Coronavirus | Discussion

I believe you sort out what does not fit into your narrative. You are doing that because you are identified with your decision to have taken the vaccine.

Admit of doubt would mean to give up a part of ego, which hurts.
This is fine, actually it's human, but as being said, not scientific at all.
I do not want you to change opinion....but maybe recognize that things may change if more data are available in the future.
I am also prone to 'confirmation bias' as well. But I don't confuse it with methods of science.

This is a CDC study I had posted which you as CDC adherent should know.

Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021 | Vaccination | JAMA | JAMA Network

You know what myocarditis is / means and that at this age group actually nobody ever died from covid?

This is only ONE kind of event.

Shall I explain why I do not trust the US authorities?
This is an NIH/NIND study on Neuropathic symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
Neuropathic symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination | medRxiv

If you are looking at the results you can see that finally all them have recovered from their adverse events, right?

But that is a lie!
The patients participated in the study are still suffering from Neuropathic symptoms as you can see at patient interviews.
I posted that video and all that already...


And shall I explain why I don't trust Pfizer?
...I guess I did already. Inconsistencies at clinical trials......and only somebody who has to hide something gets a court order to release it!

I do not praise them. I have reasoned why they did it best.
And that is BTW my opinion and not science. I got (made the efforts to collect them) data which showed that compared to collateral damage the overall outcome was best. This is anecdotal evidence which is shared by a lot of scientists around the world.

 

I hope you can repeat that after 2 years or so...
Finally our difference is that I am more sceptical than you.

I of course don't want that it would turn out the vaccines added a bunch of harm.
Just to make that clear.

BTW: ATM I am worried about the 'excess' deaths occurring all over the world.
We known only one fact so far: Those died from COVID are excluded....so the next point to evaluate is: Are those collateral effects in anyway related to the measures to fight the pandemic?

Or any other natural reason?

 

Add up to what?
Consider that beforehand, please.
When you are as a vaccine maker interested in getting all people vaccinated, you are NOT interested in the real number of how many people the vaccines could have saved / get harmed by them! The two are mutually exclusive.
Why? By doing that you are eliminating the control group AKA those without the vaccine!

What 'numbers' are you talking about? Last posts I talked about a lot of different matters!
If you can recall correctly I for instance propagated very early that at vaccination of people below the age of 30 the risks outweigh the benefits.

As far as I can see it will be only a matter of time until there is proof. Whether the exact age group will be exactly 30 is uncertain although IF you lower it enough science WILL prove that vaccination there did MORE harm than good.

Let's just 'use' now this result of the CDC study. "16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine causes myocarditis)"
This means if those people get 3 doses it multiplies by 3 = 329.7 per 3 million doses.
I honestly ask you now: How is the COVID related damage at those people compared to this rate of myocarditis? And as being said this is ONE serious adverse event ONLY.

Mycoarditis is never mild it is always severe! IF you get myocarditis it means you 'lose' healthy heart muscle tissue. Body tries to fill up those gaps with scar tissue which is not as elastic as it should be! And this damage can also be unrecognised as well...and 'gaps' can be still left.
Young people's heart is then handicapped more or less for their entire life and it shortens life time as any statistic on mycocarditis proves. This is basic medical knowledge.

This is only one fault that unveils. The consequences of the mass vaccination campaign are just unveiling.
So even if you say: The numbers don't add up, they DO more and more.

We can say today already: To vaxx kids (people below the age of 18) was a big fault! It added there more harm than they did help!

Guess why the UK has changed the policy on vaccination of kids recently (but far to late)???

The vaccination still goes on. Vaccines' risks are still as they are BUT with Omicron as being milder and more and more people having natural immunity the shift at the risk benefit ratio to the risk side is a logical consequence.
This rational thinking was the reason why you said: I do not go for the 4th jab. Again I say: Here well done, gorski! It was simply a rational decision.

So....to speak generally about 'numbers' and to speak of them now makes no sense at all! Many people will go for the 4th jab...and more data will come up...

The real question for humankind in the future will be: WHERE was the benefit higher than the risk and when at all. And far more important: At WHICH time we could know that it might have turned around and WHY didn't 'we' change then the policy in time?

The mass vaccination campaign was a sick mistake!
No seriously practising physician prescribes something for masses. All the more not an experimental, new genetic impact AKA introducing a modified foreign RNA into human cells.. It violates Hippocratic oath and Nürmberg code.

There is always an INDIVIDUAL anamnesis! This basic principle has been suspended and by that any scientific honours and ethics.

You surely can remind the AZ vaccine. It has been withdrawn, right?
The Moderna and Pfizer vaccine have today as we know a worse risk benefit ratio than AZ and BOTH are still there!
The only difference was AZ attracted negative attention earlier than Moderna and Pfizer, because the serious adverse events of AZ were more obvious.

So if the authorities would have used the same scale as they did at AZ both must lose EUA as well.

So lets talk about all that after some years again.
The 'wind' of 'excess' deaths which are not related to COVID itself is already blowing...and it is not unlikely that it could be associated to COVID prevention measures...the so called collateral damage
And IF ..then 'those' 'numbers' we have then must be added up!

 

I did no interpretation at all. I asked you to interpret the myocarditis data of the CDC.
Besides of that there are no fundamental studies about how many people the vaccines have saved at all. That's why I asked you: Add up to what?

Everybody wants to believe they saved a huge bunch of people. But I am sorry to say, science demands a high level to speak of scientific proof ....if you want to find scientific evidence you find nothing much. Probably because the control has been almost eliminated by mass vaccination and therefore to compare to a control which has still equally statistical power is hard.

