5 ms·

The mRNA vaccines are not "adequate": they are being treated by governments as if they aren't working whilst also being significantly more dangerous than every

The mRNA vaccines are not "adequate": they are being treated by governments as if they aren't working whilst also being significantly more dangerous than every other vaccine programme out there by a long way, even according to the CDC's own rather unreliable VAERS data. Look at the graph here and repeat that these vaccines are adequate: https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/ https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/ "the human population, as a result of policy decisions, will continue to have ... large numbers of unvaccinated among us" You need to rethink this for several reasons: 1. It's logistically impossible for everyone to be vaccinated simultaneously. This is not the result of policy decisions, it's a simple matter of distribution and manufacturing. There will therefore always be large numbers of unvaccinated living alongside the vaccinated for any vaccine. If they don't work given that fact then they are useless and should be abandoned. 2. Prior vaccination campaigns have worked or even wiped out whole diseases, even when there are lots of people who weren't vaccinated. If the new "vaccines" cannot do this then they aren't actually vaccines at all. 3. The idea that vaccines only work if everyone has taken them is entirely unsupported by any evidence or sound biological theory, quite clearly would not meet the definition of a vaccine, and leads inevitably to evil totalitarianism in which people are forced to take an endless parade of injections regardless of whether they're at risk, regardless of the severity of the disease which is being treated and regardless of how many safety protocols were skipped.

AstralStorm 5y ago
Re 2. Which programs? Not even polio vaccinations worked to eradicate the virus completely, and these came the closest. Much less BCG or variola (pox). Viruses like flu and coronaviruses, nigh impossible to eradicate. 1 and 3, sure. And mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type. The cost-benefit is strongly on the side of vaccination there.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Why do you think smallpox wasn't eliminated by vaccines? mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type I don't understand how that is consistent with the data from the various vaccine surveillance systems which show clearly that it's drastically more dangerous. It's also inconsistent with anecdotes that I've been hearing from people around me, of whom a disturbingly large number say that the vaccines made them very sick (i.e. they describe symptoms similar to that of COVID itself).
  - effie 5y ago
    Indeed. It is also inconsistent with the fact that COVID vaccines are still in clinical trials, with no data regarding long-term (10 years) effects.
  - Grimm1 5y ago
    Of course the vaccine made them feel sick, that's how immune responses tend to, much of the time, work. I felt like shit for about 12 hours, with fever and muscle soreness all over my body. Then it abated, as expected, and I went about my life knowing in two weeks I'd be at peak protection and could start participating in society again with a flipped risk profile. I read a lot of your other comments so far and I had a suspicion, but this lone comment of yours confirmed it for me. You have some basic internal fear of the vaccine so you've done a bunch of rationalizing to make it seem worse and confirm your own bias. I've looked at the VAERS data this morning for the US and you have a much higher chance of getting hit by a car and dying, or as is the very prescient case, getting COVID and having more adverse affects from that than an adverse vaccination, but I'm not going to convince you of anything because of that basic fear you have.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      No, you're mis-understanding cause and effect. I've had vaccines before and have no fear of vaccines in general. This round in particular does concern me, but that concern arose due to the data and anecdotes that I already mentioned. Concern follows reason for concern. You're asserting it's the other way around, which is: a. Not very charitable. b. Not the simplest possible explanation. Occam would not approve.
- vampirical 5y ago
  native_samples You've been misinformed. We have pre launch studies with 40k+ participants showing no meaningful risk. And post launch when there were exceedingly rare ("This adverse event is rare, occurring at a rate of about 7 per 1 million vaccinated women between 18 and 49 years old. For women 50 years and older and men of all ages, this adverse event is even more rare.") and not unexpected clotting issues vaccine administration was paused so the issue could be analyzed more thoroughly and quantified specifying to defeat this kind of FUD. "As to safety The Pfizer trial reported serious adverse reactions in 0.6% of vaccine recipients and 0.5% of placebo recipients." https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-phase-3-results-for-the-pfizer-biontech-bnt162b2-mrna-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-phase-... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/sa... https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer...
