Viruses / Vaccines 2

GlowGirl · May 4

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

BF25394 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Every medication has a risk. Even cough medicine or aspirin. No one has ever disputed that. Ever.

Safe and effective means generally, but every time you get a vax, you fill out forms detailing the risk factors.

Now, if you can show actual evidence (not YouTube videos of someone claiming it) that the clinical trials willfully omitted clear evidence of a pattern of these more severe injuries, we’ll have something to discuss.

1. Side Effects & Adverse Events Data: Over 1,500,000 reports of side effects were recorded in VAERS (USA) and over 1,000,000 in EudraVigilance (European Union). The most common: myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, paralysis, neurological.
Conclusion: The widespread use of mRNA caused significant morbidity, especially in young healthy people. Sources: VAERS (CDC), EudraVigilance (EMA), BMJ 2022;378:o1931 —

2. Failure to Prevent Transmission of the Virus Evidence: Studies by the CDC and UKHSA showed that vaccinees were still shedding the virus — especially 2–3 months after the dose. The “you’re protecting others” argument collapsed.
Conclusion: The main reason for social pressure (solidarity) had no scientific basis. Sources: CDC MMWR 2022, UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 (December 2021) —

3. Short Duration of Protection Evidence: Protection from infection decreased significantly after 2–3 months, leading to continuous “boosters” without a clear study of long-term benefit.
Conclusion: Doses were multiplied without a new risk/benefit assessment — especially in low-risk populations. Sources: New England Journal of Medicine 2022;386:1088–91 —

4. Administration to Low-Risk Populations Data: Millions of children, adolescents, and healthy individuals under 50 years of age were vaccinated, with no individual benefit and no long-term safety studies.
Conclusion: A pharmacological intervention was imposed preventively, without an individualized indication. Sources: JAMA Pediatrics 2022;176(9):922–931, WHO risk-benefit analysis 2021 —

5. Increased Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Young Men Data: A 10–20% increase in myocarditis/pericarditis events was observed in adolescents and young men, mainly after the 2nd dose of mRNA.
Conclusion: These side effects were not adequately reported, nor were they transparently addressed by health authorities. Sources: CDC Advisory Committee 2021, JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005

Overall Conclusion: The mRNA vaccine against COVID-19, as implemented: Did not protect against transmission. Caused significant side effects. Was administered en masse without adequate documentation for the general population. Was accompanied by social, political, and professional coercion. The harm — health, ethical, and social — is real. And the biggest lesson is that science should never operate outside of consensus and transparency.

This is such a mishmash of nonsense. Regarding #2, you can't shed the virus simply because you're vaccinated. There is no virus in the mRNA vaccine. It mimics the presence of the virus to cause your immune system to generate antibodies. If people are protected from infection-- even if it's for two or three months before that protection wanes-- that will slow transmission. The initial clinical studies demonstrated that the virus was 94 or 95 percent effective at preventing transmission, not 100 percent. 94 or 95 percent is still a massive hurdle for transmission. The last line of #1 regarding significant morbidity from mRNA, especially in young healthy people, is complete bullshit. Regarding #5, rates of myocarditis were higher in unvaccinated people who contracted COVID than the elevated rates referenced here among the vaccinated.

You see what you want to see. Meanwhile, a lot of people died. The vaccine has been administered tens of billions of times and saved millions of lives without any serious negative consequences for the general population. Your conclusions are specious and not grounded in reality.

''Nonsense'', '' bullshit'', ''specious''..at least i can see..lol..

