Safe and Effective®

Safe and Effective 91 Comments



The researchers found no systematic or statistically significant trends showing that vaccination campaigns in 2020 and 2021 reduced all-cause mortality.

Instead, they found that in many places there was no excess mortality until the vaccines were rolled out, and most countries showed temporal associations between vaccine rollouts and increases in all-cause mortality.

91 Replies to “Safe and Effective®”

  1. Hospitals in BC test often, hoping you will test positive, so that you can be counted as a COVID victim in their files.

  2. If ever there as a “No S**t Sherlock” statement it is that the vaxes were the killers COVID was meant to be. I lost 4 people to the vax. I lost no people to COVID.

  3. This report is not published in a journal, but rather privately by Correlation, a non-for-profit corporation whose mandate seems to be to push an obvious anti-COVID-vax agenda.

    https://correlation-canada.org/

    You may think that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but Campbell should have made the nature of the source clearer.

    1. That’s called “argumentum ad hominem”, focusing on the messenger, not the message.
      Its a logical fallacy.
      So, our “Mr. Statistics” guy here is using logical fallacies now to make his points.
      Shocka!

      1. You dish out insults like candies on Halloween, so maybe you shouldn’t lecture on ad hominems.

          2. No, he’s commenting on your pansy-ass faggotry. Try being less flagrantly effeminate.

            I’d complain about how many faggots there are in commercials these days, but you’d accuse me of ad hominem.

          4. When one reaches this level of maturity, one feels an obligation to model it. It could happen to you. Though I don’t fancy your chances, flounce queen.

            I would advise you to learn to add. But then you’d just accuse me of ad homonym.

          2. The only thing that needs to be removed here is you, KM.
            Your endless propagandizing, lies and logical fallacies are quite tiresome.

          3. “Your endless propagandizing, lies and logical fallacies are quite tiresome.”

            Well then ignore me. Change the channel if it offends you.

    2. Your Disingenous propaganda nonsense doesn’t count.
      Excess deaths are real, and increased, in the highly jabbed countries.
      Deal with it, miscreant!

    3. Facts are facts vaxxie. You’ve injected yourself with a poison and it’s too late to take it back. You now have a very elevated chance of early death. Enjoy it!

      1. He likes logical fallacies.
        Soon enough he’ll be making the “appeal to authority” argument to the ultimate authority.

      2. No, the “facts” presented here are simply raw mortality numbers presented as a function of time and location. There is no direct evidence supporting their contention that the mortality can not be fully explained by COVID infection. Rather they list six “inconsistencies”, which don’t strike me as particularly convincing or conclusive. It’s the type of proposition begging for rebuttal by experts.

        1. KM would have you believe all the censorship that was way out of control during the coof, and is still, to a lesser extent ongoing, was not to protect the regime, promote the shots, silence opposition, and so on, but to protect the people, because the shots were so great that the results alone were not good enough to promote them, so the state had to go full-on brutal authoritarian to coerce people, deny them any access to dissenting medical opinions, and that’s totally normal in his books.
          Because we all know how trustworthy brutal authoritarian states are, and how trustworthy their apologists, aka bootlickers are.

          1. First, try to write comprehensible sentences.

            Second, I’m not trying to deny anyone anything. Criticism and rebuttal is not censorship.

          2. Ahh, so you fail to comprehend English, und thus fail to understand what I wrote, as is evident in both sentences of your reply.
            Well done!

          4. Amazing how narrative bootlickers pretend not to understand grammatically correct written English when it suits them.

          5. Lots of incomprehensible gibberish is grammatically correct. You might want to invest in Strunk and White.

        2. And there was no direct evidence to indicate that the 2020 U.S. election was stolen.
          That wasn’t sarcasm. There really isn’t.
          But there is smoke, and where there’s smoke…
          Same correlation apply with the so-called “vaxxes.”
          Even though there’s no DIRECT evidence, there’s still enough INDIRECT (to use your nomenclature) evidence to warrant further investigations.
          Investigations that the authorities want to avoid taking for some strange reason that I cannot fathom.
          *THAT* was sarcasm!

          1. You’re argument is where there’s smoke, there’s fire?

            Here’s another saying, but truer. Correlation is not causation.

          1. Anti-vaxxers keep saying that. Those who got COVID vaccinations are going to start dropping like flies any moment now. They have no scientific basis for claiming that, so it’s little more than a declaration of faith.

