it was so blatantly commercially biased from the start: bleeding heart stuff, really. Calculating personal risk either from the novel mRNA vaccine or from the Covid itself was impossible, so we simply applied the precautionary principle and avoided the jab. Probably helps that my background is in Public Health management, so I know all the previous scandals.
We have all had Covid, probably twice, and it was entirely trivial: and that was the other major flaw in the data: this so called killer virus was actually a damp squib for all except the very old and frail, and not a plague at all. We were never, ever, all in it together.
Well, hardly. Covid is of the same group of families as the common cold, and I do hope that you are not claiming that the common cold is a figment of the imagination?
No: we didn't delve that deeply into the arcane complexities of virology in my 27 month stint as an NHS Postgrad Management Trainee at Manchester University - we studied context and history: the course was partly about detecting medical fraud and shroud waving bullshit through cultivating a finer nose for crap science, rather than worrying too much about the individual pseudo-scientific components of it.
If you want to study Psychiatry, for example, you will find all kinds of interesting matters, including the classic cure for a major 'disease' affecting millions worldwide:
Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in the early 70's, leading to the biggest single success of modern psychiatric medicine ;-)
I wised up to the dietary cholesterol narrative in 1991: it was dodgy then, and still dodgy now.
Actually loads of public medical science is total crapola.
Example: if you pay German Insurance funded hospitals to remove dicky appendices, they will do so at rates six to ten times higher than British NHS hospitals that have no such financial incentive, and with no obvious impact on survival rates.
Another example: Caesarean sections and inductions are through the roof: and they only take place on Mondays to Fridays: this suits Obstetricians who like to play golf at the weekend rather than deliver inconvenient babies through vaginal (normal) birth.
So is any of our corrupt governments or militaries or prosecutors or constitutionalist sheriffs or We The People, etc... going to hold EVERYONE in the evil Medical cabal accountable???
Maybe preparing the ground for the bad news, by advising healthy under 50s not to get boosted. Much talk now about numbers needed to be injected to prevent hospitalisation vs adverse events. This will surely get the interest of those sitting on the fence, but clearly not MSM or BBC
Thanks Joel. This just sums up ''COVID-19'' which in my view has been nothing but a statiistical fraud, all of it ! Why ? To install CCP2.0 globally. To 'save the planet' as well. Did you hear back from NRS on the data you requested ?
I asked these 2 questions of the MHRA in mid-November 2022:
1 - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “safe” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
2 - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “effective” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
Simple enough questions and there should be a standard that they can reference surely?
You know, things like “xxxx adverse events/serious adverse events/hospitalisations/deaths reported by xxxx injections given” and “stops transmission of xxxx” and/or similar.
But no reply was forthcoming and as they legally have to reply within 20 working days, even if it is to request an extension, and as I had received nothing from them by the 19th Jan 2023 I sent them a polite follow-up saying I had not received an answer from them.
Yesterday they replied with:
Dear Mr Awkward Git
Thank you for your email.
We apologise you have not yet received a response and we hope to respond to your as soon as we can.
Kind Regards
MHRA Customer Service Centre
So what’s the problem with supplying a standard that they are working to to say “safe” and “effective”.
Anyone else get the feeling they cannot supply the standards they used as they never used anything other than “the manufacturer and/or Matt hancock said it’s OK and we were ordered from above to issue the EUA anyway”.
MHRA answered me this morning . Strange for them to send out e-mails on a Sunday, normally it’s a Friday afternoon.
What an answer - they have no definitive standard to measure either safety nor effectiveness of any medicine or vaccine.
So how do they know something is “safe” or “effective”?
It is because they, or the manufacturer, say it is!!!