If you find a study, feel free to post it here, else it remains personal impression only, or anecdotal evidence. So we are here on the same level as my statement: Sweden did it best.
This is fine as long as we do not confuse it with scientific proof.

Since severe COVID affects particular age groups (older people) and people with comorbidities more there is an inconsistency at the population regarding concern.
The mass vaccination campaign did not differentiate, though.

There is also an inconsistency at severe adverse events of the vaccines. But this inconsistency (affects younger people more) is NOT as the inconsistency we have at severe COVID!

So there must be, as a logical consequence, age groups where the vaccines did more harm than good.
And finally here we are again: We have to ask ourselves: Was that avoidable?
Yes it was!
I always pleaded to vaxx the vulnerable people only. At least not those below that age of 30.
We speak of a new tech and we speak of vaccines which have no ordinary approval.

It was very clear at early times of the pandemic who the vulnerable people were.
The mass vaccination campaign was a mistake.

 

He is an idiot.
And he has no idea of natural science.
There is nothing 100% and there never can be sterile immunity by vaccination into a muscle. (At a respiratory virus that does mutate.)

At least with the new bivalent vaccines there IS no evidence at all!

This is a joke!
So they got EUA and are allowed to be as effective as water, there is only one difference, though.
They have severe adverse events!!!

Omicron booster shots are coming—with lots of questions | Science | AAAS

This is a farce!

 

I would rather say plain stubborn.....
As new data evolves an old stance has to be ditched admitting to have made mistakes and then changed rationally to reflect the new insights.
Even the CDC is leaving its original narrative..ermmm steadfast, consistent and coherent stance.
Walensky, Citing Botched Pandemic Response, Calls for C.D.C. Reorganization - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

@MS_User Your GF from the CDC Ms. Walensky is already filing for separation from the original narrative. Only you are still sticking to it.

Some comments to the 'new' CDC guidelines from a pro, Dr. Robert Malone, co-inventor of mRNA as a vaccine. If you can stand a heavy shake of your narrative on vaccines watch this, else dream on past illusions.....

Probably 'that' future is already now...

 

There is nothing to give up...
It's just my assessment of vaccine related data and the 'impact' which I have studied.
It's based on the studies I know....

I do not deny the existence, never had...but what you have posted is mainly attributed to Omicron's changed pathogenicity.
Most 'good' and the switch from pandemic to endemic is attributed to OMICRON!!!
(What I have foreseen as one of the very first....)
And for the records....see how I had to argue and defend rationality!

I was almost stoned therefore on 3rd of December last year it's been really 'news'...
Coronavirus | Discussion | Page 178 | My Digital Life Forums

and...and..

You clearly can see that those numbers are also found in countries with low vaxx rate such as SA.
The positive influence of the low pathogenicity of Omicron on the pandemic is that much significant, that the positive influence of the vaccines fades away...(if there is any left, those vaccines were not made for Omicron at all).

So if one wants to find evidence for benefits of the vaccines you have to search at vulnerable groups and at viruses prior to Omicron....but since those times are over you never can do a prospective study anymore which has the highest evidence level.

Either way fact is that you do not find fundamental scientific studies about how many people the vaccines have saved!
The claim of proper science is higher than yours! And higher than mine. We both have own assessments on the same level (anecdotal evidence). But that is not 'scientific'. My (assessment) is based on science and publications, though.
It reflects the assessment of Malone (video above) in that part where he said for the bivalent vaccines that they are neither safe nor effective. Time: 4.45 min.

The basic hypotheses H0 still applies (proper science) which is "There is no difference between treatment and control" until proved otherwise.
This is common methodology. H0 is always true until an alternative hypothesis H1 becomes significance. (p <0.05 for instance)
Such an attempt has not been made yet (Study at a public cohort, preferably a prospective one). Neither for the old vaccines nor for the new one.

 

There is no need to dramatise.
What you call 'my agenda' consists of personal opinion and 'what' I learned what science means.
It also has an objective, that's why I feel a need to post it. It also has a value which needs to be defended, a sort of professional honour. More to that at bottom, a new study!!!

I 'adopted' what I was taught and what I could learn, but no particular narrative of an authority.
There are scientists which are conform to my thinking, and there are scientists which are not.

I can truly say that I have no conflicts of interests. I am completely free of any. Authorities, politicians, their hired scientists and pharmaceutical companies are not.
I did not pick this and that and categorized them as 'good' and 'bad' following an interest apart from science itself.

All the personal categorisations are solely a result of lots of studies I have read.
So if I was mislead here and there then it's because of a study that has been proven otherwise or a confirmation bias of myself.
But this is compared to people who are following an ideology (the pandemic is horrible, variant after variant it gets worse and the vaccines are our saviour at any costs) a minor issue.


And here we are: Another study:
I wonder why this is a paper which costs money, most of others regarding COVID are freely shared.

"Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk"

Another 'hint' that breaks the narrative: "The vaccines stay there where they have been injected, do not survive there a long time...."

At least a brief overview is free.

As far I can recall I had posted another study about distribution of mRNA to distant parts of body via EVs already.
But this one opens up another potential long term impact on babies. They can take up the mRMA from their breastfeeding mums.

EVs: Extracellular vesicles are lipid bound vesicles secreted by cells into the extracellular space. The mRNA of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine escapes the cell via a vesicle.
This has been always denied. But hey....nobody ever tested that before! It's a shame!

Whether a drug can pass to milk IS a major subject called BIODISTRIBUTION to be tested!!! ANY drug has to undergo this test BEFOREHAND, before it can be approved at all!

We have learned that from the Thalidomide horror!!!! Babies and embryos need an extra protection and our very attentiveness! But suddenly it is not of any interest anymore!

So many babies have taken up the mRNA by breast milk within 45 h after each shot.....oh..well...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427