Vaccination injury testimony from many individuals

[cow451]

people here in this thread seem utterly opposed to knowing the potential risks... its what the hearings are addressing... knowing what the potential risks are.

I think people should be allowed to make informed decisions about their health care, which is what a vaccine is - health care.

A lot of jumping up and down screaming because of people wanting risks known. ..

Me? I've never contracted Covid nor have I come into contact with anyone who has throughout this entire epidemic... I'll personally wait to make my own decision on my health care after we have a better understanding of what those risks might be for me, with my doctor...

What healthcare choices others make is likewise, between them and their doctor...

But I'm not in this thread jumping up and down upset that someone might dare to hear about potential risks - or the rewards - to people who choose to be vaccinated.

informed consent and all that.

Name one poster here opposing informed consent.

 

[cow451]

That thread isn't needed. We already have a Left-dominated 24 hour news cycle and a CDC that is now controlled by a Leftist party. Therefore we have that point of view to listen to all day long without a dedicated thread for it here.

Flame on!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If youve applied scientific rigor to the situation, then yes, your conclusions should be taken seriously.

But if youre just playing internet connect-the-dots with self selected data points, then... no thanks.

There was no scientific rigor applied to releasing the vaccines. That’s why they got a legal waver against any lawsuits.

But one can learn how these things functions in general as this is known as far as the research before these events uncovered. A few years ago you’d have poo-pooed reading about the virus in a book insisting if one wasn’t working in a virus research group one can’t know anything as though education cannot happen from reading and listening.

 

[cow451]

“Let them eat cake.”

He can have ice cream as well. He does not have to be vaccinated.

 

[durangodawood]

There was no scientific rigor applied to releasing the vaccines......

Thats completely false.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

He can have ice cream as well. He does not have to be vaccinated.

I guess you’re unaware of that quote and what it means.

 

[durangodawood]

.....A few years ago you’d have poo-pooed reading about the virus in a book insisting if one wasn’t working in a virus research group one can’t know anything as though education cannot happen from reading and listening. That is if what is learned doesn’t agree with your position likely.

We all can learn lots from reading good science reporting. None of us need be working scientists.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Thats completely false.

It’s true. Normal release of medical substances to be given to humans require much more than what was done. That’s why they got a waver for legal responsibility for any and all adverse events. No one who takes the vaccine can sue the company who made it. Take at your risk, is the word. That is certainly not done in rigorous testing.

 

[durangodawood]

It’s true. Normal release of medical substances to be given to humans require much more than what was done. That’s why they got a waver for legal responsibility for any and all adverse events. No one who takes the vaccine can sue the company who made it. Take at your risk, is the word. That is certainly not done in rigorous testing.

Sounds like you have no idea what the actual testing involved, and are merely drawing conclusion based on the liability waiver.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sounds like you have no idea what the actual testing involved, and are merely drawing conclusion based on the liability waiver.

Actually we do phase testing of new treatments going through the years and rigors of testing so I know whereof I speak. The adverse events either occurred and were ignored kept from the public or they did insufficient testing. The “perfectly safe“ advertising awoke my suspicions. No vaccine or medication is “perfectly safe” and all meds include package information presenting already known adverse events that occurred while testing, except the jab.

What are your qualifications such that you can tell us how rigorous testing of new vaccines or treatments is conducted?

 

[durangodawood]

Actually we do phase testing of new treatments going through the years and rigors of testing so I know whereof I speak. The adverse events either occurred and were ignored kept from the public or they did insufficient testing. The “perfectly safe“ advertising awoke my suspicions. No vaccine or medication is “perfectly safe” and all meds include package information presenting already known adverse events that occurred while testing, except the jab.

Now I think you have identified the real shortcoming of the vaccine testing: long term effects. Those had to be estimated based on our knowledge of physiological processes rather than empirical testing, because, as they say, time was of the essence. But for effects that would present within months, those were rigorously tested for. Thats my understanding anyway.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Now I think you have identified the real shortcoming of the vaccine testing: long term effects. Those had to be estimated based on our knowledge of physiological processes rather than empirical testing, because, as they say, time was of the essence. But for effects that would present within months, those were rigorously tested for. Thats my understanding anyway.

Some died within days. So how can you say they only looked at events happening with months? Heart inflammation happens in days. Strokes happen within days. Shock happened immediately. We haven’t even started on adverse events that happen in 6 months to a year. We’re talking within days.

 

[durangodawood]

Some died within days. So how can you say they only looked at events happening with months? Heart inflammation happens in days. Strokes happen within days. Shock happened immediately. We haven’t even started on adverse events that happen in 6 months to a year. We’re talking within days.

"within months". That means not exceeding months in duration. So absolutely, effects that present in days we're rigorously studied for with patient groups in the 10,000s if I recall. Some exceedingly rare effects (blood clots etc) would likely only present in a sample of millions and so were missed.

 

[cow451]

I guess you’re unaware of that quote and what it means.

I do and I gave all the consideration it deserved.

 

[expos4ever]

There was no scientific rigor applied to releasing the vaccines.

Demonstrably untrue.