Here is their actual answer:
There is no ‘metric or standard’ used by the MHRA to quantify ‘safe’ in terms of a COVID-19 vaccine, or any other medicinal product. (my highlighting). No medicine is completely risk-free. For a medicine to be considered acceptably safe, its expected benefits should be greater than any associated risks of harmful reactions (my highlighting). This can be determined based on the data submitted with an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product such as a COVID-19 vaccine. But the balance of benefits and risks for any product can change at any time during its marketed life, for example if a serious new side effect is established.
For this reason the MHRA continually monitors the safety of all medicinal products authorised in the UK, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The process is termed pharmacovigilance and this involves:
monitoring the use of medicines in everyday practice to identify previously unrecognised adverse effects or changes in the patterns of adverse effects
assessing the risks and benefits of medicines in order to determine what action, if any, is necessary to improve their safe use
providing information to healthcare professionals and patients to optimise safe and effective use of medicines
monitoring the impact of any action taken
You can read more about the MHRA’s safety assessments for COVID-19 vaccines here Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines adverse reactions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
As stated above, all medicinal products are authorised based on an assessment of the benefit/risk - that is the benefit to the patient being greater than the known risks associated with taking that product. To understand the assessment of the benefit/risk for each of the Covid-19 vaccines authorised, please refer to the Public Assessment Reports (PARs) for each of the vaccines that we have provided links to in our previous responses to you.
Vaccine efficacy is usually measured in randomised controlled clinical trials. It is calculated by comparing the proportion of trial subjects that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine arm with the proportion that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the placebo arm. The calculation is made after a certain number of COVID-19 cases have occurred in the trial as a whole. This number is decided at the start of the trial. This means that a time period is not chosen.
More details on the measurement of vaccine efficacy are provided in the PARs that you have already received.
We hope this information is helpful.
But the PARs they mention do NOT prove the vaccines are safe nor effective when you read them.
I have read them many times and cannot find out what in them proves safety and/or effectiveness.
Our main issue is the infantile trust of the masses in the mainsteam media. The only thing that matters will be how these developments will impact this collective trust in this new global church.
Yes, indeed, there's no good way to have a rational discussion with those who refuse to research and parrot the output of Blackrock/Vanguard/StateStreet owned media.
I'll say it again here...the same people who refuse to admit that there's even a possibility of a shot causing problems will heartily admit that people can die from bee stings and peanuts.
But the reason they are "admitting" the data can't be used to show vaccine effectiveness is because they don't want people to use the data to show vaccine ineffectiveness. Ultimately they want to be able to say this data can't be used to say either way even though they squeezed every drop of utility at the times it would have most effects on promoting high uptake.
Now they can say, "no, no, no, you can't use this data that way!"
I'm sure it's coincidence that they pull the shots from the under 50s which are experiencing high excess deaths at the time all this is coming out in to the public arena.
On the flip side it would appear the 50 and older age group are being culled ,but the figures will be less noticeable in the 50s and up and it will save on state pensions so there are some benefits🇬🇧🍻👍it will help to reduce the overall excess deaths (good pr) so the body plie under the carpet should become less noticeable in time although it may be a bit smelly for a while yet 💉💉💉💉⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️🧚 safe and effective tm👍
Yes, many of my over-65 friends and neighbors are dropping dead, or barely surviving in some tremendously reduced capacity. It's exhausting to keep on with inane discussions or talk of illness with people who previously were sharp and healthy, at least reasonably so. I try to focus on helping the children, but can't ignore the huge losses and suffering of the older folks around me. Small consolation is that almost everyone has now been sick at least a few times, so they are less terrified to get near me - even share a hug! :-)
It's the younger age group in particular that have taken a hit and that's why there pulling the shots for the under 50s.They also know the older population watch MSM so there easier to manipulate with propaganda.I cancelled my TV license👍
Good for you stop posting crap👍
The post vaccination death figures are due to be updated on 21st February, hopefully Joel, Norman and others will interrogate these too. Given the “tricks” used previously by ONS, let’s hope that the next figures aren’t fudged.
