Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Links Shots to Slight Increases in Heart, Brain, and Blood Disorders
Global Vaccine Data Network analyzed health conditions in 99 million people.
It may be years before we fully appreciate the health impacts of messenger-RNA vaccines in response to the COVID-19 virus.
This is especially true given the government “misinformation” campaigns that the press colluded to implement.
Yet, some research is beginning to trickle out into the mainstream media. A large, multinational study of COVID-19 vaccines from companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca has been linked to rare occurrences of heart, brain, and blood disorders.
Researchers from the Global Vaccine Data Network analyzed 99 million people who received jabs in eight countries and monitored for increases in 13 medical conditions, Bloomberg News reported.
The study, which was published in the journal Vaccine last week, found the vaccines were linked to a slight spike in neurological, blood and heart-related medical conditions.
Rare cases of myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle — were found in the first, second and third doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines.
Another heart condition, pericarditis, the inflammation of the cardiac muscle, had a 6.9-fold increased risk in those who received a third dose of AstraZeneca’s viral-vector shot, the study found.
For non-elderly people who are not obese or have significant health issues, COVID-19 infection is caused mainly by bad cold or flu symptoms. Therefore, even a “slight increase” of serious effects on the heart, brain, and blood should have been considered, and the choice to take the vaccine should be personal.
Responsible bureaucrats in our public health sector should have waited for robust studies and trials before issuing recommendations. The vaccine should never have been mandated.
The study recommended looking at different disorders as well.
But the study also warned of several other disorders that they said warranted further investigation, including the links between a brain-swelling condition and Moderna’s shot.
Still, the team says the absolute risk of developing any one of the condition remains small. For instance, 13 billion doses of vaccines have been administered and there have only been 2,000 cases of all conditions.
Dr Harlan Krumholz, director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation and a lead investigator behind the study, said: ‘Both things can be true.
‘They can save millions of lives, and there can be a small number of people who’ve been adversely affected.’
I am obliged to point out that the assertion the vaccine “saved millions of lives” is quite questionable…as the vaccine never stopped transmission. I believe it would be hard to prove that a vaccinated person would have been more ill if they were unvaccinated once they became infected with the COVID-19 virus.
Remember…science “evolved.” From the Wayback Machine, April of 2023.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky testified in Congress Wednesday that the mRNA injections marketed as COVID-19 vaccines do not stop the spread of the virus.
Walensky’s comments contradict repeated claims during the pandemic that urged people to get the vaccines because doing so would reduce transmission of the virus.
On Wednesday, she claimed those previous statements were true at the time, but since then, there has been an “evolution of the science” and now the vaccine no longer stops transmission.
At this point, everyone will get at least one case of COVID-19…if not more. It’s up to the individual to decide if the risk of heart, brain, and blood disorders outweigh the risk of experiencing COVID without the vaccine in any of its mutations and variations.
Dr. Marc Siegel, clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor, offered this assessment:
“It always comes down to a risk/benefit analysis of what you are more afraid of — the vaccine’s side effects or the virus itself, which can have long-term side effects in terms of brain fog, fatigue, cough and also heart issues,” he said.
“Denying or exaggerating a vaccine’s side effects is not good science — nor is underestimating the risks of the virus, especially in high-risk groups,” Siegel added.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That’s the reason that neither iron or anybody in my family has taken those prematurely released poorly tested shots that didn’t actually work in the first place
Its demonstrably the case that they did work, many studies show this, the stats show this. It’s just not defensible to say they didn’t work
Vaccines prevent transmission by conferring immunity. That’s why we call it immunization. The Covid jab does not confer immunity. That’s the measure of vaccine efficacy which the Covid jab fails even by the admission of the Pharmaceutical Companies who developed them.
Like Marxists are wont to do, they just changed the definition of vaccine and the Barts of the world updated their programming to agree.
This is an incomplete understanding of vaccines. Many vaccines are immunity-conferring, such as the MMR vaccine, and you shouldn’t get measles, mumps, or rubella. There is another type of vaccine, called therapeutic vaccines, that do not confer immunity but result in a lessening of the symptoms. The problem is that the Government sold the mRNA vaccines as immunity-conferring when they were in fact therapeutic.
Which makes sense because the technology stems from therapeutic vaccines in development to help the body fight off some nasty cancers and other diseases. These are promising and will probably get a poor reception due to the Charlie Foxtrot that was the COVID governmental response.
Hey, cut them some slack — they had to get rid of Orange Man somehow…
Which ‘therapeutic vax’ are you speaking of that are in widespread use prior to Covid?
That’s a bunch of garbage. In the case a vaccine doesn’t confer immunity, then many times it’s not worth the risk of the side effects.
Therapeutic vaccines cannot be mandated, as they, by nature, don’t stop transmission. COVID “vaxes” were mandated. That’s basically NyQuil in a syringe, “the nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy, head fever so you can rest, vaccine.”
The Pfizer and Moderna modRNA serums didn’t confer long lasting immunity. They didn’t stop the infection cycle. They didn’t stop transmission. Both the Pfizer & Moderna modRNA serums were unqualified failures by any measure. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
It’s not only defensible to say they didn’t work, it’s also common sense.
Are you just here to spew contrarian garbage?
If you can still catch the disease after getting the vaccine, the it didn’t work by definition. Stop buying in to the retard narrative.
Ironclaw: If you can still catch the disease after getting the vaccine, the it didn’t work by definition.
No vaccine offers perfect protection. The COVID vaccine offers some protection against infection and significant protection against hospitalization and death.
It underperforms badly after 6 months. It also has a higher risk profile for bad reactions the more times you get it because of minor reinfections and other uncertainties.
healthguyfsu: It underperforms badly after 6 months.
To be clear, this is a different argument than that raised by Ironclaw.
The human immune system works on several levels. Antibodies provide protection immediately upon exposure, but antibodies are static. As the virus mutates, antibodies lose effectiveness. However, immune memory cells can respond to variants. It takes time for the immune memory cells to develop a response, so a person may become infected, but will quickly clear the virus, meaning a much lower probability of hospitalization or death. This can occur from vaccine acquired immunity or from natural infection.
