Amputee Alex Mitchell and POTS1Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome – racing heart upon change of body posture sufferer John Watt both featured in “Safe & Effective: A Second Opinion“.
They spoke recently with Norman Fenton about life with their COVID-19 vaccine-injuries.
What is clear from the interview is that the Government and Pharma funded campaign to ensure that the main stream media silenced any news of vaccine injuries was extremely effective and ultimately deadly… Alex and John felt they were doing their duty in taking the vaccine and were unaware of any of the voices of those either warning of the dangers or discussing actual injuries. If they had heard these voices they would not have taken the vaccine. Alex’s devastating injuries from the AstraZeneca vaccine happened long before John took the Pfizer booster that caused his injuries. As [John] says, if he had heard about Alex’s experience in the Scottish press he would not have taken that booster. But Alex, and then John, were never given a platform to warn others.
Please help ensure as many people as possible hear the story of the injuries and their appalling experiences since.
Professor Norman Fenton explains why claims of lower mortality rates for vaccinated may be just a statistical illusion. Worth reading in full. (Don’t worry; it’s not too complicated! Here’s a taste…)
In a previous article, we described the concept of survivor bias in studies that claimed better outcomes for covid vaccinated women in pregnancy: since the greatest risk to babies occur early in pregnancy, the babies of women who are vaccinated during pregnancy must already have survived the riskiest period.
In fact, a similar survivor bias more generally affects mortality rates for the vaccinated. If you see a study claiming much higher mortality rates of the ‘never vaccinated’ versus the ‘ever vaccinated’ you need to be sure it’s not just a statistical illusion due to survivor bias. This (7 minute) video provides an animated explanation:
The video shows this particular bias is avoided by using ‘person years in each vaccination category’ rather than people in each category. So a person who first gets vaccinated 6 months into a one year study and lives until the end of the year will be counted as 6 months never vaccinated and 6 months ever vaccinated.
The example is, of course, extremely simplified. Ideally, to calculate the correct number of person years in each category we need to know, for each person in the study, the exact date of each vaccination. And we also need to take account of the varying infection rate at different time intervals. That’s because the survivor bias is further exaggerated if (as was the case in most Western nations for the covid vaccines) the initial vaccine roll-out happened during the winter – meaning that fatality rates would inevitably fall anyway as more people were vaccinated. So, irrespective of the vaccine, more deaths were occuring at a time when more people were unvaccinated. Most of those classified as vaccinated would therefore already have survived the initial death peak when first vaccinated…
You don’t want to die prematurely, do you? You don’t want your friends and family to either? So, why are you ignoring the signals?
Some important things have happened this week.
One of the most important was the suspension of MP Andrew Bridgen. It’s important because, like many of us truthers over the last couple of years, he has simply become the latest victim of censorship…
… The other important thing is el gato publicly humiliating the ONS.1Office for National Statistics, UK. He has diligently re-analysed their “vaccine effectiveness” data to show that the vaccinated were already dying proportionally more than the unvaccinated up to May last year when the ONS callously stopped reporting…
… yet, when presented with the irrefutable evidence that, in the six months after the mass injection of the population with an experimental medical treatment, the excess mortality signal is at least as high as when the deadly pathogen emerged, the government and media don’t even so much as want to talk about it but they have to shut up anyone else who dares to try.
The data is only in for the first half of season 2022-23 but at 90% higher than the 2018-19 lowest early season, it’s not looking too good either, is it?
I am deeply saddened that the majority of people are still completely unaware of the situation we face.
I am even more saddened by the continued apathy of those who are aware but still choose to do nothing about it.
But we must persist. For the sake of our children.
I might be wrong. Andrew might be wrong. But we sure as hell won’t ever find out what’s right if we muzzle those who ask questions….
The [‘Canaadian crash study’] authors are not mincing words: they found that UNvaccinated people are MORE likely to have car crashes. Based on this statistical finding, they urge people to vaccinate to avoid car crashes!
Guess who is more likely to get into a car crash? That’s right, the person who drives to work daily, as opposed to a remote worker.
The Unvaccinated Could not Take Trains or Fly in Canada
So they had to drive more.
Oh, one more thing…
Turns out that people over 65, who do NOT drive to work, are the ONLY group where vaccination leads to a slightly higher chance of car crashes for the vaccinated (without reaching statistical significance).
This outcome is the OPPOSITE of what happened to employed people:
So we can see that the conclusion that “unvaccinated people are more likely to be hurt in crashes” is explained by the fact that “essential workers” who drive to work were the ones choosing not to get vaccinated!
So… It is not the COVID vaccine that reduces the chances of having a crash. It is a fact that staying home with warm coffee and a laptop is safer than commuting to work or driving a truck. The effect does NOT exist in old people who do not work.
… were identified by Professors Norman Fenton3Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London and Martin Neil4Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at Queen Mary University of Londonin their written review.5Which also features an update from Mark Dabbs, a participant
This clip is from Lotus Eaters podcast #442 on which page are links to related tweets and articles from public figures, participants and media outlets – some of which must surely qualify as incitement to hatred?
Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London
Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at Queen Mary University of London
Which also features an update from Mark Dabbs, a participant
Steve Kirsch is not one of them. So much so that he’s offering $250,000 to MIT, Harvard and Stanford Universities to produce convincing evidence.
I’d be willing to make a $250K grant to MIT if there is a MIT faculty member (you can field as MANY as you like) who can convince Professor Norman Fenton and Stephen Petty that there is scientific evidence that shows that masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Ivor referenced this presentation by Prof. Norman Fenton in the UK from last November. (If you want to understand the Professor’s background and approach, restart the video from the beginning. But be warned. You’ll also learn about other issues with the official data.)
The ‘Lockdowns Summit’ was hosted by Question Everything on the 17th July 2021 at a prestigious conference centre in London. It was the first summit to critically assess the global response to covid-19 and explore how the world can responsibly begin to live with the virus.
The summit featured a multi-disciplinary panel of 18 experts from science, social sciences, law and industry who presented a series of talks, panel discussions and open Q&A sessions to address the question ‘Is NOW the time for a better solution?’
Here is a playlist of the presentations and discussions from the day:
To provide the best experience, Oisin.Page uses technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies allows processing of data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, might affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.