3 ms·

> I’m not sure I could come up with a definition of the word “dangerous” which I could defend which wouldn’t label almost everything else I do in a day as dange

> I’m not sure I could come up with a definition of the word “dangerous” which I could defend which wouldn’t label almost everything else I do in a day as dangerous as well. The risk as demonstrated so far and the unknown risks which can be imagined at this point are still very small for any population. One could hunt for an equivalent activity and try to defend whether or not you would call that dangerous. Any medical intervention brings with it some potential downsides. That is why we have Informed Consent [1] in the West. However, normally informed consent works like this: You meet with the doctor, you get the pros and cons of the treatment, and then, you make an informed decision knowing both the good and bad about whether or not you want it. With Covid, that has been thrown out the window, as medical ethics has been thrown out the window with the bathwater. Our media has turned into total cheerleaders, and, in some cases, professional liars. Our government seems to have rushed, and politically influenced the approvals. There is a large amount of risk with these vaccines for some specific contra-indications that are not being mentioned widely, such as vaccine allergies, clotting disorders, auto-immune disorders, just to name a few. This is not including the known clotting problems w. JnJ/AZN, and the general heart issues with young PTs. Many workplaces are not accepting of these valid medical reasons as a cause for exemption, which then leads to severe side effects. Even worse, this can lead to pressure to get a 2nd shot, even after horrible side effects from the first. Our vaccine variety could easily have included many more types in order to reduce the potential for side effects, and to avoid mandates by giving choices e.g. attenuated vaccines [1] https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-consent https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-con...

colechristensen 5y ago
Informed consent should be coming from a discussion between you and your doctor if you have concerns, not the news or press releases (do you complain that magazine ads for drugs don’t give you proper information?) You are leaning very heavily on extremely rare reactions and making generalizations about exemptions which aren’t nearly true. Of course there exists unreasonable responses on every level, but existence doesn’t equal a fair review of the situation.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  >Informed consent should be coming from a discussion between you and your doctor if you have concerns, not the news or press releases (do you complain that magazine ads for drugs don’t give you proper information?) The Pro-Vaccine doctor, Dr. Francis Christian in Canada that was suspended, then fired [1] merely for advocating informed consent would argue otherwise. Mind you, he was not saying halt the vaccine, but merely to inform patients of all the pros and cons before the intervention, but continue the campaign. Basically, they are skipping the informed consent part. > You are leaning very heavily on extremely rare reactions and making generalizations about exemptions which aren’t nearly true. Of course there exists unreasonable responses on every level, but existence doesn’t equal a fair review of the situation. Actually, that is incorrect. I was intrigued from a medical perspective when the first person I know to get vaccinated then proceeded to have severe side effects. Highly anecdotal I know, but I thought - where there is smoke, there is fire. Once I started to look into VAERS, and read lots of the statistics about COVID, then I could see the misapplication of mandates by applying them to extremely low risk populations. Such that the cure became worse than the cancer for application of a vaccine like this to extreme low risk populations, particularly where the risk of dangerous side effects rise. While we know VAERS undercounts adverse reactions ~ numbers range from 3x to 10x to 50x The VAERS data [2] currently has: 16,310 DEATHS 75,605 HOSPITALIZATIONS 87,814 URGENT CARE 121,305 DOCTOR OFFICE VISITS 7,141 ANAPHYLAXIS 9,446 BELL'S PALSY 2,415 Miscarriages 7,868 Heart Attacks 6,812 Myocarditis/Pericarditis 20,789 Permanently Disabled 3,620 Thrombocytopenia/ Low Platelet 17,619 Life Threatening 28,168 Severe Allergic Reaction 8,153 Shingles I've had a large number of vaccines in my life due to the countries in which I deployed. But, nothing like this in terms of side effects. VAERS data on all previous vaccine side effects makes a clear case for these vaccines as being much more dangerous in comparison. [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7975431/usask-doctor-francis-christian-mrna-vaccines/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7975431/usask-doctor-francis-chri... [2] https://openvaers.com/covid-data https://openvaers.com/covid-data

colechristensen 5y ago

Informed consent should be coming from a discussion between you and your doctor if you have concerns, not the news or press releases (do you complain that magazine ads for drugs don’t give you proper information?) You are leaning very heavily on extremely rare reactions and making generalizations about exemptions which aren’t nearly true. Of course there exists unreasonable responses on every level, but existence doesn’t equal a fair review of the situation.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
>Informed consent should be coming from a discussion between you and your doctor if you have concerns, not the news or press releases (do you complain that magazine ads for drugs don’t give you proper information?) The Pro-Vaccine doctor, Dr. Francis Christian in Canada that was suspended, then fired [1] merely for advocating informed consent would argue otherwise. Mind you, he was not saying halt the vaccine, but merely to inform patients of all the pros and cons before the intervention, but continue the campaign. Basically, they are skipping the informed consent part. > You are leaning very heavily on extremely rare reactions and making generalizations about exemptions which aren’t nearly true. Of course there exists unreasonable responses on every level, but existence doesn’t equal a fair review of the situation. Actually, that is incorrect. I was intrigued from a medical perspective when the first person I know to get vaccinated then proceeded to have severe side effects. Highly anecdotal I know, but I thought - where there is smoke, there is fire. Once I started to look into VAERS, and read lots of the statistics about COVID, then I could see the misapplication of mandates by applying them to extremely low risk populations. Such that the cure became worse than the cancer for application of a vaccine like this to extreme low risk populations, particularly where the risk of dangerous side effects rise. While we know VAERS undercounts adverse reactions ~ numbers range from 3x to 10x to 50x The VAERS data [2] currently has: 16,310 DEATHS 75,605 HOSPITALIZATIONS 87,814 URGENT CARE 121,305 DOCTOR OFFICE VISITS 7,141 ANAPHYLAXIS 9,446 BELL'S PALSY 2,415 Miscarriages 7,868 Heart Attacks 6,812 Myocarditis/Pericarditis 20,789 Permanently Disabled 3,620 Thrombocytopenia/ Low Platelet 17,619 Life Threatening 28,168 Severe Allergic Reaction 8,153 Shingles I've had a large number of vaccines in my life due to the countries in which I deployed. But, nothing like this in terms of side effects. VAERS data on all previous vaccine side effects makes a clear case for these vaccines as being much more dangerous in comparison. [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7975431/usask-doctor-francis-christian-mrna-vaccines/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7975431/usask-doctor-francis-chri... [2] https://openvaers.com/covid-data https://openvaers.com/covid-data