Is it still the case that they count a person dying with 14 days of having the jab as being unvaccinated??!!! I am not a vaccinologist or medically trained person, but to me if that is true that stinks and seems like a deliberate attempt to hide the true data!! Hard to know what is true and not sometimes??!! Keep up the great work Joel!!
That ruse no longer has an impact since no-one is getting newly vaccinated. Hence why they can't hide the true insights any more. I still think it enters into the booster analyses though.
Thanks Joel. I did think that about no new first time jabs any longer, unless you think of idiot parents getting young kids jabbed!! Horrifying!!!
It does still have an impact on the improper denominator - they're still counting "unvax" deaths back to the start of the outbreak (pre-shots) in many cases, and continue to add all the early vaxxed but mislabeled as unvax deaths into that denominator to further skew the numbers. And I've seen the same trick with the boosters by misalignment of those numbers into the "fully / 2X vaxxed" cohort to create false booster VE.
"It’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone who hasn’t done their research properly, especially if they are simply hell bent on defeating you, rather than seeking to draw out the truth of the situation."
This reality produces almost as much frustration as all the lies we've been told about this disease and how to handle it. I have found it particularly difficult speaking with family members who disagree. I guess those you love you also want the most to reach. It's odd though that their convictions can run so deep and yet be based on so little evidence (or so much false evidence). Not only that, but any suggestion that there actually is another side to the narrative is dismissed as everything from illogical conspiracy to hubris. Your quote is also a great reminder for me to make sure I've done my research properly. The last thing the world needs is another person who is ill-informed.
Actually, it's logical that dogmatic entrenchment goes hand-in-glove with ignorance. That's essentially the power of belief. You simply cannot crack it with reason.
Well said sir. Their stance is based on emotion not critical thinking, caution or reason. The emotion they’re feeling is based on fear. The evil doers know this and that’s why they knew in advance that their great scheme would be a fait accompli.
Given that safe and effective TM is a fraudulent statement should the government be reported to the police?
Absolutely. Except the government as a corporation have the police, a corporation, working for them, not us. And they all know what side their bread is buttered. Until the masses get their shit together and act as one, which I can’t see happening any time, seeing any of them changing ship or growing a pair in the meantime is just sadly not happening. Ideological capture x the need to get paid is winning. I do see more people waking up but as that happens many are going even more brain dead wrapped up in the next stage of their mind control, climate change.
I think this is why there's so much crazy shit going down, the one thing that scares the shit out of them is cohesion.We really have to try an not fight amongst ourselves,its devision they seek.
Things are changing that's why the bitch witch from New Zealand had to go ,it's damage limitation.Hong Kong Phoey he was a great guy🍻Its time to grow some balls😁
Joel,
I agree and disagree. I think the strongest beliefs are built on reason and that dogmatic entrenchment can can in fact be cracked with reason. This of course is not usually the case and perhaps that is what you are saying. With ignorance there's an unhealthy mixture of fear or other primal emotion.
It is reason that helped me - and I think a lot of others - figure out that the "pandemic" has been handled and responded (reacted) to in the wrong way.
I think of it this way: if the shoe was on the other foot how would I act? In other words, if more and more data (based on actual scientific research) were to show that it was, say, climate change that was causing all these excess deaths (I'm being ridiculous), would my response be to reject it or would I use reason to adjust my beliefs? I'd like to think I'd use reason.
Try "reasoning" somebody out of a cult? I think that's effectively where we're at.
And people will perform the most amazing mental gymnastics to adhere to there belief.
Even when everyone is dieing around them.
It's all about the science but only when it supports "your" science .
I am the science tm Fauchi
Safe and effective tm global👍
They simply repeat what msm says as if they’ve thought of it themselves, as if their emotions come from something that actually happened.
MSM is funded by advertising. The most lucrative advertisers are the pharmaceutical companies. You get what you pay for.
