Hello once again. I have watched yet another hour of the video and, due to popular acclaim, I am bringing a sumary of this segment.
The debate sort of fell low when the ex-Miniter of Healthcare and the President of the Medical College of Madrid left, so the participants immediately regreted that society had come to a point in which you could not sit down and talk and instead everybody had to resort to name calling.
I think the moderator got caught by surprise when the first two participants left, because now he had to carry on a program 3 hours long with only one of the sides of the debate present. I think he decided to play the part of the pro-vaccines in order to keep the debate going.
Once the mood got back to normal and the indignation was tamed down, the moderator tried to get the participants to discuss whether the initial protocols against the pandemic in Spain had been wise or not.
At this point Natalia, who had been quited for most of the debate, went on to declare that Spain had messed up. Our mistakes would have been closing hospitals and primary attention centers in order to prevent infections (since those caused the remaining hospitals to be very tight on resporces), the use of retrovirals with known secondary effects but not known efficacy against the virus, and inconsistent protocols of admission to patients. Specially, she complained that they were sending patients with heavy covid synthoms to home with a box of paracetamol without testing - because you were only ellegible
for covid treatment if you had bilateral pneumonia. SHe also complained that the low quality of the tests we used were throwing false possitives on people who was sick of something else.
Ángel also mentioned that our understanding of the virus was botched because there was a WHO recommendation not to perform autopsies (since autopsies could facilityate infections). According to him, it was only when the Italians started ignoring the recommendation from the WHO that we started to learn the non-respiratory implications of the disease (ie non lung inflamations).
Ángel, still angry because of Manuel's declaration that he was a dangerous pseudoscientist, jumped ahead of schedule to add that the management of the vaccine campaign had been nefearious. He showed a graphic, with information sourced from the American VAERs, the Brittish NHS and Eurovigilance, according to which these official agencies had 40 000 reported cases of people dead officially from vaccine complications. When compared to the total pool of vaccination reports managed by this agencies (which operate in the US, UK and Europe), the extrapolable mortality rate from official data only would be of 60 deaths for each million vaccinations.
ÁThe extrapolation to all the vaccines applied worldwide would indicate that, from officially recognized cases only, the worldwide dead count of the vaccine at the time of the debate was around 344000.
Not happy with that, Ángel added that VAERs themselves recognize that the number of vaccine deaths reported as such may be as low as 1% of the total. At this point I started to miss Manuel and Maria Luisa, because I would have liked them to ask how could such error have been calculated. In any case, Ángel estimated that if you factored the error so recognized by VAERs, the vaccine would be 8 times more time to kill you than the virus itself.
He also added that VAERs had registered in 4 months of COVID vaccines more vaccine related deaths than in 20-something years of operation, when counting the vaccines against all the other diseases together.
At this point the moderator asked ÑÁngel to turn back to the subject at hand, which was debating how well or bad Spain had responded to the pandemic, at which Ángel declared that badly, because they were giving away the vaccine to people without the regulatory consent to sign, and the dossier of side effects - which you usually get with any treatment, but according to him, is extra-important when doing experimental treatment.
Then came Juan Josés turn to talk. He first declared he was sad Manuel and Maria Luisa had left, because he wanted to make it clear that there was not such a thing as an unanymous position regarding the virus in the scientific community. He used, as an example, a recommendation signed by professors from Hardvar, Stanford and Oxford, in which they advised against lockdowns. He mentioned a number of doctors of similar ideas, which, in his opinion, proved there was not such a thing as a common stance in the scientific community, and that the notion that there was a side made of scientists and another one composed of superstitious chamans is absurd.
The moderator then asked why, if the vaccine was so bad, the mortality and hospitalitation rates were going down.
Natalia pretty much said they weren't, and compared trimesters from this year againsst tremesters of the year before, declaring the numbers were comparable. She also mentioned that she thought the vaccination of kids and teenegers had no reason de être because people bellow 19 years old is not developing complications (last year only 25 died, and most of them suffered aggravating issues such as cancer). She also said the Pediatry Asociation in Spain had issued a report according to which kids were not a significative vector of spread.
Juan José also brought forth a report from the Navarran Healthcare Service, according to which it would be necessary to vaccinate 120 people to prevent a single person from getting it. This means, according to the Navarran Healthcare Service, youñ'd have to subject 120 people to the side effects of the vaccine, which as shown before were between 0.08 and 8 times as bad as the virus itself. His argumemnt is that, according to the official data, the vaccine's proposition of value falls short.