The COVID virus was novel to humans, which is why it claimed so many lives. Most people now have acquired immunity, whether natural or through vaccination. The COVID virus is no longer novel for most people.
“Significant” protection against hospitalization and death?
LOL. What a maroon.
For those most at risk of death; the obese those 65+, those with compromised immune systems the Covid jab may have made sense. For everyone else? The risk to reward doesn’t seem to make sense. This is especially so for the school age and working age population. Otherwise health people under 55 were at very, very low risk of death from Covid…as a practical matter nonexistent. In any event each individual can decide for themselves especially when the jab didn’t prevent transmission.
The medical community has yet to separate out all the died WITH Covid cases as opposed to died FROM Covid cases in their inflated death count they keep hyping. It’s going to be a very long time until the medical and public heath community recovers from the loss of trust they created through their irresponsible actions and ideological agenda during Covid mania.
“Otherwise health people under 55 were at very, very low risk of death from Covid”
The stats simply don’t show this, you are correct in the sense the risk as age goes up that the risk goes up but the risk level vs vaccine risk only really drops to comparable levels in children.
The excess deaths only really start showing up *after* people started being forced to get the shots. Comparing the graphs of the shot rollout and the excess death numbers there is a very strong visible correllation. If the virus was the cause, the excess death numbers should have started months before the “vaccines”.
BartE,
How many people died FROM Covid? How many of those were age 55+? How many were under age 55? How many were obese? How many had preexisting medical conditions that made them vulnerable?
Be sure to remove all the clearly mislabeled cases attributed to Covid from the total count….the ones from trauma, tragic accidents or other causes which were added to pad the numbers. Then tell us how many of the remaining cases attributed to Covid are questionable v absolutely positively Covid only deaths.
Even without that basic review of Covid death numbers, which hospitals had a financial incentive to inflate due to higher reimbursement rates, the risk of death From Covid was concentrated in population:
1. Above age 55 (really 70+ but I’m throwing you a bone)
2. comprised immune system
3. Obese or other pre-existing medical condition that made them vulnerable to Covid
If the stats back your claim then you won’t have any issue providing the numbers as requested.
the deaths FROM covid and the WITH covid scenario is something that seems to have been purposely ignored by many.
“… deaths FROM covid and the WITH covid scenario is something that seems to have been purposely ignored by many…”
I think purposely conflated by CMS policy to reimburse higher rates when “Covid” is included in diagnosis or death certificate.
Yep. COVID reimbursement paid out at 100% .
It’s pure naivete to assume that hospitals were just honest about this when it helps their bottom line not to be, especially since the public ones that have to balance out the chronic underpayments of Medicare/Medicaid.
Sorry Bart but this is just demonstrably wrong.
The stats did not in fact lie. The stats showed us, and this was before the Chinese death box vaccine was a thing, that children were practically immune to the Chinese Death Pox and if you were fit and healthy you also had nothing to fear.
In fact it was the obese, the elderly and those suffering from multiple serious health issues who needed to be careful but most of all, the data from the early days clearly showed that if you were fit, healthy and active you were fine.
However Democrats had sitting, successful President that they needed to remove and that was that. So we all
Had to suffer, and continue to suffer, in the name of their need to retain power.
Original: “Otherwise health people under 55 were at very, very low risk of death from Covid”
“The stats simply don’t show this,.”
Source?
“…you are correct in the sense the risk as age goes up that the risk goes up but the risk level vs vaccine risk only really drops to comparable levels in children.”
BUT, there’s this other fact I’ll assert that doesn’t address what you said. BUT, when I start it with “but” it sounds like I’m refuting you, so I win.
It never made sense to me about the compromised immune systems. Without an intact immune system, no vaccine will accomplish anything.
The bigger the study the less reliable. Proper statistical precautions become less possible when it’s bigger.
It’s a 50-50 result either way when it’s slight, in addition. It goes one way or the other.
Do they check for some people do better with the vaccine and others worse? All they know is that the numbers of each are about equal.
“The bigger the study the less reliable. Proper statistical precautions become less possible when it’s bigger.” And what are those statistical precautions?
Elimination of confounding variables.
FL state surgeon general called for halt of vax in Jan 2024.
“FL state surgeon general” Didn’t he get caught lying about data?
No, he did not.
Yes he did, it was well reported. The draft versions of the report came to entirely different conclusions until he fundamentally changed the report.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/florida-officials-deleted-data-stats-from-dubious-covid-analysis-report/
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2023/04/07/florida-surgeon-general-covid-19-vaccine-study-heart-problems-men/
Sadly for ARS we already have the hard data in relation to cardiac arrests happening across general society.
Seems there is a significant increase in Sudden Death Syndrome amongst young, fit and healthy people that no matter how deep people like Bart bury their heads won’t go away, nor will those fit, healthy and young people come back to life.
How does that mean he was caught lying? Maybe the draft version was wrong?
Don’t know. Did he? If you’re making a claim, back it up.
Florida did convene a grand jury to examine Covid. Their first report is rather eye opening. Even if everything they state explicitly is questioned, there is at least, with minimal curiosity, an avenue to further explore their statements.
https://acis-api.flcourts.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/172e2f34-0a47-41fa-a92f-6fc5ad21b4c9/docketentrydocuments/b122c85c-d85a-439a-bdf5-d74e7a66f38f
I jus5 have to say that New Zealand had 95 percent vaxxed before the arrival of covid, and has had zero excess allcause mortality. Impossible if the vaccine killed lots of people.
As for side effects, they would be the same as the disease, but hopefully, much less frequent. With billions of doses, you can have a vanishing percentage of serious harm, but thousands of cases.
Four pieces of specious persuasion with pseudo-facts in that. Is this mis-, dis-, or mal- information? Well, at least they’re getting better at … something.
/Let the fisking begin…
1 — “95 percent … zero excess allcause (sic – ed) mortality.” Reported by whom, with data collected how? For example, in the US it’s now been robustly and broadly reported that hospital systems were reporting people dying *with* the Rona, as dying *of* the Rona. Also, various difficulties getting adverse events into VARS database and similar other systems, similarly broadly reported.
2 — “Impossible if the vaccine killed lots of people.” Specious, exaggerated, and vague claim, standing in for the “other side” of the “argument.”
