COVID-19 Vaccines Unsafe For Use In Humans

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll make a prediction, then go back and read up on the groups involved and see if I'm right just as a fun little exercise.

Anytime I see entities attacking mainstream medical information, emphasis on nomenclatures like "evidence-based" and "optimal health" and "whole body health" and "integrated wellness" are typically dog whistles that are aimed at pandering to more alternative theories...

...and are usually the source that quacks like to glom onto to pitch whatever it is they're selling.

<quick 10 minute search>

Well, whaddya know...

Yellow Card scheme for adverse events does not suggest any new side effects of COVID-19 vaccines

They're basically the British equivalent of "America's Frontline Doctors", and are a company heavily focused on trying to pitch Ivermectin as a treatment...(much like AFD tried to pitch hydroxychloroquine)

...and the director of this organization is Tess Lawrie, who also heads up the "Ivermectin Recommendation Development Panel" in the UK.


Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19



At a certain point, the numbers have to speak for themselves. 2 Billion doses have been administered, and nearly 1 billion are fully vaccinated.

Clinging to a couple thousand cases of allergic reactions or anaphylaxis as justification for pushing an alternative (and unproven) treatment method is medically irresponsible when you look at the overall infections and mortality rates themselves.

At this point, it'd be like trying to push "duct taping a piece of memory foam to your steering wheel" over seatbelts, as a means from preventing death in a car crash, on the grounds that "13 people were killed by the seatbelts last year"

What's going on the in the minds of anti-vaccine folks that they'll literally cling to unproven treatments to justify their positions...is it really going to hurt their ego that much to have to admit that vaccines are safe and effective for the overwhelming majority of people?

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Anytime I see entities attacking mainstream medical information, emphasis on nomenclatures like "evidence-based" and "optimal health" and "whole body health" and "integrated wellness" are typically dog whistles that are aimed at pandering to more alternative theories...

Anytime I see someone use the term 'fact-check', or cite something that claims to be a 'fact-check', I roll my eyes, because it's often a dishonest attempt to rewrite history, reframe the debate, take something out of context, or otherwise obscure the truth.

Well, whaddya know...

Yellow Card scheme for adverse events does not suggest any new side effects of COVID-19 vaccines

Until the prevalence rates for all of these adverse effects are published for healthy unvaccinated people, then any claims that the vaccine is safe are just hot air. As far as I am aware, publication of prevalence rates in healthy unvaccinated people has not yet happened. However, there has been recorded incidents of serious adverse effects involving blood clots among those who have taken the vaccines. Some of these blood clotting adverse effects have been stated unequivocally by clinicians, to never happen in healthy people. If you don't like that, then tough. That is the evidence, like it or not. And I'm so sick of this 'debate', I can't be bothered to look up the source for that and provide a URL. The pro-vaxxers can do their own research, and their own 'fact-checking'.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Anytime I see someone use the term 'fact-check', or cite something that claims to be a 'fact-check', I roll my eyes, because it's often a dishonest attempt to rewrite history, reframe the debate, take something out of context, or otherwise obscure the truth.

Except that's not what's happening here.

Nobody has claimed that vaccines are 100% effective, and nobody has claimed that they're 100% safe everyone. It's been well-understood and well-acknowledged that a small percentage of people could have reactions to vaccines.

With regards to the debate being reframed, the other side is more guilty of that.

When you have a pandemic that's killed 600k in the US, and 3.6 million in the world, and there are some trying to switch the emphasis onto the couple thousand global cases of adverse vaccine reactions as a reason of why "the vaccines are bad", that's overt reframing.

Until the prevalence rates for all of these adverse effects are published for healthy unvaccinated people, then any claims that the vaccine is safe are just hot air. As far as I am aware, publication of prevalence rates in healthy unvaccinated people has not yet happened. However, there has been recorded incidents of serious adverse effects involving blood clots among those who have taken the vaccines. Some of these blood clotting adverse effects have been stated unequivocally by clinicians, to never happen in healthy people. If you don't like that, then tough. That is the evidence, like it or not. And I'm so sick of this 'debate', I can't be bothered to look up the source for that and provide a URL. The pro-vaxxers can do their own research, and their own 'fact-checking'.

That's a shallow and narrow view of the risk/benefit trade off.

