Slowly but surely, the truth is emerging.

[Chrissykabel]

In a US interview with Bill Maher, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has just nuked the narrative.

“If you look at the Pfizer vaccine studies, the people who got the vaccine had a 23 percent HIGHER death rate from all causes.”

Bill Maher panics.
“But that could be the disease itself…”

Kennedy ends it.
“Then the vaccine doesn’t WORK, does it?”

That’s it. Game over.

If a vaccine doesn’t reduce overall deaths, it failed.
If deaths go UP, it’s not protection. It’s harm.

They censored doctors.
They buried data.
They bullied the public.

Now the truth is leaking out anyway. We have all been gaslighted on an industrial scale.

Are you sure? Because the brain works in specific ways. So if you have the opinion that the vaccine is dangerous you are more likely to notice and attribute any odd health in your social group to the vaccine. You are more likely to dismiss or just not take note of any ill health due to Covid. Its a bit like when you buy a red car and suddenly notice every car on the road seems to be red.

Have you written down a list of all your family and social contacts, checked their medical history and written down all relevant data to check that the 'facts' support your obviously bias observations.

In my (immediate) social and family circle nobody died or was hospitalized because of, or with COVID. Nobody had any side effects from the Vaccine. We were lucky. So on my biased observation. The Vaccine worked brilliantly, lots of us had it, not side effects and nobody was seriously ill.

Statistics can be easily manipulated to give you the answers you want, observations without statistics are pretty much a joke.

The UKHSA holds all the vaxxed v's un-vaxxed data that can prove this one way or the other. It would put the anti-vax argument to bed forever.

Despite this, the UKHSA have repeatedly refused FOI requests to release the data to the public to be analysed.

Th data can easily be anonymised to protect patient privacy, so why would they refuse the release of this data, unless they know there is something to hide?

She’s not interested in science and facts and helpful info from an expert - but nice try

@pimplebum agreed.

Instead of responding to questions about the old nonsense the OP is focussed on presenting new nonsense.

I wonder why that might be?

I agree with his stance on UPFs but honestly some of the biggest companies in the US make UPFs. How will he stop them? Its interesting he hasn't yet put a tax on UPFs, maybe because it would have an impact on the economy?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr? The famous anti-vaxxer? Lol. Hilarious post! OP, you know the world isn't flat, yeah?

😂👌

Is RFK vaccinated? Are his children vaccinated?

@Chrissykabel interested in your thoughts on the links to the historic smallpox articles.

Did the other posters just whip those up on PowerPoint?

This from a major research project in France...

I had no opinion either way until a good friend of my DH was left with severe nervous system damage within hours of their first Pfizer vaccine. Initially he was dismissed as a 'coincidence' but now his neurologist has told him unofficially tat the vaccine was the likely cause. The censorship of his posts seeing help for his condition on FB and other online support groups of similarly injured people ept getting taen down. He got banned from FB etc. This opened my eyes, thankfully before I got my first shot, which I then declined.

It’s actually not straightforward to anonymize vast patient datasets while protecting patients from reindentification, but it’s easy to assume it is when you don’t know much about it. FOI can also be turned down for many other non-nefarious reasons.

If the agenda was to make money, then I’m not sure someone like RFK would be drawing attention to it, given that most of that lot have their snouts firmly in the pharmaceutical trough. Why put a dent your profits?

The UKHSA have already released the same data to Pfizer and to Moderna, so why not to the public?

Thank you for this.

To quote a previous post "facts are facts, whether you like them or not" 😁

RFK. Righto. That’ll be fully evidence based then. Not.

OP Many of us agree with you/RFK Jr/the numerous critical medics and scientists on these issues but you won't find them on here. But kudos to you for sticking your head above the parapet.

So let's assume that RFK is a scientific expert and people's hero, hell bent on stopping people being exploited and controlled by 'them'.

What actual steps has he taken? (Not words spoken) @Chrissykabel ?

Where will you find them?

Some posters don't have two brain cells to rub together.

Can you tell me your stance on the autism and vaccination please OP?

After thlymidamide and the Coventry radiation chapati experiment 1969 (which targeted Indian women) I am not surprised about covid vaccinations. I did not have any. There is no reason the government care about us one bit while leaving the homeless people outside. Keeping pubs/restaurants open but closing everything else was weird.

You and your acquaintances have been extraordinarily unlucky!

Surely you’re not isolated in all these reactions and deaths of young fit healthy people?

Why is it not commonplace?

Why would others not have noticed such large correlations?

Did you read beyond the headline??? 🤦🏻‍♀️

second sentence….

“Although several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these phenomena, the truth remains to be established because sufficient studies and data disclosures have not been conducted to adequately investigate the possible contribution of mRNA vaccines.”

In other words, they still don’t know. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Oh god.

Anonymising the data doesn't protect patient privacy. It's very easy to un-anonymise when age, sex, location, dates, and outcomes are combined, rare events like death are included, and it can be cross-referenced with multiple datasets that already exist publicly. A big fuck up with anonymised medical records in Massachusetts is taught in privacy law and data science courses all over the world as a result.

If they released the data to sufficient degree that it was truly anonymised, people like you would no doubt say they cleaned it too much.

The UKHSA’s mandate is not to “convince really gullible people and conspiracy theorists”. It's to reduce population harm. Releasing raw data risks misinterpretation from people like you actively SEEKING to misinterpret it, going through to cherry pick the stuff that confirms your bias and ignoring any caveats and weights and balances. That wilful misinterpretation risks reduced vaccine uptake, and reduced uptake risks entirely preventable deaths. It's not their job to convince idiots online.