3 ms·

With every booster being taken, the risk of Myocarditis is increasing. The vaccine-induced spike proteins (which damage your cells and internal organs) can sta

With every booster being taken, the risk of Myocarditis is increasing. The vaccine-induced spike proteins (which damage your cells and internal organs) can stay in your body for 12 months, which means that if you're regularly boosting, you're not getting rid of them. This is not the case with Covid, and people rarely if ever get Covid twice.

nradov 5y ago
Reinfections are possible but the symptoms are almost always mild. Just like with the other coronaviruses. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120
icoder 5y ago
That's quite few statements you put out there, any chance you can direct us to some sources or further reading?
- jcbrand 5y ago
  It's all from Peter McCullough on the Joe Rogan show and he mentions all the studies on which he bases his statements. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    I love Joe Rogan and his podcast, but be aware that we live in such a complex world, any representation will be a mis-representation to some extend. How much of a mis-representation is extremely hard to judge, because often it's not done deliberately. Wikipedia says about Peter McCullough: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough promoted misinformation and falsehoods about COVID-19, the COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 treatments." That's definitely concern to be very skeptical.
    - jcbrand 5y ago
      It's good to be skeptical, and yet I hope you have an open enough mind to listen to the interview.
      - Pyramus 5y ago
        An open mind definitely, likely not the time to do it though. I've gone down similar rabbit holes for a number of related issues, and every single time what started as a disagreement with the scientific consensus in say, issue A, turned into a disagreement also with B, C, D, E, F and so on. What remained was the disagreement with the scientific consensus. How likely is that? If it's any helpful, that's my heuristic to spot valid criticism.
    - pbaka 5y ago
      Are you really a skeptic ? You just used an easiy disproved oblique ad-hominem to lessen his credibility without even having actually researched the man. It sounded like a "sources have indicated" TV hit piece. He developped part of the early treatment protocols Covid everybody is using in Spring 2020. Before that, he was one of the foremost authorities in clinical cardiology in the US, full Professor at a major university (Texas A&M), Masters in public health, also editor of two journals, and is in the five most cited researchers in the US. He was "the man" in his field, and people around the world can thank his discoveries for having survived Covid. Yet, he somehow started being a misinformer and losing credit the moment he talked about the vaccines in a less than flattering way. The "talk" page tab of the same wikipedia page you are citing is quite revealing in that regard.
    - zpeti 5y ago
      I'm not saying trust McCullough, because I listened to some of that podcast and some of what he said I really think is bullshit and wrong... BUT... I also seriously don't trust any tech platform on covid information at this point. It's clear there is something along the lines of massive regulatory capture of tech platforms by the official FDA, CDC, NIH lines and they hardly ever allow dissent. Time and time again it's been proved that the censorship has been too much. Lab leak hypothesis, vaccine safety, vaccine stopping the spread to name a few. It's clear that the black and white censorship that's happened (it's not a lab leak, vaccines are safe), is just not true. Both those things are pretty gray areas, as this study shows. The vaccine is basically turning into a personal trolley problem for everyone. Do I take the vaccine and make an active decision and take a small risk, or do I not take action and take a slightly bigger risk? It's clear there isn't a risk free option, which is what vaccines were sold as. So, tldr, I think taking that sentence from wikipedia as some sort of indicator is not a good idea.
  - icoder 5y ago
    Ah, that's 3hrs of audio. I couldn't find any shownotes either. Can't help but notice Peter McCullough's Wikipedia doesn't put him in the list of most neutral, factual sources though. But sure, how do we know we can trust _that_.
etherael 5y ago
So in other words, covid is a vaccine against covid that actually works, and the vaccines are not vaccines against covid, don't, and also have cumulative negative externalities. Why are people still talking about mandating this nonsense?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- icoder 5y ago
  The vaccines against Covid actually work, and (probably) come with a small risk. Sure, just getting Covid does too and probably a bit better, but comes with a great risk. Now, does that warrant mandating? I'm not so sure, that's a much more difficult discussion swaying us (among other things) back and forth the between freedom of one person and the health of another.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Not for kids and people talk about mandating vaccination for them. Aside from that it should be voluntary for adults as well.
    - icoder 5y ago
      Yeah for kids it is even more difficult to defend a mandate, even to defend their vaccination altogether (we don't do general vaccination for kids here in the Netherlands, yet). There still IS something to discuss, as we see kids spread it (a lot), which does eventually increase the risk of adults for which the vaccine doesn't work. But to me that's not enough. As for adults, what we've seen here (86% of 18+ vaccinated) is a lot of pressure on health care (and especially, the people working there) directly and on people in need of non-immediate, non-covid care indirectly (as that gets dialed down), as well as society as a whole through new lockdown like measures. This pressure came from unvaccinated people, initially mostly, later still disproportionately (and after boosts, possibly mostly again). It's a crazy difficult dilemma. Luckily we've managed to stay away from mandates so far, but it's costing.
Pyramus 5y ago
> This is not the case with Covid, and people rarely if ever get Covid twice. Beta, Delta and Omikron just called to disagree. In particular Omikron seems to be (speculative at this point!) spreading well amongst the previously infected in South Africa. As a reference point, we are re-infected with the other endemic human corona viruses every 1.5-2 years.
- dontcare007 5y ago
  And Omicron has very mild symptoms.