1. VAERS and EudraVigilance are self-reported, based on a person believing that their side effects are due to their taking a vaccine. There is no medical fact-finding required to evaluate the causality before it is recorded, and thus, it isn't a valid source of findings. That mRNA caused morbidity is not a conclusion that can be made with VAERS and EudraVigilance reportings. Another source would be necessary to prove or disprove this notion.
The BMJ article referenced is found here - and is called "The importance of sitting less and moving more". The only mention of CoVID is that CoVID has made us more sedentary. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1931

2. As was stated by the person whose responses you didn't actually address, there is no possibility of vaccine shedding when the live virus isn't contained in the vaccine. The conclusion also has nothing to do with the point provided.
The UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 can be found here - and does not have the word "shed" anywhere in it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61c5a722e90e071962ef0eae/technical-briefing-33.pdf

3. I have no problem with criticism of the ongoing requirements of boosters, but I think this can be debated both directions. In a world where travel can occur from and to anywhere, I don't think it's fair to say exposure levels anywhere were knowable, and a government has a mandate to protect its citizens.
Also, the NEJM article is actually a correspondence with the Editor, and the main conclusion is pertinent specifically to the omicron variant. It discusses a comparison of neutralization of the various strains, based on different treatment regimens. With respect to Omicron, the statement is that a booster's efficacy was less than that of the booster's efficacy on other variants, but was still an enormous increase of ability to neutralize. Note that there were no conclusions drawn about low-risk individuals. Again, your argument isn't represented in the article you linked.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119912

4. Plenty of risk is not visible, and often not even known to an individual. I found out this year I have high blood pressure. I did contract CoVID, while vaccinated. I have absolutely no idea how rough of a bout it would've been if I hadn't been vaccinated. In addition, plenty of people inadvertently have contact with people who are high-risk (whether or not they know it).
The journal article referenced does not exist in JAMA Pediatrics 2022. The closest by numbers/dates is JAMA Pediatrics 2022; 176(9):924-932. It's titled "Association Between Hospital-Acquired Harm Outcomes and Membership in a National Patient Safety Collaborative". Its stated objective is "To evaluate associations between membership in Children’s Hospitals’ Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS), a federally funded hospital engagement network, and hospital-acquired harm using standardized definitions and secular trend adjustment." which has nothing to do with CoVID risk evaluation.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2794533

5. Again, the 10-20% increase in myocarditis is presumably based on VAERS, etc. data, given that it's not been stated by the CDC. It is not valid because any individual could report what ever they want. This could even be exploited by making false submissions intentionally, and no one would know any better. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005 also does not exist. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1000-1008 is the closest by date and number, and while it concludes some prospective increases in myocarditis, notably, the article has nothing to do with CoVID or vaccines!
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2795673

So, now the question I'm left with - are you here to deceive us, or has someone deceived you?

AI hallucinations?

23scidoo · May 5

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

BF25394 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Every medication has a risk. Even cough medicine or aspirin. No one has ever disputed that. Ever.

Safe and effective means generally, but every time you get a vax, you fill out forms detailing the risk factors.

Now, if you can show actual evidence (not YouTube videos of someone claiming it) that the clinical trials willfully omitted clear evidence of a pattern of these more severe injuries, we’ll have something to discuss.

1. Side Effects & Adverse Events Data: Over 1,500,000 reports of side effects were recorded in VAERS (USA) and over 1,000,000 in EudraVigilance (European Union). The most common: myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, paralysis, neurological.
Conclusion: The widespread use of mRNA caused significant morbidity, especially in young healthy people. Sources: VAERS (CDC), EudraVigilance (EMA), BMJ 2022;378:o1931 —

2. Failure to Prevent Transmission of the Virus Evidence: Studies by the CDC and UKHSA showed that vaccinees were still shedding the virus — especially 2–3 months after the dose. The “you’re protecting others” argument collapsed.
Conclusion: The main reason for social pressure (solidarity) had no scientific basis. Sources: CDC MMWR 2022, UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 (December 2021) —

3. Short Duration of Protection Evidence: Protection from infection decreased significantly after 2–3 months, leading to continuous “boosters” without a clear study of long-term benefit.
Conclusion: Doses were multiplied without a new risk/benefit assessment — especially in low-risk populations. Sources: New England Journal of Medicine 2022;386:1088–91 —