Imagine for a moment there was a vaccine that was shown to have a high efficacy rate (95%) of preventing cancer (a disease that kills 600k year in the US), but that vaccine carried the risk of 20 per million people having severe allergic reactions (up to and including death)... to pretend that that preventing those 20 deaths per million somehow justified not doing the thing that would save 600k/year lives isn't rational from a medical or actuarial standpoint.

Even though it's going to sound harsh, I'll "say the quiet part out loud" and just openly admit.

If 20 people have to die from blood clots in order to save thousands of lives, that's a worthwhile and pragmatic trade-off.

To be clear, these are the kinds of trade-offs we make every single day.

We know that by allowing people to drive cars (which provides a great benefit), that a certain number of people will be killed in car accidents... I'm not prepared to ban automobiles (and the vast societal benefits they provide) in order to prevent a few thousand deaths every year.

 

[expos4ever]

I already explained why the scientific process, peer-review process, and publication process is not always entirely scientific and honest, and why it might be necessary to setup a journal to enable an alternative perspective to be published.

Of course it is not always honest. And alternate perspectives are always to be welcomed. But readers need to be told what they are getting. One of the biggest reasons why we are experiencing so much hesitancy to vaccination right now is that people do not understand, or refuse to accept, that there is a huge difference between published, peer-reviewed science and other stuff.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't think you understand what a genetic logical fallacy is. You are dismissing evidence because it comes from a particular source (author and journal). That is a genetic logical fallacy.

I politely suggest the misunderstanding is yours. If you were to present your own case, you would be right to say I am committing the genetic fallacy if I attacked your general credibility. You could rightly say that I should be engaging your argument.

But this is not what you are doing!!! How is this not obvious? You are committing your own fallacy - appeal to authority:

appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.[1] Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context,[2][3] and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument

You are using the "authority" of Tess Lawrie as a qualified medical expert - you are not making your own case about the relevant science!

This is really quite simple: if you are going to appeal to her as an authority, we have a right to present arguments to the effect that she is not a qualified authority.

 

[expos4ever]

If that's your response, I can only assume that you never even read the first post, in which it is clearly stated in the first line that Tess Lawrie holds a PhD, and further down, that she has numerous highly cited publications.

My post showed that a reputable source claims that Ms. Lawrie"s claims are misleading. How is telling me more about Ms. Lawrie's qualifications relevant. I never denied that she has a Phd or even that she has cited publications.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Except that's not what's happening here.

Nobody has claimed that vaccines are 100% effective, and nobody has claimed that they're 100% safe everyone. It's been well-understood and well-acknowledged that a small percentage of people could have reactions to vaccines.

From where I'm sitting, there is almost no information on vaccine safety. Public debate on the topic of adverse reactions is almost non-existent in the UK. The UK government expectation is that everyone will take the vax, without being told anything about potential adverse effects. I have received a letter inviting me to book an appointment. The letter glibly informs me that 'Very few people cannot have this vaccine', and then goes on to state that if I've had bad reactions in the past, I should discuss this prior to vaccination, which I assume is only referring to the possibility if anaphylactic shock. The letter did not include a leaflet describing possible adverse effects, and nowhere in the letter did it mention that I can view the log of adverse effects here. The letter does however warn me that the vaccination is free, and I shouldn't have to give anyone my bank details to book a vaccination. It's a pity that they don't have the same level of concern about adverse effects.

Furthermore, informed consent is one of the pillars of medical ethics. If vaccine recipients have got no idea what might happen, how can they give consent, and how is it ethical? Maybe it's different in the US, but here in the UK it's a massive failure in terms of obtaining informed consent. When this is all finished, the people responsible for this informed consent whitewash should end up in prison.

With regards to the debate being reframed, the other side is more guilty of that.

When you have a pandemic that's killed 600k in the US, and 3.6 million in the world, and there are some trying to switch the emphasis onto the couple thousand global cases of adverse vaccine reactions as a reason of why "the vaccines are bad", that's overt reframing.

Here in the UK, I don't think anyone can honestly say what the number of covid fatalities is. The criteria is 'any death within 28 days of a positive test'. But anyone who has been paying attention knows that the average age of a covid fatality is greater than the average UK life expectancy, and that a large proportion of people marked down as dying of covid had one or more co-morbidities. However, the same does not apply to vaccination deaths. Those deaths within 28 days of a vaccination are merely considered to be a coincidence, and not in any way connected to the vaccination. How very convenient.

