The 2021/22 Conspiracy Theory Ballon D'Or winner, The Great Reset.

[lardy]

I think you're asking whether 163 people going blind warrants the inclusion of that word, which wasn't mine but whoever wrote that headline.

I do though believe it to be justified because we were informed endlessly the jabs were safe and effective. Not overwhelmingly, mostly or anything else to qualify what were presented as indisputable facts.

In Yankland there's currently 27 thousand jab deaths and, if memory serves, 45 thousand in the EU (along with 1.5 million adverse reactions, half of which have been classified as serious).

As a reference point, the Swine Flu vaccine rolled out in the States in the mid-1970s were pulled completely by their FDA after 56 deaths. How times change.

About 50 million Brits have had at least two doses. 163 is obviously a tiny percentage of that.

But it also seems like a small number of people to go blind in the UK over a year. What is the annual average number? I would have guessed it's higher than that. Could the vaccines have the unexpected side effect of preventing blindness?

[cyril evans awaydays]

About 50 million Brits have had at least two doses. 163 is obviously a tiny percentage of that.

But it also seems like a small number of people to go blind in the UK over a year. What is the annual average number? I would have guessed it's higher than that. Could the vaccines have the unexpected side effect of preventing blindness?

As usual the Daily Expose headline (only 26 days to save it going bust this time) decontextualises the raw data. The MHRA site states:

This information does not represent an overview of the potential side effects associated with the vaccines. A list of the recognised adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines is provided in the information for healthcare professionals and the recipient information here. These can also be found on the Coronavirus Yellow Card reporting site. Conclusions on the safety and risks of the vaccines cannot be made on the data shown in the Print alone.

When viewing the vaccine analysis print you should remember that:

reporters are asked to submit Yellow Card reports even if they only have a suspicion that the medicine or vaccine may have caused the adverse reaction. The existence of an adverse reaction report in the print does not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused the suspected reaction.

it may be difficult to tell the difference between something that has occurred naturally and a suspected adverse reaction. Sometimes these events can be part of the condition being treated rather than being caused by the vaccine.

many factors have to be considered when assessing whether the vaccine has caused a reported adverse reaction. When monitoring the safety of vaccines and medicines, MHRA staff carry out careful analysis of these factors.

For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions. It is important to note that most people take medicines and vaccines without having any serious side effects.


https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ysis_print.pdf

[lardy]

As usual the Daily Expose headline (only 26 days to save it going bust this time) decontextualises the raw data. The MHRA site states:

This information does not represent an overview of the potential side effects associated with the vaccines. A list of the recognised adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines is provided in the information for healthcare professionals and the recipient information here. These can also be found on the Coronavirus Yellow Card reporting site. Conclusions on the safety and risks of the vaccines cannot be made on the data shown in the Print alone.

When viewing the vaccine analysis print you should remember that:

reporters are asked to submit Yellow Card reports even if they only have a suspicion that the medicine or vaccine may have caused the adverse reaction. The existence of an adverse reaction report in the print does not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused the suspected reaction.

it may be difficult to tell the difference between something that has occurred naturally and a suspected adverse reaction. Sometimes these events can be part of the condition being treated rather than being caused by the vaccine.

many factors have to be considered when assessing whether the vaccine has caused a reported adverse reaction. When monitoring the safety of vaccines and medicines, MHRA staff carry out careful analysis of these factors.

For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions. It is important to note that most people take medicines and vaccines without having any serious side effects.


https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ysis_print.pdf

According to this, there were over 170,000 people registered as blind in the UK as at 2017.

https://www.rnib.org.uk/professional...and-statistics

The Pfizer data above shows 163 people over the course of about 15 months (Dec 2020 to April 2021). So in the course of a year, that would increase the number of blind cases by less than 0.1% - and even that is making the huge and incredibly unlikely assumption that the clot shot ((c) Organ) was the sole cause of every one of them.