4. Administration to Low-Risk Populations Data: Millions of children, adolescents, and healthy individuals under 50 years of age were vaccinated, with no individual benefit and no long-term safety studies.
Conclusion: A pharmacological intervention was imposed preventively, without an individualized indication. Sources: JAMA Pediatrics 2022;176(9):922–931, WHO risk-benefit analysis 2021 —

5. Increased Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Young Men Data: A 10–20% increase in myocarditis/pericarditis events was observed in adolescents and young men, mainly after the 2nd dose of mRNA.
Conclusion: These side effects were not adequately reported, nor were they transparently addressed by health authorities. Sources: CDC Advisory Committee 2021, JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005

Overall Conclusion: The mRNA vaccine against COVID-19, as implemented: Did not protect against transmission. Caused significant side effects. Was administered en masse without adequate documentation for the general population. Was accompanied by social, political, and professional coercion. The harm — health, ethical, and social — is real. And the biggest lesson is that science should never operate outside of consensus and transparency.

This is such a mishmash of nonsense. Regarding #2, you can't shed the virus simply because you're vaccinated. There is no virus in the mRNA vaccine. It mimics the presence of the virus to cause your immune system to generate antibodies. If people are protected from infection-- even if it's for two or three months before that protection wanes-- that will slow transmission. The initial clinical studies demonstrated that the virus was 94 or 95 percent effective at preventing transmission, not 100 percent. 94 or 95 percent is still a massive hurdle for transmission. The last line of #1 regarding significant morbidity from mRNA, especially in young healthy people, is complete bullshit. Regarding #5, rates of myocarditis were higher in unvaccinated people who contracted COVID than the elevated rates referenced here among the vaccinated.

You see what you want to see. Meanwhile, a lot of people died. The vaccine has been administered tens of billions of times and saved millions of lives without any serious negative consequences for the general population. Your conclusions are specious and not grounded in reality.

''Nonsense'', '' bullshit'', ''specious''..at least i can see..lol..

1. VAERS and EudraVigilance are self-reported, based on a person believing that their side effects are due to their taking a vaccine. There is no medical fact-finding required to evaluate the causality before it is recorded, and thus, it isn't a valid source of findings. That mRNA caused morbidity is not a conclusion that can be made with VAERS and EudraVigilance reportings. Another source would be necessary to prove or disprove this notion.
The BMJ article referenced is found here - and is called "The importance of sitting less and moving more". The only mention of CoVID is that CoVID has made us more sedentary. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1931

2. As was stated by the person whose responses you didn't actually address, there is no possibility of vaccine shedding when the live virus isn't contained in the vaccine. The conclusion also has nothing to do with the point provided.
The UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 can be found here - and does not have the word "shed" anywhere in it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61c5a722e90e071962ef0eae/technical-briefing-33.pdf

3. I have no problem with criticism of the ongoing requirements of boosters, but I think this can be debated both directions. In a world where travel can occur from and to anywhere, I don't think it's fair to say exposure levels anywhere were knowable, and a government has a mandate to protect its citizens.
Also, the NEJM article is actually a correspondence with the Editor, and the main conclusion is pertinent specifically to the omicron variant. It discusses a comparison of neutralization of the various strains, based on different treatment regimens. With respect to Omicron, the statement is that a booster's efficacy was less than that of the booster's efficacy on other variants, but was still an enormous increase of ability to neutralize. Note that there were no conclusions drawn about low-risk individuals. Again, your argument isn't represented in the article you linked.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119912

4. Plenty of risk is not visible, and often not even known to an individual. I found out this year I have high blood pressure. I did contract CoVID, while vaccinated. I have absolutely no idea how rough of a bout it would've been if I hadn't been vaccinated. In addition, plenty of people inadvertently have contact with people who are high-risk (whether or not they know it).
The journal article referenced does not exist in JAMA Pediatrics 2022. The closest by numbers/dates is JAMA Pediatrics 2022; 176(9):924-932. It's titled "Association Between Hospital-Acquired Harm Outcomes and Membership in a National Patient Safety Collaborative". Its stated objective is "To evaluate associations between membership in Children’s Hospitals’ Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS), a federally funded hospital engagement network, and hospital-acquired harm using standardized definitions and secular trend adjustment." which has nothing to do with CoVID risk evaluation.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2794533