There are also reports of care homes that had not had a single covid death, and then suddenly 1/3 of their residents died after the vaccination team visited. I'm sure this isn't a coincidence, and it just so happens that the symptoms of some of the vaccine adverse effects are the same as those for a covid infection. For example, blood clotting due to the vaccine or a covid infection are both likely to cause severe shortness of breath in elderly and vulnerable people.

That's a shallow and narrow view of the risk/benefit trade off.

Imagine for a moment there was a vaccine that was shown to have a high efficacy rate (95%) of preventing cancer (a disease that kills 600k year in the US), but that vaccine carried the risk of 20 per million people having severe allergic reactions (up to and including death)... to pretend that that preventing those 20 deaths per million somehow justified not doing the thing that would save 600k/year lives isn't rational from a medical or actuarial standpoint.

Even though it's going to sound harsh, I'll "say the quiet part out loud" and just openly admit.

If 20 people have to die from blood clots in order to save thousands of lives, that's a worthwhile and pragmatic trade-off.

To be clear, these are the kinds of trade-offs we make every single day.

We know that by allowing people to drive cars (which provides a great benefit), that a certain number of people will be killed in car accidents... I'm not prepared to ban automobiles (and the vast societal benefits they provide) in order to prevent a few thousand deaths every year.

It would be nice if the same arguments about trade-offs were applied to shutting down society. Here in the UK, instead of trying to shield those who are vulnerable and accepting that some elderly people with multiple co-morbidities may die, we have destroyed the economy, destroyed jobs, destroyed non-covid healthcare, destroyed young people's education, destroyed mental health, destroyed the hospitality sector, destroyed the performing arts sector, destroyed massive numbers of small businesses, and in doing so, run up an astronomical national debt.

Anyway, here in the UK, the virus and the vaccine are increasingly looking like a red herring. Huge numbers of people have been vaccinated, but we're still effectively living in the world's largest prison, as the government has made international travel unviable for most people. If this situation continues for much longer, then an explanation must be provided, and the most likely reason is that the government wants to use the covid crisis to stop the peasants from flying and reduce carbon emissions.

 

[RDKirk]

The vast majority of Americans already have a couple dozen vaccines operational within their bodies. Why this one is so special, I don't understand at all ...

Actually, the vaccines are not still operational in the body. The vaccines produce a reaction by the immune system (which, granted, may in a small percentage of cases may be an undesirable reaction), and it's the immune system's reaction that remains operational. Moreover, the reaction of the immune system is quite rapid...no more than a couple of weeks before its reaction is noticeable, although the reaction may last for some weeks.

But the vaccine itself--which is composed of simple proteins and lipids--is consumed by the body, burned up, within days. The body does not keep odd lipids and proteins hanging around. The vaccine will be burned up even faster by people who fast at least 12 hours a day.

This is not like a chemical drug that a person may take for many days or years, which deposits and collects within the body over time. The vaccine does whatever it's going to do (desirable or undesirable) quickly and is then consumed by the body.

 

[sesquiterpene]

From where I'm sitting, there is almost no information on vaccine safety.

Yes, it's quite clear that you are profoundly ignorant about the safety of the Covid19 vaccines. It must be a conscious choice of yours, because the results of phase 1,2,3, and 4 studies on the vaccines available in the US have been clearly available for months. Instead you only read crackpot opinions from antivaxx websites. This reflects really badly on you.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, it's quite clear that you are profoundly ignorant about the safety of the Covid19 vaccines.....

Hi, enjoy your posts. Unless I seriously misunderstand, you have at least some education in the relevant areas of medical science. Would you be able to make the case that even if there is no long-term (e.g. over years) empirical data for covid vaccine safety, any such risks would certainly pale in comparison with the long-term risks of even a mild case of Covid?

If you know enough to comment on this, please do so at your convenience.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Furthermore, informed consent is one of the pillars of medical ethics. If vaccine recipients have got no idea what might happen, how can they give consent, and how is it ethical? Maybe it's different in the US, but here in the UK it's a massive failure in terms of obtaining informed consent. When this is all finished, the people responsible for this informed consent whitewash should end up in prison.

"Informed Consent" has basically become a catch phrase among anti-vaccine advocates (at least here in the US)...I've never heard anyone use that expression without also trying to push an anti-vaccine message.

Not to mention, the very notion that a patient could somehow engage in "informed consent" is almost laughable for a few reasons.