3 — “As for side effects, they would be the same as the disease,..” Aside from at least effects of the lipid nanoparticles which the virus neither has nor produces, passenger genetic material in the jab which the virus neither has nor produces, modifications to the expressed spike protein to make it more durable and robust which the virus neither has nor produces, and effects of adjuvants or other components of the injected material which the virus neither has nor produces.
Then, it remains to be determined at least the effects of a large, local, pulse dose on the injection site tissue, effects of the duration of spike production still not well characterized, and whether the induced, modified spike circulates independently differently from the spikes on the virus particles.
Meanwhile, the jab produces no responses in nasal peptides, airway tissues, or T-cells, all of which respond to air born respiratory viruses in some way. The jab-induced immune response is systemically incomplete as well: antibody cells gear up and make antibodies in circulation — that’s it for the intended responses.
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln…
4 — “With billions…” Specious observation, pseudo-diminishing the as yet not well characterized, maybe harm.
Any one, indeed all of those could be effects worth attention: not as stated. As stated an unnecessary contribution to Global Warming from all the straw men — er, people — set up to get torched.
She said “allcause”. No need for a “sic”. Evidently you did not understand it, or you would not have asked your question.
Also, it’s VAERS, not “VARS”, and it is complete garbage. There is no verification of any entries. There is no way to tell which entries are true and which are made up. But in any case it’s irrelevant; if there was no increase in allcause mortality then the vaccine can’t be killing people more people than it saves. If we assume that it doesn’t save anyone, then it must not be killing anyone either.
So it depends on how reliable the NZ health statistics are. I don’t know, but neither do you. We shouldn’t just blindly assume the NZ statisticians would never lie, but nor do I know of any reason to assume they would.
2 — “Impossible if the vaccine killed lots of people.” Specious, exaggerated, and vague claim, standing in for the “other side” of the “argument.” No, it isn’t. That is exactly the claim made by a lot of people who are skeptical of the vaccine. It’s exactly the claim promoted on such sites as Epoch News. And if this NZ report is reliable then it’s strong evidence against that claim.
“And if this NZ report is reliable then it’s strong evidence against that claim.” Big “IF” since any untoward findings will be messy. What are the metrics?
Other countries have reported excess deaths. Then there are the unusual “white clots” being found in high numbers of dead at embalming.
All of this boils down to loss of confidence in medical reporting. Too much $$$ rides on good outcomes.
The metric is stated: mortality from all causes. If that didn’t rise, in a population that was almost entirely vaccinated before the WuFlu hit, then the vaccine can’t be the killer that many skeptics believe it to be. It really does seem as simple as that.
Get over VArs vs VAERS. No it is not garbage just because u say it is. The presentation I saw at Hopkins said it under report by a very large margin, so use that as ur base line. If it shows there is a problem, then the inference should be a bigger one. Show me the proof that it is garbage!
Milhouse has given you specific reasons why you should treat VAERS data with skepticism. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was garbage but you should be aware of the pitfalls of the data set. Not sure why Milhouse assumes the allcause mortality stayed the same it didn’t it jumped when Covid struck prior to vaccines being introduced
And I’m telling you that the presentation you saw at Hopkins was a load of bulldust. You seem to think that seeing something at Hopkins makes it true.
There is no way the presenters could possibly know whether VAERS underreports or overreports. No doubt there’s some of both, but the “evidence” you cited from the presentation is obvious garbage. It doesn’t show anything but that the presenters started with the conclusion and reasoned backwards. They’re exactly like those (such as BartE) who start with the assumption that black and white people must be committing crimes at the same rate, and therefore reason that if the statistics show otherwise there must be something wrong with them, and they think they know what.
BartE:
Because that is explicitly stated in the claim we are discussing. Do keep up.
The claim explicitly says that the population was 95% vaccinated before the WuFlu hit. That is why, if true, the result is so significant. It presents a perfect experiment.
@milhouse
“Because that is explicitly stated in the claim we are discussing. Do keep up.”
Its not clear to me it is at all, and its factually the case that all cause mortality was at a certain base level prior to covid 19 then went up directly as a result of covid 19. The claim seems to have been expanded from NZ to all other cases which is clearly not true.
“The claim explicitly says that the population was 95% vaccinated before the WuFlu hit. That is why, if true, the result is so significant. It presents a perfect experiment.”
I’d agree with respect to NZ, reading too quickly think i’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
Barte: Milhouse has given you specific reasons why you should treat VAERS data with skepticism.
No he has not. He throw out some bs about attorneys populating bad data. Lol.
By Oct 1, 2021, over 778,685 adverse reports to VAERS and 16 K deaths.
That is a lot of busy attorneys.
Additionally, The European surveillance tallied 40000 death and 2.2 million adverse.
Oct. 2021!
Studies show under reporting and enough medical personnel have reported it is a pain in the butt to report.
Of course, if u wanted to not bring notice to ur bad shot, u would say it is garbage. Let’s say that 10% of those reported 16k, 1,600 were accurate,that would be a cause for concern and as Dr McCullogh said would at least earn a black box warning.
Darn those lawyers are good with garbage data.
Under reporting is also supported by an Elsevier journal Toxicology Report.
Plus Kirsch also has validated this, but that is another discussion.
U can’t have it both ways. Government reporting is bad, so u should not listen to the government, but u should.
Milhouse…watch “Change in death stats” with Dr. John Campbell on YouTube. There is a new formula for calculating deaths and it remarkable downgrades them….
“Also, it’s VAERS, not “VARS”, and it is complete garbage.”
So, there can be specious data in reporting systems. Good to know. Of course the important thing is if you spell it wrong. Point stands. Thanks for confirming.
“She said “allcause”. No need for a’ “sic”. Evidently you did not understand it, or you would not have asked your question.”
You mean “allcause” like here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578477/
Oh wait, they say “All-Cause”; caps because it’s in the title. (We’ve been over the use of “sic” in the comments here before.)
“She said “allcause”. No need for a’ “sic”. Evidently you did not understand it, or you would not have asked your question.”
Oooh, oooh, oooh, oooh. So the game is point out one issue then slide into something loosely related, carrying over the claimed error. I can play this game.
