People for Safe Vaccines on Covid Errors and Inaccuracies By Brian Simpson

Nothing particularly new for those who follow the Covid vax debates daily, but sometimes a good summary document is very useful to pass onto those who are just awakening. People for Safe Vaccines have done a great job summarising the best arguments about the twists and turns of errors and inaccuracies in the establishment’s Covid narrative.

https://www.peopleforsafevaccines.org/post/deception-point?utm_campaign=55fee490-84c2-47a1-9385-0d810868b65e&utm_source=so&utm_medium=mail&cid=363d3a19-a512-40c9-a90d-5d1ff57635d1

“In our analysis to-date, including the recent analysis of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report on 'Australia's Health 2022: data insights', we uncover errors and inaccuracies which deceive the public, and which ultimately convince them to submit to demands to give up their bodily autonomy.

These errors and inaccuracies include:

• The RT-PCR tests are known to be inaccurate by almost 100% when they are used at a cycle threshold (Ct) above 35. They are routinely used at Ct of 40 and above. In fact, the RT-PCR test should never be used to diagnose infectious disease, because it cannot detect infectivity.
• Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by rapid antigen testing (RAT) is officially classified as only a “probable case,” as distinct from a “confirmed case” detected by NAAT (such as RT-PCR) and antibody tests. RAT tests are increasingly used and have since December 2021, accounted for more than half of the total cases reported each day. Improper use of these tests is likely creating the illusion of greater prevalence of the disease.
• Covid surveillance data used for those daily media updates from premiers and CHOs misrepresent the facts: they inflate hospitalisations, because every day a patient stays in hospital counts as a hospitalisation. From the outset, this created the illusion that the healthcare system was under a larger burden, by a magnitude of around 2.6-times, which represents the average number of days for a patient hospital stay.
• Masking was claimed to be safe and effective, when the reality is long-term use can create bacterial pneumonia and masks’ effectiveness can be disproved using a simple aerosol can.
• The Doherty modelling predicted dire consequences from infections including significant deaths, but only focused on isolation and vaccination as appropriate measures. No treatment protocols were recommended, so for the first time in history, infected people were sent away to fend for themselves until they were at death’s door. The "novel" nature of the virus was the excuse, even though several well-known, widely-used drugs with excellent safety profiles, and vitamins, had been shown to have positive effects. This deception was designed to deploy emergency use authorisation to be granted for the rapidly developed vaccines, since apparently no other treatments were effective on a “new” virus.
• The claim that vaccination would have a significant impact on reducing transmission, thereby reducing infections. Remember the claim of 95% efficacy? Those clinical trials used relative risk reduction to make such efficacy claims, instead of absolute risk reduction, which provide a more reliable and truthful insight into efficacy, as explained in our first report. Unblinding of the trial participants gave rise to hiding safety issues.
• Then to protect the elderly, there was the need to vaccinate the kids, who have the lowest mortality and clinical severity rates. The reality is, despite aged care workers needing to be vaccinated, 97% of RACF residents being fully vaccinated, and restrictions on the unvaccinated entering residential facilities, these residents are catching, and dying from covid at alarmingly high rates.
• Using the low vaccination rates early in the roll-out to claim a pandemic of the unvaccinated, then creating reporting bias by combining unvaccinated people with:
• the age ineligible,
• those vaccinated with 1 dose,
• those diagnosed with COVID-19 within 21 days, and
• those where the vaccination status is unknown,

and then calling this entire group "unvaccinated".

So far, we have:

• tests that are not fit for purpose, surveillance data being used which exaggerates hospitalisations, both of which created panic and fear,
• Modelling used to ramp up the fear to push a single agenda (vaccination) which sidelined sound medical treatment,
• promoted lockdowns which in turn created the perfect mix to usher in an untested gene altering agent, then throw in
• mandates and some well-crafted feel-good promotion and 90% of Aussies are rolling up their sleeves doing their civic duty....to return to a new normal.

Two weeks to flatten the curve using lockdowns was the best advice from the top advisors at the time. The reality was 262 days for Melbournians under house arrest, complete with curfews. Even Western Australia's 698-day border restriction couldn’t top that.

In statistics it is well known that you can make even the worst data look good. All you need to do it select the method and metric that best suits your desired outcome. When it became difficult to hide the fact that these injections fail the definition of a vaccine, which is to stop transmission, it was suddenly claimed that they were effective in reducing clinical severity and that was good enough to push on with the roll-out.

COVID-19 overtook cancer and heart disease to become the 2nd most common cause of death in January 2022, when deaths from all causes in Australia spiked 22% higher than historical averages. Then suddenly vaccinations were claimed to only reduce severity; which became an obvious contradiction with what the gold standard of statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics was saying.

This deception was possible by distorting the representation of the surveillance data by the metric used to calculate the case fatality rate (CFR). The CFR is a crude ratio of deaths to cases.

A more reliable and accurate method of calculating severity of disease is to compare the number of deaths per million, which provides a more reliable comparative analysis.

The government narrative makes no sense. If the vaccines were truly vaccines their role would be to stop or significantly slow transmission. They don’t. If they reduced severity, we would see less hospital admissions and deaths. We are seeing the opposite, as covid became one of the leading causes of death during summer, a time when upper respiratory infections are typically at their lowest. If these injections were safe, why are there 900 reported deaths and 133,000 injuries, as of 30 June 2022, which TGA admit are likely under-reported by up to 95%.

Sadly, many now have remorse for buying into this narrative.

What other deceptions will we find? Are the vaccines injuring people, and are these injuries being covered up by calling them covid? Is the explosion of cases caused by the vaccines increasing susceptibility, or was locking down people only kicking the can down the road until restrictions eased?

It looks very bad, however you look at it; and the thread by which their ‘safe and effective’ narrative hangs, only persists while the population remains in the dark. Ultimately, there is no way to hide the corpses stacking up.

Here is the full People for Safe Vaccines report:

https://www.peopleforsafevaccines.org/_files/ugd/44a880_49b43d436239497b80bddc0c5746c2be.pdf