School kids are not renowned for hygiene. Without vaccination the disease would spread among them rapidly. The kids would then act as carriers and pass the disease on to vulnerable elderly people who have a good chance of death or ongoing illness.

psychojoe said..

Chris 249 said.

It's perfectly reasonable that they tried to promote vaccination.

I can only guess what makes it perfectly reasonable.
The mountain of evidence that it's safe. No.
The mountain of evidence that it's effective. No.
America did it so we should too. Maybe.
It's the only way to save face after the massive ****show. Possibly, although saving face isn't perfectly reasonable.
I am interested to hear how you arrived at the conclusion that it was and continues to be perfectly reasonable to promote Corminarty vaccination to healthy young Australians.

My point was simply that OK was talking absolute bull**** when he claimed that I was "in denial about having the media and politicians telling us to get vaccinated as it stops the spread and infection is pretty delusional." I never denied that such people said to get vaxxd for those reasons; Ok was just making up crap whe he said I denied it.

There IS mountains of evidence to show that the vax was/is safe and effective. It wasn't completely safe - nothing ever is - but getting vaxxed statistically caused fewer heart problems than getting C19 did.

If we're just going to look at what effected people we know, or people once removed from us, then I can mention the people I know who have been absolutely smashed by long Covid, the people I know who lost a (fairly young and healthy) parent who didn't believe in vaxxing, and the in-law who died years ago because she didn't get another vax. I know medical researchers who are really worried about the long-term effects of long Covid, and they have zero reasons to make anything up. So if we want to get into apocryphal tales then we'll both just throw up examples that don't show the overall reality.

Chris 249 said..

psychojoe said..

Chris 249 said..

psychojoe said..


Vic CHO Sutton was required by law to review the actions of megalomaniac Andrews within two weeks to ensure they were the least detrimental to society. That didn't happen. Two months later Sutton told Neill Mitchell on 3aw that he hadn't reviewed anything and he wasn't involved in any of the decision making "the decision making process took a different direction". As the only person appointed to review the not entirely illegal actions of Andrews, his actions were far beyond negligent. Some might suggest that for anyone in such a prominent position to completely disregard their responsibilities smacks of conspiracy.

Okay, can you please tell us;

1 - what law?

2- What "two weeks"?

3- Where is the evidence of this conversation with Mitchell?

4- Why do you think that Andrews' decisions were immune from the normal processes of law?

5- Anyone can suggest anything. Where is the evidence of any conspiracy?

Have you investigated many conspiracies in real life? Have you listened to wire taps, sent in the surveillance guys, jumped over fences at night on raids, or got the forensic guys involved? I've done them all. The fact that one person allegedly didn't follow some alleged law to review someone does not smack of anything to those of us who have actually done this stuff in real life.

The law is part of the Victorian health and wellbeing legislation, from memory this was on about page 252, such a boring read.
The wording is something to the effect of the premier may take any health measures without any consultation under a state of emergency (so there's Andrews immunity from normal law) and goes on to say the the Chief health officer must review any measures within two weeks to ensure the least impactful measures have been taken.
The conversation with Neill Mitchell was broadcast on 3aw, I didn't personally keep a record of it but someone would have.
No, I haven't worked as a detective on any level. My work for WAPOL and ADF has been much less exciting than yours, and of course my contracts ceased immediately when I let it be known what I thought of McGowan's dismissal of informed consent for medical procedures. And naturally if a law is broken that you didn't know existed you'd have no reason to be concerned.

Your work for WAPOL and ADF was probably actually much more exciting than mine. When I was at the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce at the Attorney General's lots of the ADF investigators seemed to be doing a damn good job but some of the higher-ups stopped them from taking more action.

In a quick(ish) check I can't find anything in the Act that says that the CHO has to review any measures within two weeks. Section 53 says the Minister may require a Health Impact Assessment by the CHO, but the Minister doesn't have to ask for one. The CHO has almost unlimited powers to delegate their jobs to certain other people and in a health emergency it's quite likely that he did.

So, sorry, but if you can't provide any evidence for the claim, and given that a scan seems to show NO requirement to review a health measure; that the CHO could have delegated one if it had been asked for; and that we have no information to show exactly what Sutton said, there's no actual evidence to show that he did anything wrong. I don't know Mitchell but I do know that journalists often get things wrong or don't give time to explain what actually happened.