I was right about “allcause”, so probably right about the rest, too. QED
Meanwhile, thanks for reinforcing the propaganda and distraction point as we’re off talking about terms ;where you took us vs. figuring out how to get data that more people will trust, as one example.
With no source, we have at best an anecdote with a number.
“So it depends on how reliable the NZ health statistics are.
It depends on how reliable the poster’s claim is. You said “NZ health statistics.”
Original: “I jus5 have to say that New Zealand had 95 percent vaxxed before the arrival of covid, and has had zero excess allcause mortality. Impossible if the vaccine killed lots of people.”
You said “the NZ health statistics.” making it sound more authoritative and reliable via the “the”. You know, the statistics. the ones everybody knows; the only ones; the good ones, from the people who do that so well. Those.
“…I don’t know, but neither do you. We shouldn’t just blindly assume the NZ statisticians would never lie, but nor do I know of any reason to assume they would.”
Excellent. Let’s find out. Still haven’t heard a source for the original, for “the NZ statistics”, or who those statisticians are.
“2 — “Impossible if the vaccine killed lots of people.” Specious, exaggerated, and vague claim, standing in for the “other side” of the “argument.” No, it isn’t. That is exactly the claim made by a lot of people who are skeptical of the vaccine.”
I heard some people — there are those — on teh interwebs spew side-issue rhetoric into conversations about vax-things, so I guess we shouldn’t listen to anyone who’s used the same words as them, about anything..
“And if this NZ report is reliable then it’s strong evidence against that claim.”
Am I missing a link somewhere? What “report?” The one from the statisticians beyond reproach containing the only true stats?
“As for side effects, they would be the same as the disease, but hopefully, much less frequent.”
The disease itself would affect some relatively small subset of the population, a much smaller subset of which would die, but most of which would survive with the benefit of natural immunity… as opposed to the vaccine, which was pushed on nearly everybody, including subsets of the population that were vanishingly unlikely to contract the disease at all, and yet were unnecessarily exposed to the risk of side effects from the vaccine.
“a much smaller subset of which would die” about a million Americans
“most of which would survive with the benefit of natural immunity” Not necessarily if they suffered long covid, and natural immunity doesn’t last either. In fact i’m led to understand the best combination is vaccine and natural immunity.
https://theconversation.com/hybrid-immunity-a-combination-of-vaccination-and-prior-infection-probably-offers-the-best-protection-against-covid-183943
You’re half right Bart. Natural immunity, yes because we know that does work. Vaccine, no because we also know that does not work.
“immunity, yes because we know that does work” It does work but you have to feel the full effects of the virus which is why we have a vaccine. I’m sure you’d be happy to make the same argument for every other disease.
“Vaccine, no because we also know that does not work.”
Yes it does and that’s been demonstrated over and over by studies and stats. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
No, if you catch the disease after getting vaccinated against it, then by definition the vaccine didn’t f*cking work.
Plus the vax triggers an immunity problem. Vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (VAIDS). Oh, that can’t be, right because Science says so. Its happening baby and it is called long Covid that seems to be more popular in those that have been Vaxed. I wonder why Red Cross wants to know if you have been Vaxed? I heard it was an issue for those wanting to donate plasma.
I’m not going link-hunting right now.
I recall reference about two years ago to a study finding that “measured antibody response” was “most robust” after getting the ‘rona, after having been jabbed. AIR, these guys read like pretty solid studies.
I recall reference around the same time frame to possible robust induced T-cell responses to the ‘rona, longer-term than the jab antibody response. AIR, this factoid read like clinical / directional needing confirmation.
For me MedCram has been a good entry point into current US standard of care, with analysis linking to refereed primary research. John Campbell from the UK has been a useful entry point casting a broad net catching international developments and clinical studies. (Yes, Campbell gets labeled sometimes. Mostly, he walks through articles from the refereed literature, breaking them down by what they show, how, what next, and etc. It’s like a seminar on understanding this kind of research.)
Question of the day: Who needs Covid shots when there is Paxlovid, which supposedly keeps the virus from replicating? I am elderly and did fine with Paxlovid after catching Covid at a holiday party, just the metallic taste.
I think of the Covid shots as “pre-treatment”, since they do not prevent you from catching it or transmitting it. If it is really better characterized in the treatment category, then shouldn’t it be compared with Paxlovid?
Or when there’s Vitamin D, with clinical evidence showing very different courses of the rona, varying statistically with serum D level.
Or, noting that, like many other resp viruses, many who die *with* rona, die *of* opportunistic pneumonia the rona let in.
There was a great take I found via MedCram, about a year in or so, characterizing rona progression as six stages, with different interventions at each. The treatment goal was mainly keeping one stage from advancing to the next, then the body’s intrinsic recovery would pull the patient back to health.
How’s that different from AIDS? Back when AIDS was a major killer, almost nobody actually died of it, they died of the things it let in, and yet nobody thought it wrong to identify the underlying cause of death as AIDS. So if Wuhan Disease causes someone to get a disease that end up killing him, it’s fair to identify it as the underlying cause of death.
When we speak of distinguishing death “with” Wuhan from “by” it, we must mean people whose death is not attributable to the Wuhan at all, and would have died regardless of whether they had caught the Wuhan virus.
True… but there was money to be made by health systems attributing deaths from rather that with Covid. Putting someone on a respirator was worth big bucks to a hospital. Had a close family friend… fully alert … put on respirator and then later died. Hum… what were they really treating… the patient or the lab$?
Yes, all of that is true, but that isn’t relevant BierceAmbrose’s comment that mine was responding to.
I suggest u read The Real Dr Fauci by RFK Jr. and watch Dallas Buyers Club.
RFK Jr – that fraud why would anyone take him seriously
Because Fauci is just as big a fraud? There’s really not much to pick and choose between them.
In any case, nothing in that book or movie could possibly be responsive to my response to BierceAmbrose’s comment. There is no possible way of denying that when we distinguish between dying “of” and “with” the Wuhan virus we must be talking about people who would have died even if there had been no virus. If someone dies of something that the virus let in, then he died “of” the virus, not merely “with” it.
“Because Fauci is just as big a fraud? There’s really not much to pick and choose between them.”