5. Again, the 10-20% increase in myocarditis is presumably based on VAERS, etc. data, given that it's not been stated by the CDC. It is not valid because any individual could report what ever they want. This could even be exploited by making false submissions intentionally, and no one would know any better. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005 also does not exist. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1000-1008 is the closest by date and number, and while it concludes some prospective increases in myocarditis, notably, the article has nothing to do with CoVID or vaccines!
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2795673

So, now the question I'm left with - are you here to deceive us, or has someone deceived you?

Why don't you make that question in your self??..really, you think i have nothing better to do in my life but being here typing lies or whatever you think i'm doing??..
and again, no word for Moderna who gave money to the childrens??..the big pharma who cares for your health??..

benjs · May 5

23scidoo said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

BF25394 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Every medication has a risk. Even cough medicine or aspirin. No one has ever disputed that. Ever.

Safe and effective means generally, but every time you get a vax, you fill out forms detailing the risk factors.

Now, if you can show actual evidence (not YouTube videos of someone claiming it) that the clinical trials willfully omitted clear evidence of a pattern of these more severe injuries, we’ll have something to discuss.

1. Side Effects & Adverse Events Data: Over 1,500,000 reports of side effects were recorded in VAERS (USA) and over 1,000,000 in EudraVigilance (European Union). The most common: myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, paralysis, neurological.
Conclusion: The widespread use of mRNA caused significant morbidity, especially in young healthy people. Sources: VAERS (CDC), EudraVigilance (EMA), BMJ 2022;378:o1931 —

2. Failure to Prevent Transmission of the Virus Evidence: Studies by the CDC and UKHSA showed that vaccinees were still shedding the virus — especially 2–3 months after the dose. The “you’re protecting others” argument collapsed.
Conclusion: The main reason for social pressure (solidarity) had no scientific basis. Sources: CDC MMWR 2022, UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 (December 2021) —

3. Short Duration of Protection Evidence: Protection from infection decreased significantly after 2–3 months, leading to continuous “boosters” without a clear study of long-term benefit.
Conclusion: Doses were multiplied without a new risk/benefit assessment — especially in low-risk populations. Sources: New England Journal of Medicine 2022;386:1088–91 —

4. Administration to Low-Risk Populations Data: Millions of children, adolescents, and healthy individuals under 50 years of age were vaccinated, with no individual benefit and no long-term safety studies.
Conclusion: A pharmacological intervention was imposed preventively, without an individualized indication. Sources: JAMA Pediatrics 2022;176(9):922–931, WHO risk-benefit analysis 2021 —

5. Increased Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Young Men Data: A 10–20% increase in myocarditis/pericarditis events was observed in adolescents and young men, mainly after the 2nd dose of mRNA.
Conclusion: These side effects were not adequately reported, nor were they transparently addressed by health authorities. Sources: CDC Advisory Committee 2021, JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005

Overall Conclusion: The mRNA vaccine against COVID-19, as implemented: Did not protect against transmission. Caused significant side effects. Was administered en masse without adequate documentation for the general population. Was accompanied by social, political, and professional coercion. The harm — health, ethical, and social — is real. And the biggest lesson is that science should never operate outside of consensus and transparency.

This is such a mishmash of nonsense. Regarding #2, you can't shed the virus simply because you're vaccinated. There is no virus in the mRNA vaccine. It mimics the presence of the virus to cause your immune system to generate antibodies. If people are protected from infection-- even if it's for two or three months before that protection wanes-- that will slow transmission. The initial clinical studies demonstrated that the virus was 94 or 95 percent effective at preventing transmission, not 100 percent. 94 or 95 percent is still a massive hurdle for transmission. The last line of #1 regarding significant morbidity from mRNA, especially in young healthy people, is complete bullshit. Regarding #5, rates of myocarditis were higher in unvaccinated people who contracted COVID than the elevated rates referenced here among the vaccinated.