Yeah, I really should have kept records, records of what the health and wellbeing legislation looked like at the time, and the universal declaration of human rights looks like it's had a bit of editing too. But alas it was a completely hopeless situation at the time. And no one is ever getting charged. The only enquiry, being the hotel security enquiry has been suppressed for a good many years, next time I'm at fault in a legal matter I'll be sure to claim a creeping assumption that I was in the right, worked a treat for Andrews.

"thymus involution" is a thing?

psychojoe said..

- but getting vaxxed statistically caused fewer heart problems than getting C19 did.


This is true in the demographic where thymus involution is complete, which stands to reason really, but that sets a very low bar for the meaning of 'safe'

Here's a study that you must be unaware of.
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

Yes, since I'm not a doctor or an epidimiologist, I wasn't aware of it.

As the study clearly notes, the information on post-vax myocardiation rates varies enormously. It also noted that only study of post-infection myocarditis reported "only six post-COVID myocarditis cases in boys ages 12-17 over the course of a year in a 60- million patient catchment area". Cases of mycarditis in boys are also generally mild.

The study says that while there may be an increase in hospitalisation for a small group, "this type of harm-benefit analysis does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk or protection from non-severe COVID-19 symptoms." So the study doesn't say that an increased risk of minor issues among a small proportion of the population means that they or others shouldn't be vaxxed.

However, what do you want me to say? Yes, some people in society are placed at (vanishingly small) higher risk than others, to stop fatal diseases from sweeping around.

We can look back a century to see what happened before widespread vaccines. The death and illness rates were far higher than they are today, particularly for children. Vaccinations are why we no longer have kids in iron lungs and leg braces from polio, why the death rate from TB went from about 40 per 100000 (many of them kids) to .03 per 100000, and a major reason we no longer have a death rate of 10% of all kids under five (as we did a century ago) and the death rate for kids is 3% of what it used to be.

Chris 249 said..

We can look back a century to see what happened before widespread vaccines. The death and illness rates were far higher than they are today, particularly for children. Vaccinations are why we no longer have kids in iron lungs and leg braces from polio, why the death rate from TB went from about 40 per 100000 (many of them kids) to .03 per 100000, and a major reason we no longer have a death rate of 10% of all kids under five (as we did a century ago) and the death rate for kids is 3% of what it used to be.

Grouping this phase 3 trial product with a previously successful vaccine schedule answers all my questions . Thanks for your considered responses.

psychojoe said..

Chris 249 said..

We can look back a century to see what happened before widespread vaccines. The death and illness rates were far higher than they are today, particularly for children. Vaccinations are why we no longer have kids in iron lungs and leg braces from polio, why the death rate from TB went from about 40 per 100000 (many of them kids) to .03 per 100000, and a major reason we no longer have a death rate of 10% of all kids under five (as we did a century ago) and the death rate for kids is 3% of what it used to be.

Grouping this phase 3 trial product with a previously successful vaccine schedule answers all my questions . Thanks for your considered responses.

Thanks for your considered responses, too.

However, I'm not quite sure about your statement"Grouping this phase 3 trial product with a previously successful vaccine schedule answers all my questions".What "Phase 3 trial product" did you mean?Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 had completed its Phase 3 trials by December 2020 and the rollout started here in 2021.Moderna mRNA-1273's Phase III trial ended in Feb 2021 and it was available here from August 2021.

I wasn't grouping C19 vaxxes with the much older polio vaxxes in all ways; the point was that vaxxing has overall been a huge help for health.

I do understand the concern about requiring vaxxing of youth. Where we seem to differ is that I see that recommending it was a reasonable judgement call by people with far more data and expertise than you or I have. Personally, I accept the fact that I'm not an expert in everything in the world. I know it took me years to learn my job, and I accept that people who spent more years learning another job, whether it's plumbing, airliner maintainence, dentistry or epidemiology, know more about their field than I do.

About the paper you linked to; it's just a pre-pub that has been very heavily criticised because, for example, it relied on the VAERS database that SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT INCLUDES MEDICAL EVENTS THAT MAY NOT BE CAUSED BY VACCINES.

Here's what VAERS says about its data, with my emphasis; apologies for the fact that for some reason I can't paste a link;

"When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note thatfor any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine.The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event."

"VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.".......A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given.No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is requiredin order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine."