I am beyond horrified. It appears that the only review the MHRA carried out was a "Stakeholder" review [WEF-ism]. 28 organisations were asked 4 questions. Only 10 responded, the 18 who said nothing tell us everything.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-human-medicine-regulations-to-support-the-rollout-of-vaccines-one-year-review/regulations-174a-and-247a-one-year-review?fbclid=IwAR1wzkyZGYdyYTxpA2bjyUojw-8q4WfRVZrUgQlp4IVtDQrwnkhxT2jEhhE#stakeholder-review
In my household of three, all supposedly at higher risk due to age (70 and 68) and our son's significant disability, we didn't believe the propaganda, mainly because it was so blatantly commercially biased from the start: bleeding heart stuff, really. Calculating personal risk either from the novel mRNA vaccine or from the Covid itself was impossible, so we simply applied the precautionary principle and avoided the jab. Probably helps that my background is in Public Health management, so I know all the previous scandals.
We have all had Covid, probably twice, and it was entirely trivial: and that was the other major flaw in the data: this so called killer virus was actually a damp squib for all except the very old and frail, and not a plague at all. We were never, ever, all in it together.
> We have all had Covid, probably twice
Then you're part of the problem.
Well, hardly. Covid is of the same group of families as the common cold, and I do hope that you are not claiming that the common cold is a figment of the imagination?
No: we didn't delve that deeply into the arcane complexities of virology in my 27 month stint as an NHS Postgrad Management Trainee at Manchester University - we studied context and history: the course was partly about detecting medical fraud and shroud waving bullshit through cultivating a finer nose for crap science, rather than worrying too much about the individual pseudo-scientific components of it.
If you want to study Psychiatry, for example, you will find all kinds of interesting matters, including the classic cure for a major 'disease' affecting millions worldwide:
Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in the early 70's, leading to the biggest single success of modern psychiatric medicine ;-)
I wised up to the dietary cholesterol narrative in 1991: it was dodgy then, and still dodgy now.
Actually loads of public medical science is total crapola.
Example: if you pay German Insurance funded hospitals to remove dicky appendices, they will do so at rates six to ten times higher than British NHS hospitals that have no such financial incentive, and with no obvious impact on survival rates.
Another example: Caesarean sections and inductions are through the roof: and they only take place on Mondays to Fridays: this suits Obstetricians who like to play golf at the weekend rather than deliver inconvenient babies through vaginal (normal) birth.
So is any of our corrupt governments or militaries or prosecutors or constitutionalist sheriffs or We The People, etc... going to hold EVERYONE in the evil Medical cabal accountable???
‘Don’t Be Silly’. Well, not in this jurisdiction anyway.
I am inclined to believe that this admission comes at a convenient time for them
Maybe preparing the ground for the bad news, by advising healthy under 50s not to get boosted. Much talk now about numbers needed to be injected to prevent hospitalisation vs adverse events. This will surely get the interest of those sitting on the fence, but clearly not MSM or BBC
The back peddling will only increase for sure.
Yes, as the powers that be realise the growing groundswell of people finding out the truth.
Thanks Joel. This just sums up ''COVID-19'' which in my view has been nothing but a statiistical fraud, all of it ! Why ? To install CCP2.0 globally. To 'save the planet' as well. Did you hear back from NRS on the data you requested ?
I asked these 2 questions of the MHRA in mid-November 2022:
1 - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “safe” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
2 - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “effective” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
Simple enough questions and there should be a standard that they can reference surely?
You know, things like “xxxx adverse events/serious adverse events/hospitalisations/deaths reported by xxxx injections given” and “stops transmission of xxxx” and/or similar.
But no reply was forthcoming and as they legally have to reply within 20 working days, even if it is to request an extension, and as I had received nothing from them by the 19th Jan 2023 I sent them a polite follow-up saying I had not received an answer from them.
Yesterday they replied with:
Dear Mr Awkward Git
Thank you for your email.
We apologise you have not yet received a response and we hope to respond to your as soon as we can.
