Thousands more people than usual are dying ... but it’s not from Covid

https://www.yahoo.com/news/analysis-thousands-more-usual-dying-170117640.html

Sarah Knapton
Fri, September 24, 2021, 12:01 PM

The entrance to one of five Covid-19 wards at Whiston Hospital in Merseyside - Peter Byrne/PA Wire
While focus remains firmly fixed on Covid-19, a second health crisis is quietly emerging in Britain. Since the beginning of July, there have been thousands of excess deaths that were not caused by coronavirus.
------------------


Some opponents claim vaccines kill more then it saves.
A lay person may get confused from such claims.

I'm recommending following CDC and your medical provider professional recommendations.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2021/09/24/does-pfizer-covid-vaccine-kill-more-people-than-saves/5831011001/


One such opponent in the news is
Steve Kirsch: who made presentation and claims "Pfizer vaccine kills more people than it saves."

PolitiFact rating: Pants on Fire!

But this persons presentation spread on social media and frightened many people.
Some of my friends sent me the report.

 

Thousands more people are dying, yes.

Because they can't get into the hospitals clogged by COVID patients. I know several people who lost friends or relatives to things like cancer or heart disease over the past year because they weren't able to get properly diagnosed/treated in time.

 

The mass media picks people on the most extreme end and uses them as an example. It's intellectually dishonest and I see it as no accident, because there are plenty of people they could pick who aren't on that end, people with very credible positions that simply challenge the mainstream narrative and provoke the need (a desperate need at this point) for scientific debate, yet they never mention those people or give them airtime. But it's clear that the media has no desire whatsoever to engage in a fair or scientific debate, not that I ever thought they would. Instead, they continue to clutter airtime and pixel space with what some crackpot says in order to paint all opponents in the same negative "they're all crazy people!" light, or what entertainers like Howard Stern or Nicki Minaj think and it's unreal to me that people are digesting all of this without questioning what's being presented to them.

When you really sit for a moment and take into account all of the things the media and most of the talking heads they put on presented certainty of over the past 18+ months combined with all of the things they vehemently claimed were "conspiracy theories" only for them to have to backtrack on their certainties and start reporting so-called conspiracy theories as the facts they surfaced as (many of which were said not by "conspiracy theorists" but by decorated scientists and forecasters), that should've been enough to make people turn the TV off and stop taking them as the authority they purport to be, but it didn't. Thing is, every person with access to the internet in a free country can go directly to government documents and articles, as well as medical and scientific publications for themselves and cut through the clutter, twisting, and emotional rhetoric with poor or nonexistent context (usually involving statistics) the media spews daily, and take their own informed position. A Doctorate in Medical Science isn't needed either as most of these things are written in ways that anyone with at least an 8th-10th grade reading level can understand, so all it requires is the desire to learn.

I think many people are doing their best and genuinely believe they're cutting through the clutter by using "fact-checkers", but the rise of trust in them is alarming because people are giving full faith over to people they can't vet. It's a shortcut that in itself needs fact-checking. Politifact is an example of the problem at least in this case, as one time they put up a check where they repeatedly conflated EUA with approval and that's a pretty big mistake to make because it furthers the public not knowing that the two designations are different in application and purpose and process. Some raised that issue to them and they haven't corrected it, so they're taking the position that they can't be corrected and that's dangerous when you consider how many people rely on their information to be accurate and accept it as gospel.

There have also been a few fact-checks from Reuters that were essentially smear attempts against Doctors/Scientists who did nothing more than voice some valid concerns on scientific grounds, concerns that would have been respected and welcomed for examination at any other time. Today, they draw smear and censorship. This can't continue. Disaster is waiting at the end of this road.

On the topic of Pfizer, their well-documented history fairly and objectively makes everything they do questionable at best, but despite this most are not questioning them either. The unreasonable certainty--even after that certainty has been toppled time and time again--has continued. People are not learning from each phase of what's been happening. There is no scientific debate taking place. It's become one-sided and dogmatic. Nothing good ever comes from that.

 

If you go to one news outlet that's for the vaccine/mandates etc., it's name-calling, belittling, and disrespect of people who aren't. If you go to another news outlet that's against the vaccine/mandates, etc., it's name-calling, belittling, and disrespect of people who are. It's juvenile and it's getting us nowhere.

