Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Seems like a staple for the Kennedy library, Robert the lessers that is.

When did they deny that natural immunity exists?

That is a very specific claim and you make it without foundation in your post.

Just no actual data or evidence to support any of your statements of fact, other than you own necessarily limited small sample set of anecdotal data.

Has Vitamin D been a conspiracy theory? Doubtful claim. This is it being discussed in the Dail in 2021.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2021-11-18/344/

If people made statements of fact re: Vitamin D for Covid then they were spreading medical misinformation because they had no basis to make such a claim. Especially if in combination with other unfounded anti-vaccine misinformation or touting up some other miracle cure. So I think your recollection of what happened may be blinkered somewhat and your description not the full truth of the situation. And if they relate to Boards posts, not at all something I am going to discuss.

Vitamin D was looked at, no conclusive evidence has been found showing a benefit. As noted in Dail post above, it was not ignored, it actively looked into by NPHET and discussed in our parliament. Not sure how any of this translates into a conspiracy theory.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797574

https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071230

Vitamin D wasn't a conspiracy theory in any way.

Vitamin D, or calciferol, is a necessary hormonal nutrient that since research in the early 1920s has been known to enrich bones, reduce inflammation and boost immune response to environmental infections.

It has for decades been recommended or administered to people with auto immune or cancer type illnesses to enable their own systems have the best chance to assist synthetic medicine in repelling disease.

And so it was an absolute no brainer to recommend it to people as a defence against Covid-19, not as any sort of vaccine, but as a bolster for people who may be infected with an entirely new, rapidly changing and capriciouly strong type of infection that their immune system had never experienced before.

Theres no conspiracy or misguided aspect to it. Its no more dangerous or controversial than telling folk to eat food to mitigate hunger, or drink water to mitigate thirst.

It is if when pitched as it's the cure that THEY are trying to keep from YOU and instead push their VACCINE.

OR when pitched that you need to take multiples of the RDA.

Not when pitched as well we think this might be of benefit and to get to the RDA -> but keep doing all the other recommended things.

So there was no real conspiracy theory to it, just a fabricated one, pretending THEY (the authorities) were trying to keep something they knew to be beneficial from people when they did no such thing.

I wonder how many people who pushed Vitamin D were selling supplements of some sort. I seem to remember it being a bit of a wonder drug for the Gwyneth brigade way before Covid.

Good article summing up what we see daily in this thread

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/magazine/anti-vaccine-movement.html

This part on Wakefield demonstrates how fanatical some of these individuals can become:

"The modern iteration of the anti-vaccine movement is often traced to 1998. That February, a group of doctors and scientists held a news conference at the Royal Free Hospital in London. They had potentially incendiary findings to discuss, which were about to appear in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal. Their paper speculatively proposed a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, the first dose of which is commonly given to children during their second year of life, and regressive autism, a mysterious condition whose prevalence seemed to be spreading. The single vaccine against the three viruses, the paper’s authors suggested, might cause an inflammatory disease of the gut, and the resulting intestinal dysfunction could affect the brain’s development. “I cannot support the continued use of the three vaccines given together,” Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist who had led the research, said. “My concerns are that one more case of this is too many.”

His words still reverberate around the world. Other skeptics had objected to vaccines over the course of the 20th century — for example, blaming the whooping-cough vaccine for causing neurological problems in children. But the medical establishment convincingly disproved the idea that the whooping-cough vaccine could lead to lasting neurological damage. By contrast, the doubts Wakefield expressed about a relatively new childhood vaccine — the combined MMR shot had been introduced in Britain only in 1988 — prompted a wave of fear about vaccines that continues to this day.

Measles immunization rates quickly dropped in parts of London, and within years, outbreaks began occurring in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. What seems to have been lost on the general public and the media was just how weak, scientifically speaking, The Lancet paper about the MMR vaccine really was. The study, which involved only 12 subjects, was so small as to render firm conclusions impossible. It had no comparison group of nonautistic children, and the subjects were not chosen randomly, a flaw in the study that could have possibly introduced significant bias into the results. At best, the paper should have been used to spur stronger studies that confirmed or refuted its speculation. Instead, many media outlets, including “60 Minutes,” treated Wakefield as one side in an ongoing scientific debate about MMR vaccine safety, when in reality there wasn’t much debate at all among most scientists.

Wakefield’s position started to unravel in fairly short order. In 2001, after he declined to conduct a larger study to substantiate or refute the contents of The Lancet study, the funding for his work at University College London dried up, according to Mark Pepys, then head of the university’s department of medicine at the Royal Free campus, and Wakefield left his job there. In February 2004, a British investigative journalist named Brian Deer began publishing what would become a series of damning articles in The Sunday Times of London and later The BMJ, formerly The British Medical Journal. His investigations revealed apparent conflicts of interest and included, among other shortcomings, evidence of what he said was scientific fraud: Medical records suggested that some of the children had developmental problems before they received the vaccines. Deer also found that Wakefield’s work had been funded by a lawyer representing parents of autistic children who thought they had been harmed by vaccines; the lawyer needed evidence to support the claim that vaccines had damaged the children he represented and had paid Wakefield to find it. The month after Deer’s first article appeared, 10 of Wakefield’s 12 co-authors from the original 1998 paper issued a “retraction of an interpretation.” “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism,” they wrote.

In 2010 — the same year that a whooping-cough epidemic in California led to the death of 10 infants, nine of them unvaccinated, and also sent more than 800 people, most of them young children, to the hospital — Britain’s General Medical Council stripped Wakefield of his medical license. He had breached medical ethics by subjecting children to unwarranted and potentially painful procedures, the council charged. Soon after that, The Lancet retracted the 1998 paper, which a British gastroimmunologist described in testimony as “probably the worst paper” ever published in the journal’s history.

In the early 2000s, Wakefield landed in Texas, where he worked for one autism-related charity and co-founded another. He still has an ardent base of supporters and, where he can find a receptive audience, gives talks about the supposed dangers of vaccines. Those appearances have included speaking to the Somali immigrant community in Minneapolis that, some years after his visits in 2010 and 2011, experienced a measles outbreak stemming from a decline in vaccinations; and video Q. and A. sessions for paying members at his film-production website.

Wakefield has also directed films such as “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” a 2016 documentary that, along with other familiar anti-vaccine attacks, charges that the C.D.C. is hiding data showing that vaccines are dangerous. The documentary was scheduled to run in that year’s Tribeca Film Festival, which was co-founded by the actor Robert De Niro, who has an autistic son; De Niro then pulled the film after an uproar. And yet “Vaxxed” was featured on Amazon Prime’s home page for a time. It was finally removed from the streaming service after the California congressman Adam Schiff publicized its presence there in 2019. Even as at least 16 well-designed epidemiological studies by different researchers around the world, using different methods, have failed to find a link between vaccines and autism, Wakefield still contends that vaccines are dangerous and that he’s the victim of a smear campaign. (Wakefield did not respond to requests for comment made through his publisher and his film-production website.)"

Are excess deaths still running above average?

Not in Scotland in February 2023, and aren't they highly vaccinated?

February’s ASMR was 6% below the five year average. This is the best measure to use to track excess deaths as it is more accurate as it takes into account the growing and ageing population.” 

Respiratory deaths (such as influenza and pneumonia or chronic lower respiratory diseases) are close to average levels again, after the first major increase since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/news/2023/excess-deaths-in-february-at-lowest-level-for-a-year