 

[jayem]

What are your qualifications such that you can tell us how rigorous testing of new vaccines or treatments is conducted?

You didn’t address me specifically, but I’ll answer it. I was vaccinated last summer as a participant in the Phase 3 Pfizer vaccine clinical trial. I had to read through and sign a 28 page consent form. Every known adverse reaction was listed. And it was made clear that there could others not yet recognized which might occur in the future. Of course, the trial was placebo controlled and double blinded. There’s a 50/50 chance I’d get 2 shots of saline. But my arm got slightly sore several hours later, and lasted for a day or so. Which wouldn’t happen if I got the placebo. When the vaccine was approved for emergency use, Pfizer unblinded the trial. And I received confirmation last Nov. that I did get the vaccine. It’s been 9 months now. Other than the sore arm, I’ve had no side effects at all. And that’s my anecdotal report.

But getting back on topic, I have no problem with comprehensive informed consent. Which should include—as did the document I signed— the possibility of as yet unknown adverse reactions. I do have a problem with bad actors spreading disinformation. I’m referring to the meme that mRNA vaccines could alter one’s DNA. Someone here posted a fabricated “study” from a phony journal discussing this. If you know anything about cell biology, and how mRNA vaccines work, you should know this is a biological impossibility. It’s as bogus as claiming Donald Trump will be President again next month. Yes, people need information. But accurate information. Not lies intended to confuse and scare people who may be credulous and less discerning.

 

[expos4ever]

It’s true. Normal release of medical substances to be given to humans require much more than what was done.

You are moving the goalposts. Your initial claim is an out-and-out falsehood. You stated:

There was no scientific rigor applied to releasing the vaccines.

This statement is obviously false.

While it is no doubt true that the "normal" amount of testing was not done, this does not, of course, mean it is not obvious that taking the vaccine is the best course of action.

 

[Aldebaran]

You are moving the goalposts. Your initial claim is an out-and-out falsehood. You stated:

There was no scientific rigor applied to releasing the vaccines.

This statement is obviously false.

While it is no doubt true that the "normal" amount of testing was not done, this does not, of course, mean it is not obvious that taking the vaccine is the best course of action.

Considering the fact that medications that do go through the normal amount of testing and get actual FDA approval for regular use (both of which do not apply to the Covid shots) often end up being recalled because they caused serious injury or death, it is reasonable to be even more cautious about taking a substance that has less than normal testing, was released in record time, and still isn't FDA approved--regardless of how much shaming one may receive from others.

 

[whatbogsends]

In what is probably the funniest post I have ever read here, ThatRobGuy posted some reports that were submitted to VAERS (ThatRobGuy, if I am misrepresenting you, please set me straight). Here they are for your amusement. If nothing else, they raise a flag as to value of this database for assessing vaccine-caused injury:

"About 5 hrs after receiving vaccine muscle ache in shoulder. Penis reduced in size, length, and circumference is significant since following day and pain in penal area from day 3 and day 5 most noticeable. Shape of penis has changed (noticed on day 4 due to an erection) and the skin has become loose with the size reduction (like baggy pants.)"

"Explosive Diarhea and a touch of the AIDS"

"I feel like <***> dude!"

"666 Blood clots, heart attack, died 5 times survived, Blood is very thick blood thinners unable to thin"

VAERS provides data. Those are anecdotes surrounding the data.

You seem to believe that for VAERS, the existence of these anecdotes invalidates the data.

Simultaneously, despite me showing that vaccine data has significant issues with consistency (deaths from the vaccine are not counted as deaths, and people killed in car accidents are counted as COVID deaths in certain states) and accuracy, you ignore the anecdotes and ascribe 100% to "the data".

So which is it? Do examples of bad data within a data set invalidate the data set? Or are they meaningless because they are anecdotal?

Personally, i'm of the opinion that examples of bad data help shape and influence the validity of a data set, and i believe that it applies to all data sets, not just ones that provide data in support of my position.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I got arthritis in my left knee right after getting the vaccine.

(That was also preceded by 4 days of ultra aggressive hiking, but whatever, it was probly the vax.)

After my second shot, I drove straight to my BJJ class. brb while I go tell VAERS about my bruises and sore throat.

people here in this thread seem utterly opposed to knowing the potential risks... its what the hearings are addressing... knowing what the potential risks are.

I think people should be allowed to make informed decisions about their health care, which is what a vaccine is - health care.

A lot of jumping up and down screaming because of people wanting risks known. ..

Me? I've never contracted Covid nor have I come into contact with anyone who has throughout this entire epidemic... I'll personally wait to make my own decision on my health care after we have a better understanding of what those risks might be for me, with my doctor...

What healthcare choices others make is likewise, between them and their doctor...

But I'm not in this thread jumping up and down upset that someone might dare to hear about potential risks - or the rewards - to people who choose to be vaccinated.

informed consent and all that.

I seem to recall you making a number of very empassioned posts decrying the concern over the threat of the disease, pooh-poohing its lethality and complaining that life in quarantine was a life diminished; almost-but-not-quite a life not worth living.

Somehow you were okay facing the risks of covid with nothing but a pile of ignorance, but now you want to be cautious and know all about the risks? lol