Another take on the vaccines

Sure I do. I can use past examples to illustrate my point.

Testing does not always uncover unanticipated detrimental effects immediately. There can be problems that only rarely affect people, and then there can be increased chance of delayed effects, and then there can be other effects that can be bad but are too subtle to be seen. Sometimes you don't realize there is a correlation to a problem unless you know specifically what to look for. That usually requires collecting huge data sets, from a treatment that has become extremely common and ubiquitous, over many years, sometimes decades.

They already discovered that in very rare cases these vaccines can kill people, and they didn't know that from the outset, not until they started distributing them and millions of people had already taken them.

Something like that alone should give you some pause for thought.

 

You claim these vacines killed someone.

So, cite that.

Or retract it.

Yes - ZERO deaths and ZERO cases of COVID deaths among 120,000,000 vaccinations in America.

Can you do the math to show what percent that is?

 

First, the medico-scientific community is not trying to hide anything. The German and Norwegian scientists that discovered what is going on with the AstraZeneca vaccine diffused it right away. The same day they discovered it, they released a press release, and said they will publish the full findings in The Lancet. The next day, the German hematology agency published guidance for diagnosis and treatment of the condition.

Second, it is true that the issue with the auto-antibodies causing blood clots (one I had independently anticipated even without being directly involved with the research; I posted the hypothesis here before my colleagues in Germany and Norway discovered it; you can check time stamps) was not known before it happened. But this is true of all medications. We do lab and animal studies (pre-clinical), then phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3, then we apply for approval. Of course the post-marketing phase when the vaccine is given to millions, hundreds of millions, even billions eventually, will show the very rare reactions that weren't seen before in a phase 3 trial with 30,000 people. The incidence of CVST which killed 5 people, was in the worst incidence of them all, in Germany, 13 cases in 1.6 million people (fewer cases, proportionally, in other countries) with 1 fatality. That's 0.0008% incidence. So, it's rare enough to be missed in phase 3. But how would you avoid it? Even if you did phase 3 with 60,000 people chances are you'd still miss it. So at some point you need to apply for approval and go to the post-marketing phase. But you keep observing and studying any adverse reactions. Again, this is true for all medications, not just vaccines. It would be a catch 22 if you had to first apply the vaccine to hundreds of millions of persons before approval, because you need the approval before you do that. So, you take a limited risk (given that pre-clinical studies, and phases 1, 2, and 3 have already eliminated most risks) but yes, in post-marketing sometimes rare problems arise.

Third, you need to always think of risks and benefits. If you get a reaction that happens in 0.0008% of the cases, and in Germany 1 person died, so, you still need to divide that by 13 to get to the lethality (it is 0.00006% - and if you consider all 20 million people in other countries, even lower, see more on this below). Now compare this with the lethality from the virus, say, 0.5% or 1% or even 2% in certain places (and some of the new variants seem more lethal). What would you prefer, 0.00006% or 2%? Also, compare the 0.0008% of CVST with the virus' own propension to cause the problem. Did you know that coagulation-provoking antibodies have been seen in 52% of people infected with the virus? Coagulation issues are seen in 10% to 30% of cases. Compare this to 0.0008%.

The vaccine seems to be a great deal, no? When you look at the numbers?

And also, once the issue with the AstraZeneca vaccine got diagnosed, CVST does have treatment and does give warning signs (persistent headaches, dizziness, visual troubles) before it kills the person, in time for life-saving treatments with blood thinners and immunoglobulins. Had we known what was going on, the 5 people who died might have survived, if correctly treated. Now we know.

So this vaccine at worst (in the place where the reaction occurred most frequently) has the power to kill 0.00006% of recipients. Do you realize that this is a FABULOUS safety record? Many prescription medications that many people take routinely have a rate of fatal complications way above that one, and I don't see posts like yours questioning those medications.

In a post about it, I demonstrated for example how Lamictal (lamotrigine, a medication for seizures and for bipolar disorder) is much more dangerous than the AstraZeneca vaccine, but it is routinely prescribed and taken with no fuss.

As for your fear that the mRNA vaccines will have permanent genetic consequences for the human recipient, I think that they are not justified. You are impressed with the presentation of the S protein antigen made by the dendritic cells under the influence of the vaccine's mRNA, on the surface of the cell. Well, that's the usual mechanism for many antigens. They get gobbled up, broken down, and presented on the surface of dendritic cells and macrophages, for the benefit of the T cells, so that they recognized the foreign antigen and get activated. But once the vaccine's mRNA does its job, it degrades in about 8 hours. No, there won't be permanent effects.

Can these vaccines generate anti-antibodies? Now we know that they certainly can... but in 0.0008% of the cases. The virus can, too, and much more frequently, a whooping 52%. No comparison, huh?