Kind Regards
MHRA Customer Service Centre
So what’s the problem with supplying a standard that they are working to to say “safe” and “effective”.
Anyone else get the feeling they cannot supply the standards they used as they never used anything other than “the manufacturer and/or Matt hancock said it’s OK and we were ordered from above to issue the EUA anyway”.
I'm eagerly awaiting your update on the matter!
I'm all on tenderhooks with anticipation myself to see what goobledygook they come up with.
Shouldn't be that hard to answer surely? Should be a standard definition?
I've also sent the same questions to the PM via the Cabinet Office seem so they claim to assist him in running policy etc.
tenterhooks
Guessing they’re frantically trying to cobble together a response from the Professor Stanley Unwin dictionary. (You may need to look him up)
MHRA answered me this morning . Strange for them to send out e-mails on a Sunday, normally it’s a Friday afternoon.
What an answer - they have no definitive standard to measure either safety nor effectiveness of any medicine or vaccine.
So how do they know something is “safe” or “effective”?
It is because they, or the manufacturer, say it is!!!
Here is their actual answer:
There is no ‘metric or standard’ used by the MHRA to quantify ‘safe’ in terms of a COVID-19 vaccine, or any other medicinal product. (my highlighting). No medicine is completely risk-free. For a medicine to be considered acceptably safe, its expected benefits should be greater than any associated risks of harmful reactions (my highlighting). This can be determined based on the data submitted with an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product such as a COVID-19 vaccine. But the balance of benefits and risks for any product can change at any time during its marketed life, for example if a serious new side effect is established.
For this reason the MHRA continually monitors the safety of all medicinal products authorised in the UK, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The process is termed pharmacovigilance and this involves:
monitoring the use of medicines in everyday practice to identify previously unrecognised adverse effects or changes in the patterns of adverse effects
assessing the risks and benefits of medicines in order to determine what action, if any, is necessary to improve their safe use
providing information to healthcare professionals and patients to optimise safe and effective use of medicines
monitoring the impact of any action taken
You can read more about the MHRA’s safety assessments for COVID-19 vaccines here Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines adverse reactions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
As stated above, all medicinal products are authorised based on an assessment of the benefit/risk - that is the benefit to the patient being greater than the known risks associated with taking that product. To understand the assessment of the benefit/risk for each of the Covid-19 vaccines authorised, please refer to the Public Assessment Reports (PARs) for each of the vaccines that we have provided links to in our previous responses to you.
Vaccine efficacy is usually measured in randomised controlled clinical trials. It is calculated by comparing the proportion of trial subjects that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine arm with the proportion that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the placebo arm. The calculation is made after a certain number of COVID-19 cases have occurred in the trial as a whole. This number is decided at the start of the trial. This means that a time period is not chosen.
More details on the measurement of vaccine efficacy are provided in the PARs that you have already received.
We hope this information is helpful.
But the PARs they mention do NOT prove the vaccines are safe nor effective when you read them.
I have read them many times and cannot find out what in them proves safety and/or effectiveness.
Yes, except it won’t come of course..
I suspect no response will be forth coming as the whole thing is fraudulent.
Safe and effective is fraudulent because the shots aren't and they new this👍
Our main issue is the infantile trust of the masses in the mainsteam media. The only thing that matters will be how these developments will impact this collective trust in this new global church.
Yes, indeed, there's no good way to have a rational discussion with those who refuse to research and parrot the output of Blackrock/Vanguard/StateStreet owned media.
I'll say it again here...the same people who refuse to admit that there's even a possibility of a shot causing problems will heartily admit that people can die from bee stings and peanuts.
But the reason they are "admitting" the data can't be used to show vaccine effectiveness is because they don't want people to use the data to show vaccine ineffectiveness. Ultimately they want to be able to say this data can't be used to say either way even though they squeezed every drop of utility at the times it would have most effects on promoting high uptake.
Now they can say, "no, no, no, you can't use this data that way!"
How convenient.