You see what you want to see. Meanwhile, a lot of people died. The vaccine has been administered tens of billions of times and saved millions of lives without any serious negative consequences for the general population. Your conclusions are specious and not grounded in reality.

''Nonsense'', '' bullshit'', ''specious''..at least i can see..lol..

1. VAERS and EudraVigilance are self-reported, based on a person believing that their side effects are due to their taking a vaccine. There is no medical fact-finding required to evaluate the causality before it is recorded, and thus, it isn't a valid source of findings. That mRNA caused morbidity is not a conclusion that can be made with VAERS and EudraVigilance reportings. Another source would be necessary to prove or disprove this notion.
The BMJ article referenced is found here - and is called "The importance of sitting less and moving more". The only mention of CoVID is that CoVID has made us more sedentary. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1931

2. As was stated by the person whose responses you didn't actually address, there is no possibility of vaccine shedding when the live virus isn't contained in the vaccine. The conclusion also has nothing to do with the point provided.
The UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 can be found here - and does not have the word "shed" anywhere in it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61c5a722e90e071962ef0eae/technical-briefing-33.pdf

3. I have no problem with criticism of the ongoing requirements of boosters, but I think this can be debated both directions. In a world where travel can occur from and to anywhere, I don't think it's fair to say exposure levels anywhere were knowable, and a government has a mandate to protect its citizens.
Also, the NEJM article is actually a correspondence with the Editor, and the main conclusion is pertinent specifically to the omicron variant. It discusses a comparison of neutralization of the various strains, based on different treatment regimens. With respect to Omicron, the statement is that a booster's efficacy was less than that of the booster's efficacy on other variants, but was still an enormous increase of ability to neutralize. Note that there were no conclusions drawn about low-risk individuals. Again, your argument isn't represented in the article you linked.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119912

4. Plenty of risk is not visible, and often not even known to an individual. I found out this year I have high blood pressure. I did contract CoVID, while vaccinated. I have absolutely no idea how rough of a bout it would've been if I hadn't been vaccinated. In addition, plenty of people inadvertently have contact with people who are high-risk (whether or not they know it).
The journal article referenced does not exist in JAMA Pediatrics 2022. The closest by numbers/dates is JAMA Pediatrics 2022; 176(9):924-932. It's titled "Association Between Hospital-Acquired Harm Outcomes and Membership in a National Patient Safety Collaborative". Its stated objective is "To evaluate associations between membership in Children’s Hospitals’ Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS), a federally funded hospital engagement network, and hospital-acquired harm using standardized definitions and secular trend adjustment." which has nothing to do with CoVID risk evaluation.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2794533

5. Again, the 10-20% increase in myocarditis is presumably based on VAERS, etc. data, given that it's not been stated by the CDC. It is not valid because any individual could report what ever they want. This could even be exploited by making false submissions intentionally, and no one would know any better. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005 also does not exist. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1000-1008 is the closest by date and number, and while it concludes some prospective increases in myocarditis, notably, the article has nothing to do with CoVID or vaccines!
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2795673

So, now the question I'm left with - are you here to deceive us, or has someone deceived you?

Why don't you make that question in your self??..really, you think i have nothing better to do in my life but being here typing lies or whatever you think i'm doing??..
and again, no word for Moderna who gave money to the childrens??..the big pharma who cares for your health??..

I'm not here to make any assumptions about your life. All I know is when someone asked you for evidence of wilful omission of knowledge of side effects that led you to your conclusions, you responded with the above. The references you provided do not prove any of your conclusions, and in some cases are not even about the same topics.