A) In order to become truly "informed" on vaccines, how they work, and risks associated (with the risks taken into context with the benefit they provide), it would take years and years of study. Or as most people call it "A medical degree"

In the context that most people use that expression "informed consent", it's simply code for an expectation that a clinician should basically harp on any potential side effect (no matter how miniscule the risk) in order to talk people out of vaccination.

B) Most people in the anti-vaccine camp don't actually want to be "informed" (despite them using that word as a rhetorical device), they want to specifically seek out things that confirm their bias. "Doing the research" and "educating one's self" has very little to do with.

If they were that keen on "doing the research" and were the skeptics and inquisitive minds they pride themselves on being, there wouldn't be such a large portion of anti-vaccine types falling hook, line, and sinker for things like chiropractic and homeopathy.

There are also reports of care homes that had not had a single covid death, and then suddenly 1/3 of their residents died after the vaccination team visited. I'm sure this isn't a coincidence, and it just so happens that the symptoms of some of the vaccine adverse effects are the same as those for a covid infection. For example, blood clotting due to the vaccine or a covid infection are both likely to cause severe shortness of breath in elderly and vulnerable people.

You'll need to provide a source for that claim...

It would be nice if the same arguments about trade-offs were applied to shutting down society. Here in the UK, instead of trying to shield those who are vulnerable and accepting that some elderly people with multiple co-morbidities may die, we have destroyed the economy, destroyed jobs, destroyed non-covid healthcare, destroyed young people's education, destroyed mental health, destroyed the hospitality sector, destroyed the performing arts sector, destroyed massive numbers of small businesses, and in doing so, run up an astronomical national debt.

Anyway, here in the UK, the virus and the vaccine are increasingly looking like a red herring. Huge numbers of people have been vaccinated, but we're still effectively living in the world's largest prison, as the government has made international travel unviable for most people. If this situation continues for much longer, then an explanation must be provided, and the most likely reason is that the government wants to use the covid crisis to stop the peasants from flying and reduce carbon emissions.

I was never a fan of the sledgehammer approach they used with shutdowns. I understand what they were trying to accomplish with them, but there were too many "human elements" that made them infeasible, and I do think that tanking an economy wasn't worth the trade-off.

But the shutdowns are an entirely separate issue from vaccination.

 

[Taisho]

By the time people open their eyes it will be too late anyway, people practically worship this vaccine.

.

 

[Taisho]

In the peer-reviewed research paper that Tess Lawrie cites, the authors claim the following:

Many aspects of Covid-19 and subsequent vaccine development are unprecedented for a vaccine deployed for use in the general population. Some of these includes the following.

1. First to use PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection (see text)
2. First to use mRNA vaccine technology against an infectious agent
3. First time Moderna has brought any product to market
4. First to have public health officials telling those receiving the vaccination to expect an adverse reaction
5. First to be implemented publicly with nothing more than preliminary efficacy data (see text)
6. First vaccine to make no clear claims about reducing infections, transmissibility, or deaths
7. First coronavirus vaccine ever attempted in humans
8. First injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population

In my humble opinion, the fact that these vaccines contain so much novel, previously untried components, ought to instantly disqualify them from mass roll out to an entire population, without further long term testing. It's rather like putting passengers on a plane that has a new design of engines, new design of wings, new design of control systems, new navigation system, new emergency evacuation chutes, and just hoping for the best.

The fact that this vaccine is technology is what makes it different than other vaccines. That is one reason why the vaccine has been pushed out so quickly - usually these types of things need up to a decade to test and ascertain its effectiveness. And, the side-effects

If it was about health, the vaccine would not cost any government any money - profits aren't a motivator for health and wellness for all, and the American Health complex is unapologetically for-profit and for-chronic disease (as opposed to cures and treating the core problems). One day (when it is too late) we as people will realize how we are being exploited as business and scientific lab commodities. But, I doubt we will ever have the self-sufficiency or self-respect not to let this ultimately control every aspect of our lives. It's too scary to believe we don't matter and at the same time we are being exploited and taken advantage of.

The social pressure helps those on the fence toward taking the vaccine - as it does with most controversial things. You are a stupid, backward, cave-man idiot conspiracy theorist who doesn't know any science, and can barely read or write" if you have reservations of protest against this biotechnological vaccine. Not too many people can take the pressure of standing up in a deriding crowd.