nradov 5y ago

Reinfections are possible but the symptoms are almost always mild. Just like with the other coronaviruses. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120

icoder 5y ago

That's quite few statements you put out there, any chance you can direct us to some sources or further reading?

jcbrand 5y ago
It's all from Peter McCullough on the Joe Rogan show and he mentions all the studies on which he bases his statements. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz
- Pyramus 5y ago
  I love Joe Rogan and his podcast, but be aware that we live in such a complex world, any representation will be a mis-representation to some extend. How much of a mis-representation is extremely hard to judge, because often it's not done deliberately. Wikipedia says about Peter McCullough: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough promoted misinformation and falsehoods about COVID-19, the COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 treatments." That's definitely concern to be very skeptical.
  - jcbrand 5y ago
    It's good to be skeptical, and yet I hope you have an open enough mind to listen to the interview.
    - Pyramus 5y ago
      An open mind definitely, likely not the time to do it though. I've gone down similar rabbit holes for a number of related issues, and every single time what started as a disagreement with the scientific consensus in say, issue A, turned into a disagreement also with B, C, D, E, F and so on. What remained was the disagreement with the scientific consensus. How likely is that? If it's any helpful, that's my heuristic to spot valid criticism.
  - pbaka 5y ago
    Are you really a skeptic ? You just used an easiy disproved oblique ad-hominem to lessen his credibility without even having actually researched the man. It sounded like a "sources have indicated" TV hit piece. He developped part of the early treatment protocols Covid everybody is using in Spring 2020. Before that, he was one of the foremost authorities in clinical cardiology in the US, full Professor at a major university (Texas A&M), Masters in public health, also editor of two journals, and is in the five most cited researchers in the US. He was "the man" in his field, and people around the world can thank his discoveries for having survived Covid. Yet, he somehow started being a misinformer and losing credit the moment he talked about the vaccines in a less than flattering way. The "talk" page tab of the same wikipedia page you are citing is quite revealing in that regard.
  - zpeti 5y ago
    I'm not saying trust McCullough, because I listened to some of that podcast and some of what he said I really think is bullshit and wrong... BUT... I also seriously don't trust any tech platform on covid information at this point. It's clear there is something along the lines of massive regulatory capture of tech platforms by the official FDA, CDC, NIH lines and they hardly ever allow dissent. Time and time again it's been proved that the censorship has been too much. Lab leak hypothesis, vaccine safety, vaccine stopping the spread to name a few. It's clear that the black and white censorship that's happened (it's not a lab leak, vaccines are safe), is just not true. Both those things are pretty gray areas, as this study shows. The vaccine is basically turning into a personal trolley problem for everyone. Do I take the vaccine and make an active decision and take a small risk, or do I not take action and take a slightly bigger risk? It's clear there isn't a risk free option, which is what vaccines were sold as. So, tldr, I think taking that sentence from wikipedia as some sort of indicator is not a good idea.
- icoder 5y ago
  Ah, that's 3hrs of audio. I couldn't find any shownotes either. Can't help but notice Peter McCullough's Wikipedia doesn't put him in the list of most neutral, factual sources though. But sure, how do we know we can trust _that_.

etherael 5y ago

So in other words, covid is a vaccine against covid that actually works, and the vaccines are not vaccines against covid, don't, and also have cumulative negative externalities. Why are people still talking about mandating this nonsense?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
icoder 5y ago
The vaccines against Covid actually work, and (probably) come with a small risk. Sure, just getting Covid does too and probably a bit better, but comes with a great risk. Now, does that warrant mandating? I'm not so sure, that's a much more difficult discussion swaying us (among other things) back and forth the between freedom of one person and the health of another.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Not for kids and people talk about mandating vaccination for them. Aside from that it should be voluntary for adults as well.
  - icoder 5y ago
    Yeah for kids it is even more difficult to defend a mandate, even to defend their vaccination altogether (we don't do general vaccination for kids here in the Netherlands, yet). There still IS something to discuss, as we see kids spread it (a lot), which does eventually increase the risk of adults for which the vaccine doesn't work. But to me that's not enough. As for adults, what we've seen here (86% of 18+ vaccinated) is a lot of pressure on health care (and especially, the people working there) directly and on people in need of non-immediate, non-covid care indirectly (as that gets dialed down), as well as society as a whole through new lockdown like measures. This pressure came from unvaccinated people, initially mostly, later still disproportionately (and after boosts, possibly mostly again). It's a crazy difficult dilemma. Luckily we've managed to stay away from mandates so far, but it's costing.

Pyramus 5y ago

> This is not the case with Covid, and people rarely if ever get Covid twice. Beta, Delta and Omikron just called to disagree. In particular Omikron seems to be (speculative at this point!) spreading well amongst the previously infected in South Africa. As a reference point, we are re-infected with the other endemic human corona viruses every 1.5-2 years.

dontcare007 5y ago
And Omicron has very mild symptoms.