PJ_Soul · May 5

nicknyr15 said:

BF25394 said:

lastexitlondon said:

Vitamin d is actually a no brainer in all viruses. It's basically free. Take some . It also helps with lots of cancers so it's worth taking

Get it from sunlight, sure (although be careful, of course). Supplemental Vitamin D can lead to kidney stones. The first time I had a kidney stone, they gave me Dilaudid and told me they usually reserve it for advanced cancer pain and catastrophic bodily injuries-- that's how painful a kidney stone is. That got me off supplemental Vitamin D (which I had started taking a few months before getting the stone).

Anyway, Hugh Dillon correctly assesses what I was getting at. It's not a treatment for measles (or COVID-19).

I guess no one's going to speak up for whale semen.

Not arguing here, I get my vitamins through food and sun. I wouldn’t supplement unless my bloodwork showed I needed to. But how much vitamin d were you taking? I’m not finding any concrete evidence suggesting a direct link with vitamin d and kidney stones.

I take daily vitamin D supplements because I hate the sun, lol, and also, fwiw, you can't even get adequate vitamin D from the sun for half the year in much of North America. In the fall and winter, the sun isn't powerful enough to keep your levels up like it can in the spring and summer, and it's probably too cold to expose so much of your skin to it anyhow. Vitamin D supplements are important to way more people that one might think - estimates say that over 40% of Americans have a vitamin D deficiency. Also, my kidneys are perfectly fine, taking 3000UI of vitamin D a day (but it's not prevent measles or covid, hahaha).

mrussel1 · May 5

I read that Vitamin D prevented STDs so I've been relying on that for many years.

dignin · May 5

mrussel1 said:

I read that Vitamin D prevented STDs so I've been relying on that for many years.

Atta boy

mrussel1 · May 5

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

I read that Vitamin D prevented STDs so I've been relying on that for many years.

Atta boy

I do my own research.

dignin · May 6

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

I read that Vitamin D prevented STDs so I've been relying on that for many years.

Atta boy

I do my own research.

Can you share a YouTube video?

mrussel1 · May 6

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

I read that Vitamin D prevented STDs so I've been relying on that for many years.

Atta boy

I do my own research.

Can you share a YouTube video?

It's on something called "Red Tube". Check it out. At work.

mickeyrat · May 6

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

I read that Vitamin D prevented STDs so I've been relying on that for many years.

Atta boy

I do my own research.

Can you share a YouTube video?

It's on something called "Red Tube". Check it out. At work.

that sounds dirty

Poncier · May 6

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

I read that Vitamin D prevented STDs so I've been relying on that for many years.

Atta boy

I do my own research.

Can you share a YouTube video?

It's on something called "Red Tube". Check it out. At work.

Tim Simmons · May 6

https://youtu.be/thrd6reZYw8?si=GkgphoLvG-OyeWwe

mrussel1 · May 6

Tim Simmons said:

https://youtu.be/thrd6reZYw8?si=GkgphoLvG-OyeWwe

Right on..

23scidoo · May 6

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

benjs said:

23scidoo said:

BF25394 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Every medication has a risk. Even cough medicine or aspirin. No one has ever disputed that. Ever.

Safe and effective means generally, but every time you get a vax, you fill out forms detailing the risk factors.

Now, if you can show actual evidence (not YouTube videos of someone claiming it) that the clinical trials willfully omitted clear evidence of a pattern of these more severe injuries, we’ll have something to discuss.

1. Side Effects & Adverse Events Data: Over 1,500,000 reports of side effects were recorded in VAERS (USA) and over 1,000,000 in EudraVigilance (European Union). The most common: myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis, paralysis, neurological.
Conclusion: The widespread use of mRNA caused significant morbidity, especially in young healthy people. Sources: VAERS (CDC), EudraVigilance (EMA), BMJ 2022;378:o1931 —

2. Failure to Prevent Transmission of the Virus Evidence: Studies by the CDC and UKHSA showed that vaccinees were still shedding the virus — especially 2–3 months after the dose. The “you’re protecting others” argument collapsed.
Conclusion: The main reason for social pressure (solidarity) had no scientific basis. Sources: CDC MMWR 2022, UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 (December 2021) —