Ummm no, right wingers making baseless accusations is not equivalent to the demonstrable falsehoods that RFK Jr has made.
“In any case, nothing in that book or movie could possibly be responsive to my response to BierceAmbrose’s comment.”
I clearly wasn’t responding in any other sense than pointing out RFK Jr is a fraud
“There is no possible way of denying that when we distinguish between dying “of” and “with” the Wuhan virus” Sure but the problem here is that Covid is a primary factor in the death, its not actually a relevant distinction because without Covid the death would have been at some other time. We know this because the mortality rate prior and during give a definitive gap that strongly correlates.
“we must be talking about people who would have died even if there had been no virus” This doesn’t follow, a person suffering from x may survive for a period but if they have x and y that second factor may in combination be a primary cause of said death.
BartE must have Prion Disease from the spiked protein. I bet you did not read the book.
“How’s that different from AIDS?”
Oh, you get it, exactly. Much like AIDS, interventions can be aimed at the opportunistic follow-ons that will kill people if the other thing lets them in.
For example, elderly people (Apologies to jb4.) are far more prone to die of pneumonia, from less-lethal resp viruses letting it set in, accurately reported that way. Indeed, there are new-ish pneumonia vaccination protocols that go with age, for exactly this reason. It’s a good protective bet, depending on your situation. The ‘rona is one of those viruses.
That’s right on point in the context of: “Question of the day: Who needs Covid shots when there is Paxlovid, which supposedly keeps the virus from replicating?”
There may be other helpful interventions in addition to a jab that creates a short-term antibody response, which is also outrun by ongoing mutations of the virus. Having a pneumonia vaccination might reduce your risk of dying, should you get the ‘rona.
Also, this: “There was a great take … characterizing rona as progression of six stages, with different interventions at each. (emphasis added — ed.)” The treatment goal was mainly keeping one stage from advancing to the next, then the body’s intrinsic recovery would pull the patient back to health.
So, also, how to help people who get the rona, let’s say despite having the jab — it happens, not end up in the hospital ER with labored breathing and low blood oxygen. (We remember that, right?)
IV vit C was know to help too. They shot down Dr. Kory over steroids uses, but later recanted that after about 6 months when they realized that it worked.
“Remember…science “evolved.” From the Wayback Machine, April of 2023.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky testified in Congress Wednesday that the mRNA injections marketed as COVID-19 vaccines
…
there has been an “evolution of the science””
Evolution of the terms used, too. Those jabs remain novel instances of novel in human use trans-genetic therapies using novel delivery mechanisms. Beyond being injected with stuff that has something to do with the pathogen, these are not what we’ve called “vaccines.”
Closest to an old-school vaccine is the one from Novavax, which still has some interesting novelty to it. Novavax technology includes “adjuvants” — components that jack up the immune system’s sensitivity. One wonders what else the jacked up immune system might be inspired to respond to. One wonders what the effects might be on people with immune over-reaction problems.
But it’s a vaccine, and just like everybody’s been taking forever, so the stats on those things are relevant to the risk of this one.
That’s not right. I think the word “caused” is a typo, and you meant some other word that fits better in that sentence, but I can’t think of one of the top of my head. Something like “typefied”, or perhaps instead of “is caused by” it should be “presents as”.
Yeah, really slight. Two of my 18 employees, one of them 49 and the other 60, developed myocarditis and currently have pacemakers. Neither was overw4eight or had any history of heart or other health problems. The more we learn about the entire Covid episode the more cynical I’ve become. This comes from someone who received polio, smallpox, etc vaccines in the early 1950s and was a strong proponent of vaccinations,
Yeah. I know one person who had an immediate response to the vaccine and almost died, one kid who developed seizures a couple weeks after his shot, one kid who developed cancer after her shot, and one guy who had a stroke his doctor said is likely due to the cocid vax.
I don’t know all that many people. While you can almost never say X caused Y, the timing makes one question.
“A total of one hundred eleven pilots died in the first eight months of [2021]! This is a 1,750% increase from 2020, when the world was supposed to be in the middle of a pandemic. A list of the deceased individuals was published in the Air Line Pilot Association magazine. In comparison, there were 6 airline pilot deaths in 2020, and only one death in 2019.”
I don’t think those words “rare” and “slight” mean what you think they mean.
I had a massive (and I mean 80 POINT) spike in BP after taking the J&J vaccine and ended up with a minor stroke that I’m going to feel the effects of for the rest of my life. My brother got the Moderna shot(s) and felt very ill after the first… and ended up unable to get out of bed for four days after the second. He should have gone to the hospital but didn’t because he doesn’t go to hospitals for anything short of severed limbs. My best friend (whose elderly parents insisted she get the vax AND multiple boosters) got progressively more ill after every shot until she finally told them she wasn’t ever getting another, even if she never saw them again face-to-face.
These “vaccines” are poison.
Strokes are like surgery: the only “minor” strokes happen to someone else.
(Now do “fully recovered” in context of TBIs generally.)
Out of my 18 employees, 17 were vaccinated and received the bo0ster, as did I. All 18 and I got Covid. The humiliating part is how close I came to mandating vaccinati0n as a condition of continued empl0yment.
syringes are the ar-15s that the left wont discuss
It is a CYA study funded by the Gates Foundation.
“Yet, some research is beginning to trickle out into the mainstream media. A large, multinational study of COVID-19 vaccines from companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca has been linked to rare occurrences of heart, brain, and blood disorders.”
The fact that there were side effects has always been well known, the fact is that Cvoid causes a lot of the same issues at a much high incidence and to a greater degree.
This is a lie. The side effects were not known and the Government most certainly did not broadcast the side effects to its population because, had we known the severe side effects, no one would have taken the Chinese Death Pox jab.
Plus there was all that wailing about how the vaccine STOPPED the virus and PROTECTED people, which were all lies made for intellectual pigmies like yourself to swallow like a Sunday morning pickup 😂
Are you arguing that the Covid Jab side effects were presented to patients so that individuals could make an informed decision about their choices and weigh the risk v reward?