So the paper uses data that the creator of the data says does NOT show a cause-and-effect relationship between getting vaxxed and a possible medical issue. It specifically says that the medical event may just be a coincidence and that it may be wrongly reported - and yet the authors use the data as if it does.

To give them cred, the authors put up their excerpted data, in a victory for open science. However, that actually shows the flaws in the study. The first patient I came across(1071409) was listed only as having "suspected mycarditis" - yet he has been included in the "evidence" that vaxxes cause myo. Others were also only "possible mycarditis" or "no clear diagnosis". So even a non-expert like me can agree with VAERS itself and the study's critics, and say that the study included dodgy data.

As a cardiologist noted "The now-infamous study authored by H?eg et al is deeply misleading....VAERS in fact, specifically instructs the reader to not use their database in this way". Sorry, for some reason the link can't be pasted here but a Google will find the quote.

It's interesting to note that one of the authors of the paper you linked to didn't mention that he was a founder of an organisation that runs a political action campaign against Covid prevention and is not a doctor or an epidimiologists, but an audio engineer working in computers. The fact that the lead author didn't know his conflict of interest, and that he didn't reveal it, is a very big black mark against the paper.

A local well known sky diver died while sky diving only hours after having his 4th booster jab.
He was extremely fit, healthy with no underlying health concerns.
His parachute didn't open and he died on impact.
Conspiracy theorists say his parachute had always opened every jump his whole life before he had the covid vax,
so its obvious his death was caused by the vaccine.

lotofwind said..
A local well known sky diver died while sky diving only hours after having his 4th booster jab.
He was extremely fit, healthy with no underlying health concerns.
His parachute didn't open and he died on impact.
Conspiracy theorists say his parachute had always opened every jump his whole life before he had the covid vax,
so its obvious his death was caused by the vaccine.

Maybe he "died with the vaccine"?

remery said..

Chris 249 said..

psychojoe said..

Chris 249 said..

We can look back a century to see what happened before widespread vaccines. The death and illness rates were far higher than they are today, particularly for children. Vaccinations are why we no longer have kids in iron lungs and leg braces from polio, why the death rate from TB went from about 40 per 100000 (many of them kids) to .03 per 100000, and a major reason we no longer have a death rate of 10% of all kids under five (as we did a century ago) and the death rate for kids is 3% of what it used to be.

Grouping this phase 3 trial product with a previously successful vaccine schedule answers all my questions . Thanks for your considered responses.

Thanks for your considered responses, too.

However, I'm not quite sure about your statement"Grouping this phase 3 trial product with a previously successful vaccine schedule answers all my questions".What "Phase 3 trial product" did you mean?Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 had completed its Phase 3 trials by December 2020 and the rollout started here in 2021.Moderna mRNA-1273's Phase III trial ended in Feb 2021 and it was available here from August 2021.

I wasn't grouping C19 vaxxes with the much older polio vaxxes in all ways; the point was that vaxxing has overall been a huge help for health.

I do understand the concern about requiring vaxxing of youth. Where we seem to differ is that I see that recommending it was a reasonable judgement call by people with far more data and expertise than you or I have. Personally, I accept the fact that I'm not an expert in everything in the world. I know it took me years to learn my job, and I accept that people who spent more years learning another job, whether it's plumbing, airliner maintainence, dentistry or epidemiology, know more about their field than I do.

About the paper you linked to; it's just a pre-pub that has been very heavily criticised because, for example, it relied on the VAERS database that SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT INCLUDES MEDICAL EVENTS THAT MAY NOT BE CAUSED BY VACCINES.

Here's what VAERS says about its data, with my emphasis; apologies for the fact that for some reason I can't paste a link;

"When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note thatfor any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine.The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event."

"VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.".......A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given.No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is requiredin order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine."

So the paper uses data that the creator of the data says does NOT show a cause-and-effect relationship between getting vaxxed and a possible medical issue. It specifically says that the medical event may just be a coincidence and that it may be wrongly reported - and yet the authors use the data as if it does.

To give them cred, the authors put up their excerpted data, in a victory for open science. However, that actually shows the flaws in the study. The first patient I came across(1071409) was listed only as having "suspected mycarditis" - yet he has been included in the "evidence" that vaxxes cause myo. Others were also only "possible mycarditis" or "no clear diagnosis". So even a non-expert like me can agree with VAERS itself and the study's critics, and say that the study included dodgy data.