 

[RDKirk]

If it was about health, the vaccine would not cost any government any money - profits aren't a motivator for health and wellness for all, and the American Health complex is unapologetically for-profit and for-chronic disease (as opposed to cures and treating the core problems). One day (when it is too late) we as people will realize how we are being exploited as business and scientific lab commodities. But, I doubt we will ever have the self-sufficiency or self-respect not to let this ultimately control every aspect of our lives. It's too scary to believe we don't matter and at the same time we are being exploited and taken advantage of.

These are people who stormed the Capitol because their Leader strongly hinted that they should. They're already primed for exploitation and control.

 

[Taisho]

These are people who stormed the Capitol because their Leader strongly hinted that they should. They're already primed for exploitation and control.

Well sure, those types of mentalities are easily exploitable. Any human that dies and believes in any way they are more deserving or superior to any other human is already primed for massive psychological manipulation.

But, it works both ways for all political facets in every nation - and especially for minorities in the States. There is such a rich and deep history of grotesque human experimentation under the guise of innocent research that it is no wonder why, now, plenty of money and investment in advertisement has been especially geared toward those groups suspicious of government and their vaccines/treatments.

Those who are ignorant of this history may be willing to take this syringe of biotechnology. I know that social pressure is top #5 reason why people take this vaccine. Some people are genuinely concerned about the risks sans vaccine. Again, if it was about health it would not be for profit. Phillip Morris is still in business in America and we know for a fact that smoking kills 480,000 people per year. So, to me this is just a charade and an insight into the consciousness (primed or not) of the world.

Question: Will the set of vaccines being distributed keep people relatively prepared and protected from the delta variant - or any other variant? Or, will you have to get dosed up for the new variants? Can you see where this leads?

 

[RDKirk]

Question: Will the set of vaccines being distributed keep people relatively prepared and protected from the delta variant - or any other variant? Or, will you have to get dosed up for the new variants? Can you see where this leads?

Same place as we've been for years with the flu vaccine...with no Il Duce yet.

 

[Taisho]

Same place as we've been for years with the flu vaccine...with no Il Duce yet.

But, the influenza vaccine is not biotechnology.

EDIT: Historically

 

[RDKirk]

But, the influenza vaccine is not biotechnology.

EDIT: Historically

You're moving the goalpost. The technology of the vaccine has nothing to do with your point about being "primed for massive psychological manipulation" as you said.

 

[Taisho]

You're moving the goalpost. The technology of the vaccine has nothing to do with your point about being "primed for massive psychological manipulation" as you said.

We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, right?

Part of being primed for psychological manipulation is most certainly related to the fact that one would take a vaccine from any government that has a history of experimenting on its own citizens. If one is a racist, prejudiced or a supremist (which was the original context) it should be clear that those types are primed for psychological manipulation - it should be a given. But, for those who consider themselves "freethinking, progressive" or some other form of intellectually tangent extolment, then there is SIDE B of the cassette on psyops targeted to them. That is why I brought up the idea about nations experimenting on its population (especially minorities in the States).

The technology of the vaccine should make one even more suspicious - considering live/damaged virus is already a liability to immunity, humans are infallible and there are (believe it or not) some humans that see to exploit the biological progress of other humans (especially those humans they believe are inferior or pose a threat to the planet). Many of these humans just so happen to be highly intelligent, some even have massive amounts of capital to see their ideals through.

The goal post seems moved because there are multiple games being played (on us) at the same time - and therefore multiple points of concern that in most cases overlap.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, right?

Part of being primed for psychological manipulation is most certainly related to the fact that one would take a vaccine from any government that has a history of experimenting on its own citizens.

A couple points...

A) if we're setting the standard that "because Government XYZ did such-&-such in the past, that means they're untrustworthy forever" is short sighted. Germany did some horrible things in the past, I don't see anyone claiming we should be skeptical of the vehicle safety standards applied to Audi or BMW.

B) the covid vaccines weren't a "single-government" effort. Multiple governments (and private entities within their nations) were involved in the research process, and they all came up with similar conclusions.

The technology of the vaccine should make one even more suspicious - considering live/damaged virus is already a liability to immunity, humans are infallible and there are (believe it or not) some humans that see to exploit the biological progress of other humans (especially those humans they believe are inferior or pose a threat to the planet). Many of these humans just so happen to be highly intelligent, some even have massive amounts of capital to see their ideals through.

There's no live virus within the new mRNA vaccines.