What really concerns me is the way media that have taken a pro stance have ignored the positions of highly-respected medical journals like the BMJ. If this is really about science, then what better to highlight than one of the most respected medical journals on earth? Or, at least have a debate between those presenting the positions and another. For decades now it's been a pretty normal thing to see a serious issue have some debate between two opposing experts even when it was obvious which position the hosting network was taking on a topic, but I have yet to see that with this. I imagine there has been at least one instance, maybe more, but if there has it still appears to be so few and far between, I haven't seen it on any major media and it looks like this is brewing as a result, and that's just one of a number of open letters and calls for needed debate from Doctors, Scientists, and general health professionals who are being shutout. The closest I've gotten to it from media was a debate I just happened to catch about 2 months ago on a local Saturday afternoon show that comes on when they feel like it and no one really watches. The debate was between a Nurse (against) and a Doctor (for). The Nurse REALLY knew her stuff inside and out and the Doctor made some great points too, I had to grab a notepad so I could look into the references being made, it was incredibly informative and easily the best thing I've gotten on this from all major media in the past 18+ months combined.

See, that's the kind of thing that should be front and center instead of name-calling and stoking this adversarial climate, because no matter what position one takes on this ordeal, what's happening in places like Australia and New Zealand is WAY overboard (which to your point are examples of what the media said were wild conspiracy theories that would never happen) and will result in a bloodbath here because unlike those countries where its citizens are revolting with fists and bricks, the United States is a shooting country, so that's absolutely not where we want this to go. That won't end well for anybody.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/vaccinated-michigan-couple-die-minutes-145200142.html


Vaccinated Michigan couple die minutes apart from COVID-19 while holding hands

 

Gaslighting: Gaslighting is a colloquialism that is loosely defined as making someone question their reality. The term is also used informally to describe someone who persistently puts forth a false narrative which leads another person to doubt their own perceptions to the extent that they become disoriented and distressed. -- Wikipedia

 

I was helping my friend today with funeral arrangements. Last night his dad passed from COVID. Unfortunately they refused to get vaccinated.
I'm sure if they did get vaccinated the friends dad most likely still be around.

I shared this article with my friends and relatives so they be more careful. One of my sons already got the booster shot.
As there is some info on how the effectiveness of vaccines declines with the time, I speculate if their vaccines effectiveness declined?
The couple that passed was vaccinated and from the story they followed the rules.
No info provided when did they get the vaccines and witch vaccines they got.
Everybody knows there is no 100% protection from COVID and small % of people who die are vaccinated.

I realize that this should have gone to another tread, an older one.

 

BMJ took an anti-vaccination stance? Reference with PubMed ID, please. If it's what I think it is, then you are joining the chorus of people intent on misunderstanding a global health policy argument as a medical one. And some of the loudest voices misunderestimate on purpose.

There is no "scientific debate". When there is, very little is to be gained from having it in popular press. Antivax movement is up there with the most heinous terrorist networks in body count.

 

No, they did what they've always done for 181 years, they took a fair, balanced, scientific stance on multiple issues using credible data and references that are being ignored to the point of not even being acknowledged on topics ranging from natural immunity to safeguards to procedures/processes. It's all on their site and easily searchable so no need to search any other outlets.

I know it's hard for many to believe, but everything being done by governments and pharmaceutical company's here and around the world (and everything being reported here and around the world) isn't infallible. There is actually lots of room for improvement. Also, everyone who hasn't taken this particular vaccine is not an "anti-vaxxer". That propagandized and grossly mis/overused word has done enough damage. A person is not an "anti-vaxxer" for being cautious of one pharmaceutical they don't have full trust in just like you aren't a racist for being cautious of one person of another race you don't have full trust in. It's also a mistake of the false sense of absolute certainty many have to conclude that because someone is cautious that they aren't educated on the matter. In the same vein, it's a mistake for people to conclude in the other direction for those who aren't.

Please don't lump me into whatever group you've decided are the "terrorists", as it just proves my point. There is A LOT to be debated as, not all, but many decisions are being made that aren't science-based, never were, and some have been entirely arbitrary. It's okay to admit we don't have all the answers. The problem is, the people in charge of these matters aren't willing to admit that, and that false sense of certainty I mentioned earlier has trickled down to the general public, so we get people calling others "terrorists" and a list of other inflammatory names which speaks directly to the main point I made before.

I've said my piece on this one. Next time. Maybe.

 

People are making their decisions, here is one LeBron James took:
The question is how are their decisions affecting other peoples lives.

 

There is nothing significant about this vaccine except the toxic masculinity riled up by political and media leaders, used as a cudgel against the people whom they hate anyway.

 

BMJ is a journal. So, article reference please; ideally as a DOI or PubMed identifier. Then we'll have something to discuss.

Yes, it is very common among antivaxers to balk at the label. Nothing new here. And while Pfizer is very, very far from infallible, and is in fact a corporation with some questionable business practices, it's record on science is far better than that of the alt-health crowd in general and "vaccine skeptics" in particular. That's just the matter of historical fact.

When I said "terrorists", I meant terrorists. I believe the bloodiest group in US history was the KKK. I think that the movement that's solely responsible for eg. measles still existing in the developed world, and that keeps contributing to the current public health crisis, can give them some competition in terms of pure body count.