He also talked about the alleged 95% of efficacy of the vaccines, and quoted Dr. Peter Dorsey (did I spell it right), from the University of Meriland and the Brittish Medical Journal, in order to back his stance that the early studies performed by the laboratories were low quality and biased. In particular, Pfizer administered an actual vaccine to the placebo control group short into the research, such making it impossible to draw conclussions regarding long term comparissons between the placebo group and the vaccine group.
He also said that Pfizer and Moderna are refusing to provide new data from the internal research they are still carrying out in order to obtain non-emergency approval in Europe, and that every data will be given in 2 years at best.
The moderator then said that surely the vaccination camapign had been initiated as a emergency maneuver, because it was needed to prevent hospitals from collapsing, and that was the reason while it was been deployed so quickly.
Natalia countered that the only reason why Hospitals were collapsing was because they had closed so many Health services in the first place for no reason.
She also went on to say that the mARN vaccines consisted in genetic instructions for the human body to generate the spike protein, which is itself a toxic agent. The protein is directly responsible for a number of sanguineal complications (and is actually one of the reasons why COVID itself is a problem). According to Natalia, the big problem with mARN vaccines is that the legnth of time the organism will keep generating that protein after taking the vaccine is not described properly. In other words: according to her, what you do when you take an mARN vaccine is to force yourself to produce a toxic agent which will be in your organism for an undefined length of time, and you do so precisely because you want to prevent the virus to enter the organism and generate that toxin. She cited an article from the University of San Diego, funded by a Natural Sciences Foundation from China to back the link between the presence of spike protein and clots and other blood issues.
She also expressed concern regarding the synthetic mateirals used to encapsulate the mRNA in the vaccines, but when pressed by the moderator, she acknowledged that analysis regarding the toxicity of the encapsulating agents was still ongoing and was only speculation.
At this point Ángel brought a graphic from the Charles III Healthcare Institute to back Natalia's words that, in fact, inter-season numbers of hospitalitation and cases were not favorable in Spain.
Juan José brought up some data from the Government of Extremadura, and pointed out that in a given month, nearly 85% of registered COVID deaths involved vaccined people, against a 70% vaccination rate at the date. According to him, these projections don't match the ones you'd obtain from a vaccine with a 95% effectiveness.
Then he showed up some graphics from the John Hopkins institute, comparing 6 differenc countries which had close to no cases before vaccination campaigns and started having spikes of cases during or after campaigns, therefore putting to the question the global effectiveness of the vaccines. In at least one of the graphics, the line of accumulated cases was nearly paralel to the line of accumulated vaccinated individuals.
Natalia closed up by blaming the government for locking up elders in nursin homes and locking the buildings down, which according to some reports from Doctros Without Borders and International Amnesty was the direct cause of the speed at which the disease had spread among vulnerables.
At this point I stopped the reproduction. A summary of the next hour of the video is comming soon!
### MY TAKEAWAY ###
It REALLY sucksthat Manuel and María Luisa left the studio like dirty cowards, because I would have liked to see what they had to say about some declarations from the doctors. Specially the ones which put the effectiveness of the vaccine to question, and SPECIALLY the numbers extrapolated from VAERs data. Those were begging for a challenger to keep the discussion interesting.
I think the Navarran report is quite interesting, because it implies the value proposition of mRNA vaccines is quite low. If getting COVID was to be considered a risk worth 1 point, you'd need to vaccinate 120 people to eliminate 1 point of risk. SInce the most optimistic extrapolation from VAERs is that the vaccine is 0,08 times as bad as the virus, this would mean we would have to generate 120 x 0,08 = 9,6 points of rist to eliminate 1. If you take the least optimistic stance show in the debate, which is itself questionable in my opinion, the necessary risks you need to assume in order to prevent a infection are 96 times worse than the infection itself.
I also felt vindicated by the report from Extremadura, which backs what I have been saying for a couple of months already. The effectiveness of the vaccine in the wild don't correspond to the projections you develop if you assume the effectiveness claimed by the laboratories.
Stay tuned for the summary of the last part!
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
Web-based telnet client
IRC
Email & news access