3. Short Duration of Protection Evidence: Protection from infection decreased significantly after 2–3 months, leading to continuous “boosters” without a clear study of long-term benefit.
Conclusion: Doses were multiplied without a new risk/benefit assessment — especially in low-risk populations. Sources: New England Journal of Medicine 2022;386:1088–91 —

4. Administration to Low-Risk Populations Data: Millions of children, adolescents, and healthy individuals under 50 years of age were vaccinated, with no individual benefit and no long-term safety studies.
Conclusion: A pharmacological intervention was imposed preventively, without an individualized indication. Sources: JAMA Pediatrics 2022;176(9):922–931, WHO risk-benefit analysis 2021 —

5. Increased Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Young Men Data: A 10–20% increase in myocarditis/pericarditis events was observed in adolescents and young men, mainly after the 2nd dose of mRNA.
Conclusion: These side effects were not adequately reported, nor were they transparently addressed by health authorities. Sources: CDC Advisory Committee 2021, JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005

Overall Conclusion: The mRNA vaccine against COVID-19, as implemented: Did not protect against transmission. Caused significant side effects. Was administered en masse without adequate documentation for the general population. Was accompanied by social, political, and professional coercion. The harm — health, ethical, and social — is real. And the biggest lesson is that science should never operate outside of consensus and transparency.

This is such a mishmash of nonsense. Regarding #2, you can't shed the virus simply because you're vaccinated. There is no virus in the mRNA vaccine. It mimics the presence of the virus to cause your immune system to generate antibodies. If people are protected from infection-- even if it's for two or three months before that protection wanes-- that will slow transmission. The initial clinical studies demonstrated that the virus was 94 or 95 percent effective at preventing transmission, not 100 percent. 94 or 95 percent is still a massive hurdle for transmission. The last line of #1 regarding significant morbidity from mRNA, especially in young healthy people, is complete bullshit. Regarding #5, rates of myocarditis were higher in unvaccinated people who contracted COVID than the elevated rates referenced here among the vaccinated.

You see what you want to see. Meanwhile, a lot of people died. The vaccine has been administered tens of billions of times and saved millions of lives without any serious negative consequences for the general population. Your conclusions are specious and not grounded in reality.

''Nonsense'', '' bullshit'', ''specious''..at least i can see..lol..

1. VAERS and EudraVigilance are self-reported, based on a person believing that their side effects are due to their taking a vaccine. There is no medical fact-finding required to evaluate the causality before it is recorded, and thus, it isn't a valid source of findings. That mRNA caused morbidity is not a conclusion that can be made with VAERS and EudraVigilance reportings. Another source would be necessary to prove or disprove this notion.
The BMJ article referenced is found here - and is called "The importance of sitting less and moving more". The only mention of CoVID is that CoVID has made us more sedentary. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1931

2. As was stated by the person whose responses you didn't actually address, there is no possibility of vaccine shedding when the live virus isn't contained in the vaccine. The conclusion also has nothing to do with the point provided.
The UKHSA Technical Briefing #33 can be found here - and does not have the word "shed" anywhere in it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61c5a722e90e071962ef0eae/technical-briefing-33.pdf

3. I have no problem with criticism of the ongoing requirements of boosters, but I think this can be debated both directions. In a world where travel can occur from and to anywhere, I don't think it's fair to say exposure levels anywhere were knowable, and a government has a mandate to protect its citizens.
Also, the NEJM article is actually a correspondence with the Editor, and the main conclusion is pertinent specifically to the omicron variant. It discusses a comparison of neutralization of the various strains, based on different treatment regimens. With respect to Omicron, the statement is that a booster's efficacy was less than that of the booster's efficacy on other variants, but was still an enormous increase of ability to neutralize. Note that there were no conclusions drawn about low-risk individuals. Again, your argument isn't represented in the article you linked.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119912