For that to be true the patients would also need to be provided the data about risk of death for their age cohort and their health profile. Had individuals been informed that those under age 55, not obese and in good health were at practically zero risk of death and that the Covid Jab was going to offer a tiny additional protection temporarily with a larger than normal increase in risk of death/injury due to side effects ….I suspect many would have said no thanks.
We still have govt and medical community wanting health children and adolescents to get the Covid jab. That alone based on risk/reward for those individuals underlines the departure from objectivity in favor of an ideological narrative.
” I believe it would be hard to prove that a vaccinated person would have been more ill if they were unvaccinated once they became infected with the COVID-19 virus.”
WE can compare the hospitalisation and death rates between the two populations and its abundantly clear that the vaccinated population are better off than the unvaccinated,
OK buddy then you will be getting booster shot every year for the rest of your life, right? Just another leftie fraud making fake claims to believe in sCieNce.
I’m not really seeing a response here. If you have some facts that contradict my statement or an actual reason for disagreement feel free to state it.
You don’t have any facts, which is the problem.
You are determined to believe the Government didn’t lie to you and the jab, with all its following booster shots which you have taken like a good little boy, in the sole reason you have not died 😂
WE can compare the hospitalisation and death rates between the two populations and its abundantly clear that the vaccinated population are better off than the unvaccinated,
LOL, Looks like Prion disease where the spike protein has crossed over the blood brain barrier.
“WE can compare the hospitalization and death rates between the two populations and its abundantly clear that the vaccinated population are better off than the unvaccinated,”
If I had to bet, I’d bet that the ‘rona jabs have a lot more impact on the course of the disease than on getting it at all.
I’ve heard this assertion many times, and it makes a kind of mechanism sense. I have yet to see a primary statistic pointed to. I’m not recalling a refereed study report.
I’m bugged because the entire ‘rona spasm became a low trust environment almost instantly. Descriptive assertions of the wonderfulness or horribleness of the jab, or the ‘rona, or deniers, or sheeple, or whatever don’t convince anyone. It sounds like more “othering” to borrow from the trained crazies.
Ok. Give us the data you refer to on rate of hospitalization:
1. Over 55
2. Over 55 + obese
3. Over 55 + other health issues
4. Over 55+ obese + other health issues
Separate out vax and no vax for these populations. Be sure to include all persons who got the jab being hospitalized from the moment they received the injection in ‘vaxed’ category. Also include what the patients came to the hospital for. If some guy fell off a ladder, broke their arm and came to the ER, was tested and had a + for Covid that’s not a Covid hospitalization so you you need to put all those into a separate category.
Largely the same response as in the previous thread:
Leslie Eastman: Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Links Shots to Slight Increases in Heart, Brain, and Blood Disorders
From the study: “This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals”. It’s not new.
Leslie Eastman: I am obliged to point out that the assertion the vaccine “saved millions of lives” is quite questionable…
If you look at the count of COVID deaths vs. excess mortality, you will see that excess deaths ebb and flow as waves of COVID propagate through the population. This not only seen in the U.S. as a whole but in individual regions, as well. See Paglino et al., Excess natural-cause mortality in US counties and its association with reported COVID-19 deaths, PNAS 2024.
Leslie Eastman: the vaccine never stopped transmission
Studies have shown vaccination offers protection from infection. Lower rates of infection and lower rates of symptomatic infection implies lower rates of transmission. See, for instance, Rossi et al., Evaluation of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization in vaccinated and previously infected subjects based on real world data, Nature Scientific Reports 2023.
Furthermore, even if the COVID vaccine hadn’t slowed transmission it still saved lives.
Leslie Eastman: It’s up to the individual to decide if the risk of heart, brain, and blood disorders outweigh the risk of experiencing COVID without the vaccine in any of its mutations and variations.
The evidence shows that the risk of serious deleterious effects is much higher from naïve infection than from vaccination. See graph above.
LibraryGryffon: The excess deaths only really start showing up *after* people started being forced to get the shots.
That is false. See graph above.
—
Our replies may be slow to appear due to moderation. Apparently, citing scientific studies in a thread about scientific studies is triggering.
“Our replies may be slow to appear due to moderation. Apparently, citing scientific studies in a thread about scientific studies is triggering.”
That’s a bit disturbing, I thought this site was pro free speech?
Such paranoia. Why do you continue to post here?
Any post with more than one link is automatically held for approval.
HB beat me to it. It’s links.
Been explained several times.
OFF-TOPIC
henrybowman: Any post with more than one link is automatically held for approval.
Even comments without links are held back. That occurs even though the comments are relevant to the topic, don’t cast personal aspersions, nor do they use untoward language. Perhaps our comments triggering are to
right-wing snowflakessome.Turns out that free speech applies to moderating a forum, so Legal Insurrection is free to moderate their forum however they like. For instance, a forum dedicated to knitting can remove arguments about whether Led Zeppelin is better than the Rolling Stones. It’s best when the criteria are clear, but that’s not required either. A forum could strike random comments or any comment by someone with a name that begins with the letter Zed. Whatever.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on Legal Insurrection, but the long delays often make any back-and-forth discussion difficult. We will typically try to reply to any reasonable response on the topic, but that may not always be practical.
“Our replies may be slow to appear…”
LOL. How long does it take that committee in your head to get a consensus?
Leslie Eastman: Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Links Shots to Slight Increases in Heart, Brain, and Blood Disorders
That is not a new finding. From the study: “This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals”.
Leslie Eastman: I am obliged to point out that the assertion the vaccine “saved millions of lives” is quite questionable…
If you look at the count of COVID deaths vs. excess mortality, you will see that excess deaths ebb and flow as waves of COVID propagate through the population. This not only seen in U.S. as a whole but in individual regions, as well. See Paglino et al., Excess natural-cause mortality in US counties and its association with reported COVID-19 deaths, PNAS 2024.
Leslie Eastman: as the vaccine never stopped transmission.
Studies have shown that COVID vaccination offers protection from infection. (Previous infection also offers protection.) See, for instance, Rossi et al., Evaluation of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization in vaccinated and previously infected subjects based on real world data, Nature Scientific Reports 2023.
Lower rates of infection and lower rates of symptomatic infection implies lower rates of transmission.
