7 ms·

>Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has fol

>Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. >Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 Myocarditis is one of very few side effects from the vaccine, all of which are vanishingly rare. It's well understood that the vaccine was highly effective in reducing the severity and spread of COVID and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced. >How well it works: Moderna’s initial Phase 3 clinical data in December 2020 was similar to Pfizer-BioNTech’s—at that point, both vaccines showed about 95% efficacy for prevention of COVID-19. Later data on real-world effectiveness for adults showed that the protection from the mRNA two-dose primary series wanes over time, but booster doses bring the immune system back to robust levels. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-compariso... You didn't ignore the mob, you ignored the science. You listened to a mob of your choosing, and now you are misinformed and continuing to spread misinformation.

eggy 3y ago
My main point was how they pushed the vax on people even when existing data showed young, healthy (which means no obese, diabetic, hypertense individuals), males were not at sufficient risk to mandate it in universities and push it on everyone regardless of the obvious data by age group, health, and susceptibility. That is not science. That is social policy and politics in the face of common sense. Please stop co-opting the word "science" in this manner. I have had all of my children vaccinated with the standard course of immunizations, but I am glad I held off on this new vaccine. My children had COVID, and they are healthy by definition. Tell me how acting on common sense, the history of natural immunity in science, and data that was readily available on who was susceptible to COVID very early on contrary to what "The Science" (aka Social Policy and Politics) was saying , is listening to a mob? Use the same date source you used to pull your VAERS numbers and see how obvious it was who was susceptible by a margin early on, and maybe you'll be able to understand how I arrived at my decision to not vaccinate my family who already had COVID. >...and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced. This December 14, 2023 will be three years from the first vaccine given. "one of the safest" is a blanket statement and "one" although a quantity is non-quantifiable in that sentence. The article you site is from data collected from December 2020 to August 2021 only 8 months from first vaccine. Pfizer vaccinated their control group from the initial vaccines, so that long-term study was squashed by Pfizer. And the adverse effects data are still being collected and examined in light of reporting criteria and classification. Yet, the blanket policy to vax everyone without prioritizing by harm-benefit analysis and ignoring the science was not just negligent but intentional to push a social policy over the data. Three years is not long-term in the vaccine world. Tell me, if a long-term effect comes up like higher incidences of leukemia or other diseases or undesirable side effects 5 to 7 years from now, will you look back and feel good about the non-scientific pushing of a vaccine on those who were well outside of any reasonable benefit-to-risk ratio? I am glad my young children didn't get the vax. None in my family have had another COVID symptomatic infection or tested positive since we had it the one time. Meanwhile, "healthy" coworkers with 2 or more boosters have had multiple infections with loss of work even when working from home because they were that sick. So do you agree with vaccines and boosters for the non-susceptible demographic who have already had COVID? I'd be curious on your viewpoint on this. EDIT: Your name explains it all ;)
- eggy 3y ago
  UPDATE: Paper showing a 1 in 35 (22 out of 777, or 2.8%) myocardial injury of 777 eligible participants of an original 1871 employees of a hospital after receiving an mRNA-1273 booster [1]. This is only after 3 years of the vaccine's first dose. That is a pretty large percentage - 2.8%. I sadly expect to see more and more of these studies with other unsettling results. To the universities who pushed it upon the healthiest of us, they should be ashamed of saying they did it in the name of science when young people were the least affected, and the elderly could be prioritized. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

eggy 3y ago

My main point was how they pushed the vax on people even when existing data showed young, healthy (which means no obese, diabetic, hypertense individuals), males were not at sufficient risk to mandate it in universities and push it on everyone regardless of the obvious data by age group, health, and susceptibility. That is not science. That is social policy and politics in the face of common sense. Please stop co-opting the word "science" in this manner. I have had all of my children vaccinated with the standard course of immunizations, but I am glad I held off on this new vaccine. My children had COVID, and they are healthy by definition. Tell me how acting on common sense, the history of natural immunity in science, and data that was readily available on who was susceptible to COVID very early on contrary to what "The Science" (aka Social Policy and Politics) was saying , is listening to a mob? Use the same date source you used to pull your VAERS numbers and see how obvious it was who was susceptible by a margin early on, and maybe you'll be able to understand how I arrived at my decision to not vaccinate my family who already had COVID. >...and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced. This December 14, 2023 will be three years from the first vaccine given. "one of the safest" is a blanket statement and "one" although a quantity is non-quantifiable in that sentence. The article you site is from data collected from December 2020 to August 2021 only 8 months from first vaccine. Pfizer vaccinated their control group from the initial vaccines, so that long-term study was squashed by Pfizer. And the adverse effects data are still being collected and examined in light of reporting criteria and classification. Yet, the blanket policy to vax everyone without prioritizing by harm-benefit analysis and ignoring the science was not just negligent but intentional to push a social policy over the data. Three years is not long-term in the vaccine world. Tell me, if a long-term effect comes up like higher incidences of leukemia or other diseases or undesirable side effects 5 to 7 years from now, will you look back and feel good about the non-scientific pushing of a vaccine on those who were well outside of any reasonable benefit-to-risk ratio? I am glad my young children didn't get the vax. None in my family have had another COVID symptomatic infection or tested positive since we had it the one time. Meanwhile, "healthy" coworkers with 2 or more boosters have had multiple infections with loss of work even when working from home because they were that sick. So do you agree with vaccines and boosters for the non-susceptible demographic who have already had COVID? I'd be curious on your viewpoint on this. EDIT: Your name explains it all ;)

eggy 3y ago
UPDATE: Paper showing a 1 in 35 (22 out of 777, or 2.8%) myocardial injury of 777 eligible participants of an original 1871 employees of a hospital after receiving an mRNA-1273 booster [1]. This is only after 3 years of the vaccine's first dose. That is a pretty large percentage - 2.8%. I sadly expect to see more and more of these studies with other unsettling results. To the universities who pushed it upon the healthiest of us, they should be ashamed of saying they did it in the name of science when young people were the least affected, and the elderly could be prioritized. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978