4. Plenty of risk is not visible, and often not even known to an individual. I found out this year I have high blood pressure. I did contract CoVID, while vaccinated. I have absolutely no idea how rough of a bout it would've been if I hadn't been vaccinated. In addition, plenty of people inadvertently have contact with people who are high-risk (whether or not they know it).
The journal article referenced does not exist in JAMA Pediatrics 2022. The closest by numbers/dates is JAMA Pediatrics 2022; 176(9):924-932. It's titled "Association Between Hospital-Acquired Harm Outcomes and Membership in a National Patient Safety Collaborative". Its stated objective is "To evaluate associations between membership in Children’s Hospitals’ Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS), a federally funded hospital engagement network, and hospital-acquired harm using standardized definitions and secular trend adjustment." which has nothing to do with CoVID risk evaluation.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2794533

5. Again, the 10-20% increase in myocarditis is presumably based on VAERS, etc. data, given that it's not been stated by the CDC. It is not valid because any individual could report what ever they want. This could even be exploited by making false submissions intentionally, and no one would know any better. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1001–1005 also does not exist. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):1000-1008 is the closest by date and number, and while it concludes some prospective increases in myocarditis, notably, the article has nothing to do with CoVID or vaccines!
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2795673

So, now the question I'm left with - are you here to deceive us, or has someone deceived you?

Why don't you make that question in your self??..really, you think i have nothing better to do in my life but being here typing lies or whatever you think i'm doing??..
and again, no word for Moderna who gave money to the childrens??..the big pharma who cares for your health??..

I'm not here to make any assumptions about your life. All I know is when someone asked you for evidence of wilful omission of knowledge of side effects that led you to your conclusions, you responded with the above. The references you provided do not prove any of your conclusions, and in some cases are not even about the same topics.

i have post in the past top scientist talking about and you all laugh with them..why should i do it again??..
but back in your question about deceived..Fauci told you that social distance wasn't so scientific and you ask me if i have been deceived??..
big pharma told you vaccines are 100% safe and effective and you ask me if i have deceived??..

shadowcast · May 6

Now that we are 5 years removed from COVID and the vaccines. Anyone regret getting the mRNA vaccine?

shadowcast · May 6

Look back at this thread is quite fascinating. A lot of you would have told on your neighbor and would have tied people tied down to get the mRNA shot. It's amazing how quickly we would turn on each other. People always wonder how did Hitler get a country to turn against the Jews/fellow citizens. Fear and a sense of empowerment is the answer. Boy was this thread loaded with it. Surprised but not surprised.

Tim Simmons · May 6

Sorry that we hated people dying and thought that was the best way to get them not to. Sorry.

shadowcast · May 6

Gern Blansten said:

I keep seeing tRumpsters trot out this clip of Rachel Maddow saying that people that have been vaccinated do NOT transmit the virus....come to find out this clip is a year old and that was the thought at the time. Maddow wasn't making it up...she was just reporting what others were publishing.

None of them do five seconds of research to see why Maddow would have said that. They just say how much of a liar she is.

This is an example of the disconnect between fake news and reality.

Total bullshit post by you....She asked zero questions and 80% of her paycheck comes from BIG Pharma. Not only this but she continued to spew this BS for years after.

shadowcast · May 6

Meltdown99 said:

If being vaccinated keeps you out of the hospital, then that is good…especially us Canadians…keeps our health system from collapsing.

Another BS line fed to you by your government that hospitals were overrun. Man this thread has not aged well for most of you. Most of you need to reevaluate where you get your info from.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/04/30/hospital-ship-comfort-departs-nyc-having-treated-fewer-than-200-patients/

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/mccormick-place-field-hospital-being-dismantled-as-covid-19-spread-slowed-in-illinois

Tim Simmons · May 6

shadowcast said:

Now that we are 5 years removed from COVID and the vaccines. Anyone regret getting the mRNA vaccine?

Nope.

Still get boosters too.

Viruses / Vaccines 2

Comments

Categories