  - native_samples 5y ago
    I know about the trials. I'm sure everyone does. Unfortunately, there is evidence that trials under-state risks. Evidence for this is: 1. Safety notices for the vaccines have been edited post launch to start talking about risks of heart inflammation and other problems, which were not detected by the trials but are now common enough to justify people being warned about them. 2. Drug trials appear to regularly understate the scale of side effects and nobody can figure out why: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/07/19/do-drug-trials-underestimate-side-effects/ https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/07/19/do-drug-trials-und... Additionally, the trials never formally completed, cannot now complete because the control groups have been vaccinated, and some of them excluded whole groups of people e.g. pregnant women, children and in some cases the elderly! This leads to an absurd situation in which the US CDC is saying that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women simultaneous with Moderna starting trials in pregnant women (who were previously excluded). And finally, putting all those problems to one side, the issue is actually relative risks. Even if the risk of a vaccine is low, even if similar to or higher than the risks of the thing it's trying to vaccinate you against, it may not make sense to take it. That is just basic cost/benefit analysis.
vampirical 5y ago
Your claims are pretty extraordinary and demand extraordinary evidence. How exactly are they not adequate? How are they being treated as if they aren't working? How are they dangerous? The one source you provide is embarrassingly poorly founded. It takes garbage input sources, obscures even the meager data in them and then decreases the quality of the claims even further with misleading representations. Here's just one example to show explicitly what I'm taking about with my claim. "A recent analysis by researchers at Queen Mary University in London found that even in senior citizens, about 85% of deaths reported to VAERS were definitively, likely or possibly caused by the vaccine." That language implies heavily "85% scary!" when in fact that the claim by the paper is "15% were confirmed to have nothing to do with the vaccine" and as you read further their results show even less than that. I'm just going to go in order through my notes from a critical read of the paper for more background, these are not prioritized or meant to be hard exclusion criteria on their own but rather straws on the camels back. The project this paper was published under is not specialized in this area, making me suspicious that they are qualified for this analysis at all. "PAMBAYESIAN is a 3-year EPSRC funded project to develop a new generation of intelligent medical decision support systems based on Bayesian networks. The project focuses on home-based and wearable real-time monitoring systems for chronic conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes in pregnancy and atrial fibrillation. The project has the potential to improve the well-being of millions of people." Looking through through the credentials and publication history of all the authors seems to confirm that they may not have the relavant foundation for this work. There is absolutely no statistical analysis anywhere in the paper and the authors acknowledge their data set is what I would call almost but not quite entirely useless "This process is ongoing, as there are 1644 deaths in the dataset that have been reported in patients who had recently received their first or second COVID-19 vaccination, and over 28,000 serious adverse events that did not result in death. This interim results paper presents information on the first 250 reported deaths that have been reviewed and coded by our team. Obviously, these results cannot be generalised as the sample is heavily biased - these were all people vaccinated very early in the programme when only the elderly, those with significant or chronic health conditions and frontline health service staff were being vaccinated." And finally the actual claim that is attempted to be made by the paper authors is "But there are some important findings. that the only patients where a vaccine allergic reaction be ruled out as contributing to death were 34 (14%) who were all either already bedridden, at end of life, and expected to die anyway from a serious comorbid like lung cancer or were on palliative hospice care. We also found that for at least 13 of the 250 deaths (5%), a vaccine allergic reaction was indisputably the most likely direct cause for the symptoms and patient outcomes described." They found 13 very ill people whose deaths, in a third party's interpretation of case notes, were contributed to by an allergic reaction to receipt of the vaccine. 5% of the most delicate people had a normal reaction to receiving any vaccine and because of their extreme poor health or their quality of care were not able to be helped with standard intervention for such a reaction. Shocking stuff that. I think you should take a serious critical look at this data source swprs.org and how much of things you think you know have been influenced by it.