Studies have shown that COVID vaccination offers protection from infection. (Previous infection also offers protection.) See, for instance, Rossi et al., Evaluation of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization in vaccinated and previously infected subjects based on real world data, Nature Scientific Reports 2023.
Lower rates of infection and lower rates of symptomatic infection implies lower rates of transmission.
Weak report. Also does not show that non-vax sickness was creating herd immunity, thus could be a better treatment than the Vax. Considering that Vax individuals were getting Covid round 2 and 3 and non-Vax only were getting one case. Additionally, the great Scientists were saying that non-Vax that got Covid did not carry antibodies for very long when further studies showed that they carried them up to 6 months and in some cases 18 months.
MarkSmith: Also does not show that non-vax sickness was creating herd immunity, thus could be a better treatment than the Vax.
Natural infection was much more dangerous than vaccination.
Leslie Eastman: I believe it would be hard to prove that a vaccinated person would have been more ill if they were unvaccinated once they became infected with the COVID-19 virus.
The evidence strongly supports the claim that COVID vaccination is protective against the severe consequences of COVID.
Leslie Eastman: It’s up to the individual to decide if the risk of heart, brain, and blood disorders outweigh the risk of experiencing COVID without the vaccine in any of its mutations and variations.
Almost everyone has some acquired immunity, either from vaccination or infection. Consequently, vaccination is much less important now.
LibraryGryffon: The excess deaths only really start showing up *after* people started being forced to get the shots.
That is incorrect.
—
Our replies may be delayed due to moderation. {Breaking this comment into parts, as the links may be causing problems with moderation.}
Look that the Dr Kory link in the post below.
Moderator, please check for a missing post or two which seem to have disappeared. (Don’t see a comment policy posted, but have double-checked to make sure our comments are relevant to the topic, don’t cast personal aspersions, or use untoward language.)
“I am obliged to point out that the assertion the vaccine “saved millions of lives” is quite questionable…as the vaccine never stopped transmission. I believe it would be hard to prove that a vaccinated person would have been more ill if they were unvaccinated once they became infected with the COVID-19 virus.”
I would add that because there were alternative treatments for COVID, such as zinc, Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, Vitamins C, K and D, etc, it is very debatable that the vaccine saved any lives, as those lives could possibly been saved with alternative treatments that did not have the side affects of the vaccines.
Yep. If ‘millions of lives were.saved’ then is shouldn’t be hard for the jab zealots to provide a list of names of the millions saved.
A respiratory virus that primarily killed the elderly, the obese, those with compromised immune systems and those with co morbid conditions was not a serious threat to the vast remainder of the population. An equally severe flu would have impacted the same population of already unhealthy people who were particularly vulnerable to any respiratory problem.
“shouldn’t be hard for the jab zealots to provide a list of names of the millions saved.”
Why is that even a relevant point? and why would it be easy to find that information, by definition it would just be people who had mild or non-existent symptoms due to covid
“A respiratory virus that primarily killed the elderly, the obese, those with compromised immune systems and those with co morbid conditions was not a serious threat to the vast remainder of the population.”
This simply isn’t true and the stats show this very clearly.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
BartE,
You do understand that the chart you provide shows exactly what I claimed? The deaths are correlated to advanced age. The chart lacks info on obesity and health status.
People with bad health, weaker than average immune systems and preexisting medical conditions that make them vulnerable to respiratory virus (aka the infirm elderly) are obviously at far more risk of death than younger, non obese, otherwise healthy people.
I don’t understand why you continue to argue otherwise when data available absolutely proves my point.
CommoChief: The deaths are correlated to advanced age.
Fifty is advanced age?
“…an equally severe flu…” but wait, during flu season in 2021 there was no flu, only Covid. Do you think the medically compromised that died with/from Covid would have survived from the seasonal flu that wasn’t there? That in itself is something to investigate, why or how was the seasonal flu eradicated that year?
Many likely would not. The deaths ‘from’ Covid correlate very strongly by age and risk factors that made these folks vulnerable to a respiratory virus. Many of the infirm elderly who died from Covid wouldn’t have lived much longer…see the number of Covid deaths for 75+ population as a % of the total deaths claimed: nearly half.
I’m thinking that this is the wrong place to be getting an educated opinion on the subject of C-19 vaccine effectiveness, from experienced people. Maybe try going to a typical hospital floor where they’ve been treating Covid patients continuously for the last 4 yrs. and ask all those nurses and doctors for their opinion. They’ll be happy to tell you what they think about it.
My Dr brother who works at a hospital said they opened up a wing of the hospital for incoming covid patience that was previously closed. Maybe like sixty additional beds. They never used it. Kind like the 45 K ventilators that NY wanted or the Jarvis ship in New York or Cobo Hall in Detroit. Hey, at least it was a test run for the 10 Million illegals.
If you want your confidence shaken, then go ask a doctor how the medicine they just prescribed to you actually works and the mechanism by which it causes side effects.
Are these hospital employees gonna give us their ‘opinion’ or will they set aside their ideology and simply give us unbiased data so we can make informed decisions? Do they familiarity with the data or are they gonna offer anecdotal arguments?
FWIW An appeal to authority/expertise is a very weak form of argument. We don’t need to be ‘experts’ to review the data and form our own conclusions. Folks make all sorts of daily decisions in their lives about things for which they have no particular expertise and the logical inference of an appeal to authority/expertise argument is that people should not be able to do so.
So unless you are a licenced investment professional you shouldn’t make decisions about your investments. Unless you are a real estate professional you shouldn’t make decisions to buy/sell/rent a residence. That’s the logical inference of your argument.
The rule of the expert/credentialed class is coming to an end and it is long overdue. Since the Wilson admin we have suffered under the growing influence of a class inhabiting the Fed Govt that seems to view itself as an aristocracy. Covid opened a great many eyes to the tyranny of this form of overreach by our so called ‘elite’.
Additionally, with those other treatments effectively being banned and doctors who prescribed them being removed, how many deaths is the vaccine responsible for because those other treatments were stopped?
My own experience with the Chinese Death Pox is purely anecdotal but here we go.
February 2020; I’d been out running with friends and could feel a bit of a twitchy throat coming on, which I was bummed about as that generally meant I had a cold on the way.