            The greatest one is Dolores Cahill, a professor at an Irish university, who predicted in 2021:

            “anyone who’s over 70 who gets one of these mRNA vaccines will probably be — sadly die within about two to three years. And I would say anyone who gets the mRNA injection, no matter what age you are, your life expectancy will be reduced to you know die, if you’re in your 30s, within five to 10 years,”

            She’s an absolute wackadoodle.

    4. Your criticisms are getting desperate. I suggest you read the research and forget about where it was published. The medical journals (particularly the big ones) are controlled by pharma.

      1. What hypocrisy. I’ve seen the anti-vaxxers on this site disparage the source of papers countless times. As an example, anything published in Nature is immediately dismissed.

        1. mRNA shots aren’t vaccines. Calling out the technology isn’t being “anti-vaxxer.”
          Once again, argument ad-hominem.

        2. “anything published in Nature is immediately dismissed.”
          …with good reason. Nature (the publication) has thoroughly discredited themselves throughout the pandemic period. They are a source NOT to be trusted.

          1. fc:

            Okay. And I say Correlation has no credibility whatsoever. It seems to be an entity specifically set up to push a single predefined viewpoint, supported by a thin patina of scientific methodology. Nothing in it should be accepted until it’s been subjected to a vigorous critique.

            Further, Campbell should have warned his audience of that.

          2. KM:
            The argument I am making has nothing to do with “correlation.” I’m simply stating that Nature (the publication) has published on many occasions “mis/dis-information.”
            They are not to be trusted, so stop reading things in my comments that aren’t even there.
            That is all.

          4. KM: Thanks for differentiating between “Correlation” in the scientific context, and “Correlation” the publication.
            You will note in all of my posts I distinctly made the effort to specify “Nature (the publication) so as to be clear in which context I am referring to, and not to be confused with actual nature.
            Why did you not do the same? Can you now see why someone could easily misinterpret your message?

          5. fc: The top post to this thread says…

            “Correlation, a non-for-profit corporation”

        3. KM, one argument made seems to make the most sense, and also adds to the understandable skepticism regarding the experimental shots. This could be resolved by releasing the record level data, yet it has been stonewalled by government and pharma. People who have nothing to hide, don’t generally hide things.
          Would you agree that total transparency is warranted, and data should be made public?

          1. Well that’s the story Campbell is pushing.

            This study apparently involved 70 countries. Are you saying all those countries are hiding data? Canada doesn’t seem to be. They have tons of data comparing mortality rates of vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

        4. Anyone that paid the slightest attention to FDA clinical trials pre-COVID, and who wasn’t a mindless sheep, knew this was all bullshit the second they claimed the mRNA trials in 2020 were a combined phase 1,2 and 3.

          That was impossible under previous standards, because you could only proceed to a larger phase 3 trial AFTER the phase 2 trial statistically showed the optimum dose level for efficacy v adverse effects.

    5. Campbell clearly made the point that big pharma and governments are refusing to release relevant data.

      That’s the root of the problem. If they were forthcoming there would be no need ‘alternative sources.’

      1. Not the fount of all truth, but better than a report on a corporation’s web site.

  5. Serious offences were committed by authorities in most assisted living and extended care homes, where no could visit.

    People died because they could not access loved ones, not from COVID, but from COVID rules/regulations demonizing any access.

    1. Yep. The media swept it under the rug quickly, but at least one nursing home in Washington state had almost all the residents die of starvation and/or dehydration after all the caretakers quit coming to work because of Covid.

      Makes you wonder how many other places this happened.

      Oh, and bonus: they were all initially listed as Covid deaths.

      1. I don’t think the world could accept the truth that all LTC facilities were used to kill as many as they could to scare the poop out of everyone so they were compelled to take an injection. People don’t believe there was an assassination attempt on Trump. The world is stupid.

  6. Someone above doesn’t like the source. Most sources are suspect, including peer review journals. Once a few years ago, a peer reviewed study author dismissed what I had to say regarding a popular subject, AGW. His argument was that the consensus among peer reviewed scientists bla bla bla. I suggested that maybe the peer review process wasn’t
    necessarily a pure as credited and that maybe he had had to alter papers, not because if flaws, but because the results fell outside the mainstream. He never answered, but soon started actually examining the info and changed his tune on AGW.
    Take a look at the data from Singapore and it is devastating. Now they have stopped releasing more data.