AstralStorm 5y ago

Re 2. Which programs? Not even polio vaccinations worked to eradicate the virus completely, and these came the closest. Much less BCG or variola (pox). Viruses like flu and coronaviruses, nigh impossible to eradicate. 1 and 3, sure. And mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type. The cost-benefit is strongly on the side of vaccination there.

native_samples 5y ago
Why do you think smallpox wasn't eliminated by vaccines? mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type I don't understand how that is consistent with the data from the various vaccine surveillance systems which show clearly that it's drastically more dangerous. It's also inconsistent with anecdotes that I've been hearing from people around me, of whom a disturbingly large number say that the vaccines made them very sick (i.e. they describe symptoms similar to that of COVID itself).
- effie 5y ago
  Indeed. It is also inconsistent with the fact that COVID vaccines are still in clinical trials, with no data regarding long-term (10 years) effects.
- Grimm1 5y ago
  Of course the vaccine made them feel sick, that's how immune responses tend to, much of the time, work. I felt like shit for about 12 hours, with fever and muscle soreness all over my body. Then it abated, as expected, and I went about my life knowing in two weeks I'd be at peak protection and could start participating in society again with a flipped risk profile. I read a lot of your other comments so far and I had a suspicion, but this lone comment of yours confirmed it for me. You have some basic internal fear of the vaccine so you've done a bunch of rationalizing to make it seem worse and confirm your own bias. I've looked at the VAERS data this morning for the US and you have a much higher chance of getting hit by a car and dying, or as is the very prescient case, getting COVID and having more adverse affects from that than an adverse vaccination, but I'm not going to convince you of anything because of that basic fear you have.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    No, you're mis-understanding cause and effect. I've had vaccines before and have no fear of vaccines in general. This round in particular does concern me, but that concern arose due to the data and anecdotes that I already mentioned. Concern follows reason for concern. You're asserting it's the other way around, which is: a. Not very charitable. b. Not the simplest possible explanation. Occam would not approve.
vampirical 5y ago
native_samples You've been misinformed. We have pre launch studies with 40k+ participants showing no meaningful risk. And post launch when there were exceedingly rare ("This adverse event is rare, occurring at a rate of about 7 per 1 million vaccinated women between 18 and 49 years old. For women 50 years and older and men of all ages, this adverse event is even more rare.") and not unexpected clotting issues vaccine administration was paused so the issue could be analyzed more thoroughly and quantified specifying to defeat this kind of FUD. "As to safety The Pfizer trial reported serious adverse reactions in 0.6% of vaccine recipients and 0.5% of placebo recipients." https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-phase-3-results-for-the-pfizer-biontech-bnt162b2-mrna-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-phase-... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/sa... https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer...
- native_samples 5y ago
  I know about the trials. I'm sure everyone does. Unfortunately, there is evidence that trials under-state risks. Evidence for this is: 1. Safety notices for the vaccines have been edited post launch to start talking about risks of heart inflammation and other problems, which were not detected by the trials but are now common enough to justify people being warned about them. 2. Drug trials appear to regularly understate the scale of side effects and nobody can figure out why: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/07/19/do-drug-trials-underestimate-side-effects/ https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/07/19/do-drug-trials-und... Additionally, the trials never formally completed, cannot now complete because the control groups have been vaccinated, and some of them excluded whole groups of people e.g. pregnant women, children and in some cases the elderly! This leads to an absurd situation in which the US CDC is saying that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women simultaneous with Moderna starting trials in pregnant women (who were previously excluded). And finally, putting all those problems to one side, the issue is actually relative risks. Even if the risk of a vaccine is low, even if similar to or higher than the risks of the thing it's trying to vaccinate you against, it may not make sense to take it. That is just basic cost/benefit analysis.

vampirical 5y ago

Your claims are pretty extraordinary and demand extraordinary evidence. How exactly are they not adequate? How are they being treated as if they aren't working? How are they dangerous? The one source you provide is embarrassingly poorly founded. It takes garbage input sources, obscures even the meager data in them and then decreases the quality of the claims even further with misleading representations. Here's just one example to show explicitly what I'm taking about with my claim. "A recent analysis by researchers at Queen Mary University in London found that even in senior citizens, about 85% of deaths reported to VAERS were definitively, likely or possibly caused by the vaccine." That language implies heavily "85% scary!" when in fact that the claim by the paper is "15% were confirmed to have nothing to do with the vaccine" and as you read further their results show even less than that. I'm just going to go in order through my notes from a critical read of the paper for more background, these are not prioritized or meant to be hard exclusion criteria on their own but rather straws on the camels back. The project this paper was published under is not specialized in this area, making me suspicious that they are qualified for this analysis at all. "PAMBAYESIAN is a 3-year EPSRC funded project to develop a new generation of intelligent medical decision support systems based on Bayesian networks. The project focuses on home-based and wearable real-time monitoring systems for chronic conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes in pregnancy and atrial fibrillation. The project has the potential to improve the well-being of millions of people." Looking through through the credentials and publication history of all the authors seems to confirm that they may not have the relavant foundation for this work. There is absolutely no statistical analysis anywhere in the paper and the authors acknowledge their data set is what I would call almost but not quite entirely useless "This process is ongoing, as there are 1644 deaths in the dataset that have been reported in patients who had recently received their first or second COVID-19 vaccination, and over 28,000 serious adverse events that did not result in death. This interim results paper presents information on the first 250 reported deaths that have been reviewed and coded by our team. Obviously, these results cannot be generalised as the sample is heavily biased - these were all people vaccinated very early in the programme when only the elderly, those with significant or chronic health conditions and frontline health service staff were being vaccinated." And finally the actual claim that is attempted to be made by the paper authors is "But there are some important findings. that the only patients where a vaccine allergic reaction be ruled out as contributing to death were 34 (14%) who were all either already bedridden, at end of life, and expected to die anyway from a serious comorbid like lung cancer or were on palliative hospice care. We also found that for at least 13 of the 250 deaths (5%), a vaccine allergic reaction was indisputably the most likely direct cause for the symptoms and patient outcomes described." They found 13 very ill people whose deaths, in a third party's interpretation of case notes, were contributed to by an allergic reaction to receipt of the vaccine. 5% of the most delicate people had a normal reaction to receiving any vaccine and because of their extreme poor health or their quality of care were not able to be helped with standard intervention for such a reaction. Shocking stuff that. I think you should take a serious critical look at this data source swprs.org and how much of things you think you know have been influenced by it.