I understand that you are expressing genuine concerns, with some good understanding of some of the issues, and I praise you for it. It's just that they are a bit exaggerated, when you look at the real-life numbers. It's only human to think of this in emotional terms: the vaccine killed 5 people! Well, but it's been given to 20 million people. That's a lethality of 0.000025%. How many of those people would have died of Covid-19 without the vaccine? If you accept a lethality rate of about 1% (let's take the middle number - could be 0.5% given asymptomatic undiagnosed cases, or could be 2% given the more lethal P.1 and B.1.1.7 strains), that's 200,000.

Now tell me, what do you prefer? 5 people dead, or 200,000 people dead? No brainer, huh? Even if for the sake of the argument you were to drop the virus' lethality rate to 0.25% (go say that to the Brazilians; they'll tell you it's much higher, with the P.1) you'd still have 50,000 people dead, that is, 10,000 worse than the vaccine. Or if you accept 1%, 40,000 worse. 2% like in Brazil? 80,000 times worse. Yeah, give me the vaccine any day.

I have NEVER pretended that vaccines are 100% safe. But this particular vaccine is MUCH safer than the virus itself and than most medications known to men. A fatality rate of 0.000025% is like a safety of 99,999975%. That's pretty safe, no? It's not 100%, but it's pretty pretty close.

When you think of it this way, things change, no?

I hope that the above reassures you.

 

Typo above - I meant "can these vaccines generate auto-antibodies" and by mistake typed "anti-antibodies."
And I meant 99.999975%, with a decimal point, not a comma. It's late and I'm tired, and typo-prone, sorry.

 

If you guys have not heard this yet, please do. It's fantastic.

 

This shows the degree of openness and care being taken by science.

For those here in the US and concerned, it might also be pointed out that the AstraZeneca vaccine is not approved for use in the USA.

And, it won't be until these issues are fully understood. From the start, progress has been open and thoroughly communicated.

The record of medical science on this issue is absolutely incredible.

 

Will those injected morph into spreaders? Oh boy, will that be ironic.

Increased cases in those state with high rates of shots given.

Portentous Sign: Covid Cases Spike in a Dozen States With High Vaccination Rates, Which May Signal a Feared Health Catastrophe - LewRockwell

 

There I go again. To subtle.
What I wanted you to think about is that there is more to immunity than just antibodies,
T - cells also need to be considered.

 

Really? Quote cases please

as for the “mercury derivative” that has never been linked to actual damage (BTW at he correct name is thimerosol https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/faqs.html)
And thanks to the inability to add preservative to vaccines we have a much much much more complex issue trying to ensure vaccine safety in third world countries where there is less refrigeration

 

Mucous or mucus? There is a difference you know

 

Plus vaccines are MONITORED - heavily

 

Which is why vaccines are monitored - heavily monitored

 

I don't care what anyone says, those are the two most absolutely BEAUTIFUL little girls I've ever seen.

 

In other words, "I trust government, no need to worry".

 

Yes, you. He directed his comment towards you. I would have to agree with him.

Judging by your posts, I don't believe you. Additionally, credentials mean nothing on a forum such as this.

Obviously not the case, judging by your posts...

Again, I don't believe you, and your credentials are meaningless on a forum such as this one.

If you say so.

These are not vaccines, dude. The flu shot is a vaccine. It inserts inactive/weakened viruses into your system. The covid jab does not do that. It (the mRNA ones, anyway) inserts "instructions" into your body, telling it to create a particular spike protein that is found on covid-19 and then your body recognizes that it shouldn't be there.

There are many doctors (who are just as credentialed or even more credentialed than you claim you are) who have serious concerns about these covid jabs and how they are going to affect people in the long term.

 

Mr Rockwell lied again knowing that folks like you would never check for yourself.

Wisc...number 1 in percent vaccinated...not surge...



New Mexico number 2...no surge



North Dakota...number 3 no surge



number 4...no surge

 

This is a blatant lie.

 

Notice how our case numbers (IF one were to believe them) here in Wisconsin go up AFTER we implemented our mask mandate (and for many more months afterward and into the Winter flu season)? Obviously masks do not stop viruses.

Case numbers are going down now because flu season is over with and the sunlight is becoming more intense again. This is a natural annual cycle.

 

Wellll sheit....why did the trained and experienced medical professionals never think about this. I cannot wait till my wife gets home from working in the COVID unit today and let her know you figured it out!

I am sure she will be very excited by your revelations.

 

Maybe because there is money to be made in calling everything "covid"?

Sounds like both you and her could learn a thing or two from me...

 

The government doesn't do the testing. It requires testing.

You and everyone else can examine the test results.

How would you PREFER this process to work? After all, we have huge numbers of medications that have all come to us through our system.

If you don't like the system, you should suggest changes.

 

Not one cite?

No comment on those left with long term disabilities from having had COVID? (Let alone the more than half a million dead.)

I really don't see your ideas hear as presenting a rational direction.

 

If you don't believe it, then do some looking and find a cite you can post.

 

Nope, she gets paid the same no matter the diagnoses. Nice try though

Not sure I want to learn how to be a gullible fool that falls for every Conspiracy theory they hear, I will leave that one to you.

 

A sound approach.