Finished the run, got home, showered and feeling cold jumped in bed. Next minute I was hit by what I could only describe as an absolute freight train of, what I just assumed was manfluenza, manbola and manflu all rolled in to one super man sized cold that completely floored me!
I was alternating between hot flashes and cold sweats, lost all appetite, couldn’t smell or taste a damn thing, had my first day off work in about 20 years, very quickly followed by my first week off work in an eternity!!
I really had never experienced anything like this in my life. It was so sudden, and hit like a teenager on heat!
Probably one of the good things about coming down with the death pox so early was the fear train had not been ramped up by the left so I just thought it was manflu 🤷♂️
But just as it came on suddenly I was also up and running just as quickly. One of the things I hate about catching a cold is that it generally takes me 2-3 months of recovery before I’m back running at full capacity and generally being active. But with the Chinese Death Pox it was all over well within a month.
On top of that, since Feb 2020 I’ve not had a proper man cold since then! The times I have caught a cold it would be these really weird colds where I’d feel shit for a couple days and then suddenly be back up and running like new! Prior to 2020 I would guarantee you that I’d catch at least one cold a year (preferably at the start of winter as that then means I’m good until at the very latest the next following winter!). But yeah, since then nothing worthy of taking note 🤷♂️
I also chose not to get the death clot shot. In spite of a ton of pressure from friends to get sorted.
The missus got the shot and promptly ended up sick off work for a week along with quite a few others I knew who had an adverse reaction to the “vaccine”.
But there you go eh. Anyway, don’t hate me because I’m beautiful. It’s not my fault your mother doesn’t love you 😜😂
Not arguing with any of the anti-vax stuff out there. There are two other things worth considering:
1. It is in the economic interest of the insurance companies to overreport the number of vax related deaths. Why? Sell more insurance.
2. In addition to all the anti-vax data and claims, perhaps a big reason for increased deaths is simple loneliness. Feds, governments, public health and the medical profession intentionally isolated people from one another, The ongoing move to remote work exacerbates that. Don’t discount loneliness as a large contributor. Cheers –
The data in this was screwed from the start. The most reliable indicator was actually that cruise ship which had a half dozen old people die out of 4000 on board.
My SWAG is that WuFlu might have been a fignificant contributor to about 100,000 deaths. The other 900,000 from that “million died” lie were those simply “with it,” not from it. What falls apart in the statitical breakdown is that deaths from “everything else” disappeared. There was a 1/3 drop in all of them pretty much accross the board, and no huge boost in excess deaths. Stop and think about that. WuFlu suddenly cures people who would have died of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. If you took just pur WuFlu deaths with no other co-morbidities, and especially age, it would have placed about 15th in the cause of death list. Have we ever shut down the country due to too many cases of Kidney Disease? That simply makes no sense.* Some Hopkins undergrads published an internal paper from “states” data and showed no bump, and many of those states immediately stopped releasing data, and Hopkins themselves squashed the paper. In addition, there were no deaths from the flu, which is in the 20-30K region in a normal year. Granted, that decrease could have been due to everyone isolating, which is pretty much a “du-UH!” conclusion.
Then there is the comparison of the curves that was done at 6 months, between all deaths and WuFlu deaths. It turns out that the median from WuFlu was actually a 1/2 yr higher, like 78.5 vs 79. So WuFlu was actually a health benefit. 😉 But the real explanation is the absolute absence of deaths in the under 55 crowd, so there was a shift to higher numbers in the WuFlu data. Then we have the issue of confirmation, where it has been revealed that some WuFlu tests were co-reactive for influenza, and as we recall, in the beginning when tests were limited they were only given to people presenting with respiratory illnesses, so the influenza were dumped in with the WuFlu (another reason for their absence).
* In May 2020 I was chatting with an ER doc who lives in the Hood. He told me that he had to send his intern home because there was no one coming in. But then it gets interesting, because we would expect a decrease in motor vehicle accident arrivals since no one was driving, but why was there suddenly a 40% decrease in arrivals for heart attack and stroke symptoms. Were people simply not having attacks, or were they waiting a few hours because they didn’t want to go to the ER and get WuFlu, which meant that their ambulance trip was to the morgue instead. Just so much could be parsed out of the data, except, we know that all of the data is suspect because of the huge finacial incentives for both families and hospitals/clinics to report the death as WuFlu. I have said it before and I will repeat it again, Medical Science died in march of 2020. The medical professionals were told to toe the line or risk their funding/career.
And to this day, Oregon still claims that a 106 yo woman who was WuFlu positive for 75 days died of it. It takes a demented person to keep that lie alive.
Shortly after that cruise ship, the ‘rona got loose on a US aircraft carrier.
Early days when we knew nearly nothing we had two populations with traceable exposure and transmission, and potential to capture their medical profiles. Remarkably varied outcomes in these two populations. Remarkably little characterization of who has different outcomes coming out from that.
Yes, the cruise ships were a key piece of information. Thousands people living practically in each other’s laps, perfect conditions for infection, and yet a large majority never got it. Which means they must have been naturally immune to it. There’s no reason that would not be true of the general population as well.
Check out Dr Kory at the 32 minute mark on Russell Brand-
https://rumble.com/v4f0z9l-never-seen-death-rate-like-this-dr-pierre-kory-on-new-excess-death-data-sta.html
MarkSmith: Check out Dr Kory at the 32 minute mark on Russell Brand
Someone talking to someone makes a claim about what some unnamed person says. Please provide actual data instead.
For those looking for some good background information, check out Sharyl Attkisson under health at her website.
Sorry, she’s an anti-vaxx nut, and I mean MMR, not the Clot Shot. Therefore anything she says on the subject should be ignored.
To be clear, Milhouse, the most current versions of the COVID19 vaccinations are of dubious efficacy. Speaking strictly on the evidence presented to the FDA advisory committee and the available clinical experience to date, and despite the fawning, ignorant advice of professional societies taking money from CDC to hawk their messages, very few, if any, of my professional colleagues are actively encouraging their patients to get the latest versions of the COVID19 vaccination due to real concerns about safety, unproven efficacy and above all the grossly mismatched risk:benefit profile. Let me use the technical jargon: the stuff is crap and I wouldn’t touch it or use it in my grandma were she still alive.