  7. Never mind the data from Singapore just consult the data emerging world wide on a variety of sites. How about this one from South Korea.

    https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/stunning-620-higher-risk-of-myocarditis-after-mrna-covid-vaccines/

    For the believers in the jabs they will always discount the data that keeps rolling in, for the rest of us we see it happening in friends and family members at a climbing rate, I’ve given up counting the the deaths, cancers, heart problems, dementia, and the rest that is climbing in my small circle on a monthly basis.

    1. Did you see that a French runner collapsed suddenly during the 10000 m race at the Olympics? She was a champion runner as well. The commentators blamed the hot and humid weather.
      Yeah… “Climate change!” That’s the ticket.
      Anybody notice how many people are falling on sports fields recently? I just read a post about a teen-ager collapsing during football practice. A TEEN-AGER!!! How many times have we seen stories like this BEFORE the roll-out? Answer: Hardly ever if not never!
      Did anyone notice the ads for the heart-monitoring device that you can link to your smart phone? Just how so concerned were you for your heart that you would need such a heart-monitoring device BEFORE the roll-out? Answer: Hardly anybody had that on their bingo cards. Only those who were diagnosed with an ailment would have wanted such a device. Now, just about everybody (who took the jab) wants one. The company stands to make a substantial profit.

        1. “Actually, athletes collapsed all the time before COVID.”
          But how many did you hear about?
          So you say 1101 incidents occurred IN 40 YEARS prior to covid, according to 1 STUDY? And your source is the AFP???
          Ok, Fine! And how many have collapsed IN THE PAST THREE YEARS? And how many have you seen ACTUALLY HAPPEN LIVE ON TV — BEFORE as compared to AFTER??? Anybody want to take on that challenge?
          I personally know of one incident – U of O’s Francis Perreault who collapsed and died in the locker room after the opening game of the season, and this happened well after the U of O imposed their vaxx mandates on all students, employees, and athletes. It’s the reason I had to leave U of O.
          So tell me again. Eleven hundred in 40 years vs ??? in 3 years? AFP doesn’t want to answer that question, do they? Neither does your fart-checkers!

          1. You can’t use your personal observations because with the rise of the anti-vaxx movement, many are now motivated to publicize athlete collapses on the field, whereas before 2020 they were not.

            Further, some of these guys have no hesitation showing collapses that occurred before the pandemic, or to unvaccinated individuals.

            Systematic data collection in properly designed studies is the only way to go.

          2. KM:
            When you say “You can’t use your personal observations…” You’re actually suggesting that I do not believe my own eyes and ears.
            That’s a response I would expect from a typical leftist lie-beral.

            So does any of your sources produce any stats of Athletes collapsing AFTER the roll-out? I doubt that they would.

            And another question that you can’t seem to answer…
            Why wouldn’t the authorities who were so enamoured with the vaxx *refuse* to investigate further the 5-alarm blaze that is erupting all over with excess death mortalities through the roof?

            Ok, maybe some of the video clips were disinformation, but you can’t argue with the actual data, much as you would like to try.

          3. You can’t use your personal observations for the same reason that you can’t see Neptune with your bare eyes. It’s the wrong tool for the job. Your observations wiill deceive you because you’ll see only a small fraction of the data, and that fraction might be — and almost certainly will be — biased. Only a systematic collection of data will do the job.

  8. amazing that during the covid idiocy, that the number of flu deaths dropped almost to zero. amazing how the statistical info gets inflated when you get paid for how many covid cases you have.

  9. I can pretty much guarantee you that nobody has any regrets for NOT taking the clot shots!
    Myself and the people that I know that never took the clot shot ,and are still of pure blood,have absolutely no regrets not taking it.

    1. My only concern now is if I ever was in an accident, or needed an operation that required a blood transfusion… I won’t finish that thought. I think you already know where I’m going with this.

  11. French study , involving 35 K covid patients showed that HCQ was effective for mitigating covid deaths, Butt the fat incel has been whining forever that HCQ is not effective for covid.
    Also march 20 2020 China sent the tallest midget memo that HCQ was effective for covid, but on march 24 2020, the lying runt countered Trump, when Trump stated so. They have all been lying, but the FAT INCEL is too stupid to grasp that fact.

    1. When the MSM/establishment isn’t outright lying, they are obfuscating, when not obfuscating they are disinforming, when not disinforming they are smearing, and so on.
      Even down to the freaking’ weather reports, which are now just climate change propaganda.