As a cardiologist noted "The now-infamous study authored by H?eg et al is deeply misleading....VAERS in fact, specifically instructs the reader to not use their database in this way". Sorry, for some reason the link can't be pasted here but a Google will find the quote.

It's interesting to note that one of the authors of the paper you linked to didn't mention that he was a founder of an organisation that runs a political action campaign against Covid prevention and is not a doctor or an epidimiologists, but an audio engineer working in computers. The fact that the lead author didn't know his conflict of interest, and that he didn't reveal it, is a very big black mark against the paper.

VAERS is a fantastic surveillance tool that has been disgracefully misused by anti-vaxxers.

The US version of the tool did its job by highlighting a potential risk of stroke after vaccination in a certain age group under certain circumstances. Detailed research was immediately undertaken and found that it was just an outlier and we can carry on.

I'm also guilty of misusing VAERS, I didn't bother to report my injury, neither did anyone else I know that was injured, and why bother, it's not going to make a difference, the service has already been all but completely discredited.
Although I will admit my selection bias based on my own experience let me share this particular article.
I've chosen to have every vaccine and give them all to my kids, but not this one, I chose exclude myself from this, and I would expect anyone to agree with bodily autonomy. The first two doctors thought it caused pericarditis, three cardiology appointments later it turned out to be costochondritis, the prognosis was self resolution within two months but that was sixteen months ago and I still haven't taken a full breath (it causes pain on deep aspiration). Wife went five shots deep before she said no more, the shots were more detrimental than the virus, one of the reasons she was happy to discontinue work at the hospital. And the kids (amazingly luckily) didn't die with Covid.
The stark truth is we'll never have reliable data on the subject.
In a completely unrelated matter, how do you feel about thinning blood to treat depression? Sounds dumb as **** to me.

Flying Dutchman said..
Get your masks on boyz

www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440%2823%2901324-5

Blood maintains a constant alkalinity between 7.35-7.45.
Acidic or alkaline water won't change the pH, neither will a mask. Breathing fast or slow can.
I hate the masks, but that's for a different reason. This article has even less credibility than the one I posted before it which is at least supported by my experience.
I will grant that some people got headaches from overuse of the masks and others had bacterial problems, but.... your article. No

Flying Dutchman said..

psychojoe said..
Blood maintains a constant alkalinity between 7.35-7.45.
Acidic or alkaline water won't change the pH, neither will a mask. Breathing fast or slow can.
I hate the masks, but that's for a different reason. This article has even less credibility than the one I posted before it which is at least supported by my experience.
I will grant that some people got headaches from overuse of the masks and others had bacterial problems, but.... your article. No

I emailed one of the authors your comment, see if I get a response.

I can't imagine that breathing in higher concentrations of Co2 in a mask is doing us much good?

They reference a study to support their claim that the deadspace of masks increases co2 levels and induces acidosis .
In that study, too achieve this result, the participants had to wear a contraption that increased deadspace by 1.2 Litres while performing strenuous exercise for 30 minutes.

Significantly different to wearing an N95

When I exhale, it's more than just a mouthful of air. Presumably most of what is behind the mask escapes and is replaced by ambient air when you breathe in.
So you get a 4% CO2 conc as you exhale, but you aren't breathing in the same air.

Carantoc said..

Mr Milk said..
When I exhale, it's more than just a mouthful of air. Presumably most of what is behind the mask escapes and is replaced by ambient air when you breathe in.

What's the point of the mask then ?

If everything I breathe out escapes whether I am wearing a mask or not, then what's the point of it ?

It must trap something, and something must then get re-inhaled more than not wearing a mask.

How much of what ?? Dunno. I'd doubt it would be more Co2 than you get from being in other places.

Like in my tractor. When mowing dry grass. The dust and carbon monoxide from that would be shed loads more than from wearing a mask outside on a windy day.

This is my problem with masks. Yes they work but not very well, and ironically the main place it makes sense to support their use; public transport, they fail by sending particles sideways to the passengers seated beside.

psychojoe said..

People make a big fuss about oxygen in the air, blood oxygen saturation can drop to 70% before the body will notice. Air is mostly argon, which is super important, because carbon dioxide needs to be pushed out of the body by an inert gas.

Mostly Argon? You don't really do much do you?

Noble idea, but not correct.