    2. So “French study”. No title, no authors, no link, just “French study”, as if the French have only ever written one paper on COVID.

      Don’t quit your day job.

      1. As I said in my very first post…
        Where there’s smoke…
        You shouldn’t dismiss the obvious because only one study has been cited (something you yourself is guilty of even in this very thread.)
        You should at least be curious enough to see if there’s something to this. You should at least be open to further investigations to either debunk or collaborate the one study, but you are too quick to dismiss.
        What do you think Dr. Campbell has been doing? He’s been processing study after study for the past three years searching for the truth. Over the past three years, we have all seen Dr. Campbell do a complete 180 on the Covid vaxx, and here you are trying to dismiss all of his conclusions BASED SOLELY ON HIS MOST RECENT POST, because he only cited one study!
        Here’s another idiom for you to consider… “Physician! Heal thy self!!!”
        (Look at me, Kate! I’m actually defending GYM!!!)

        1. It’s not that GYM only cited one study. It’s that he couldn’t even provide a title. He probably just remembered someone mentioned something somewhere about some French study.

          2. Ignore what? I have no idea what study GYM is referring to.

            If you do, then please provide a link. And if you don’t, well that demonstrates the problem, don’t it?

          3. KM…
            We don’t need to cite any studies.
            All we need to do is refer you to ALL of Dr. Campbell’s videos (not just the most recent one) where he documents mounting evidence of excess deaths that can only be attributable to one single, solitary cause.

            Still, as Art says, you choose to ignore Dr. Campbell’s research, and I think I can understand why, and I do sincerely feel sorry for you.

      2. Well, I understood him to be talking about the French study. You know, the one up and across the road from the old Same place.

  12. No matter how furiously they stamp their little feet, big pharma’s useful idiots remain (a) used and (b) wrong.

  13. The papers that the rodent holds as gospel today could admit the vaccines were dangerous, containing known toxins, and he/she’d still defend them using whatever argument was most useful at the time.

    1. I’ve never ever claimed that any paper is “gospel”, so right there your facts are wrong.

      I do claim that the preponderance of scientific evidence is far more reliable than what the anti-vaxxers have to go on, which rarely rises above the level of rumours.

          1. And the arrogance of those who claim to have scientific experience or knowledge is the biggest threat to truth there exists. Sounds like nothing more than pompous academic arrogance to me.

          2. You can call it arrogance if you want, but it’s also the truth.

            Recognizing shoddy scientific or statistical arguments takes experience and training, something charlatans like John Campbell freely take advantage of. Go read the YouTube comments from his myriad followers. They swallow everything he serves up without a trace of skepticism. I suspect they just don’t know any better.

          3. KM:
            The same can be said of your sources attempting to discredit Dr. Campbell’s research. It’s a typical case of “he said, she said.”
            One can also say the same thing of the people commenting on your sources’ videos.
            I’m not one to swallow everything I see on Youtube, but the numbers don’t lie. I’ve been tracking this since I saw the first VAERS report. That was early in 2021. Since then, there’s been all kinds of research all saying the same thing.
            Anyone in Government or associated with government will of course dispute the results, but they are there for anyone to see. They cannot be denied.
            It’s interesting that Dr. Susan Oliver would cite elevated covid deaths when we know that deaths from Covid has been exaggerated. Then she spins it all around and claims that adverse events attributed to the vaccines have been elevated. So who are we to believe? My evidence, or your evidence?
            What I have left is my own personal experience, which you have also chosen to dismiss, but I choose to believe my eyes and ears rather than rely on misinformation from government sources.

          4. “Since then, there’s been all kinds of research all saying the same thing.”

            No, there really hasn’t. The vast preponderance of COVID research does not back your views.

      3. No….you preach that “papers” ARE gospel. “Peer review”, no less…..which means absolutely nothing.

  15. Definition of a Not See is one whose world view depends on them not seeing an obvious part of reality.
    Nothing you or I can say will reach such.

    And
    Once you have been exposed as willing to lie to further your agenda,by being caught lying.
    Nothing you say is worth shit.

    The obvious changes to how government reported “Dread Covid” death and sickness as the Theatre dragged on,was clear evidence that they knew they were lying.
    Because the only evident reason for changing the reports was face saving by bureaucrat.

    And now that the public has left the theatre,these state actors still refuse to account for their actions.
    Hoping the general public will forget.

  16. PCR is not and has never been a health diagnostic assay. Don’t get “tested”. It’s so retarded.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation