Study provides evidence of Covid-19 mRNA shots rewiring the immune system with unknown long-term effects

[rattlesnake]

12 hours ago, xylophone said:

 

I forgot to add that as the mRNA vaccine has been worked on/in progress for over 50 years, when does it cease to be something which the anti-vax mob call, "an experimental vaccine?".

 

Many other vaccines and drugs have had nowhere near this length of time in study and development. Food for thought, no less. 

 

 

Because "working on it" and actually administering a product to billions of people under the guise of urgency is not the same thing.

 

Some of the main protagonists in the development of this product have confirmed its experimental aspect, such as Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, who was very reticent but forced into it:

“mRNA was a technology, but we had less experience, only two years working on this, and actually, mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day, not vaccine, not any other medicine. So it was very counterintuitive, and I was surprised when they suggested to me that this is the way to go, and I questioned it. And I asked them to justify how can you say something like that, but they came, and they were very, very convinced that this is the right way to go."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2022/03/10/transcript-wp-subscriber-exclusive-albert-bourla-author-moonshot-inside-pfizers-nine-month-race-make-impossible-possible/

 

Also notable was senior Pfizer executive Janine Small, who admitted that the company did not know whether its Covid vaccine prevented transmission of the virus when it rolled out the shots globally:

“Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation [sic] before it entered the market? No, heh,” she said. “Uh, these, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market, and from that point of view we had to do everything at risk."

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/pfizer-did-not-know-whether-covid-vaccine-stopped-transmission-before-rollout-executive-admits/news-story/f307f28f794e173ac017a62784fec414

[rattlesnake]

12 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

You don't have to respond, that the beauty of it:

 

https://www.factcheck.org/person/john-campbell/

Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is part of the Annenberg Foundation, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annenberg_Foundation

 

https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/about/

 

https://www.annenberginstitute.org/news/gates-foundation-grants-annenberg-institute-999260

[bobbin]

Wow, the moon really is made of blue cheese..

 

I have a friend who is unfortunately susceptible to numerous conspiracy theories..  just tried to "educate" me again the other day about Covid vaccines..

 

We are close enough that I'm able to laugh out loud and he doesn't take offense.. thank the imaginary friend in the sky.

[placeholder]

On 10/25/2023 at 11:00 AM, Red Phoenix said:

The relevance of the study - funded by the Dutch government - is that it might help understand the mechanism that makes triple-jabbed people more prone to covid-infections.

Really?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8848203/

 

And a third vaccinations greatly lowers the risk of hospitalization:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy

[Bkk Brian]

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I think you made the right call by going for a humorous response, as tackling the substance of the issue would be risky to say the least. I am not expecting an actual answer.

I know I made the right call. However it was absolutely true, the humour is a by product of the reality of some of those conspiracy theories that were prevalent at the time with others now, just as evil taking their place.

 

The actual subject matter and question you wanted to raise, a comparison of a nurse blogger making money from clicks and Gates is about as ridiculous as is possible. I suspect that was also intended to be humorous but if not then try again. This is not about Gates.

[Bkk Brian]

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is part of the Annenberg Foundation, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annenberg_Foundation

 

https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/about/

 

https://www.annenberginstitute.org/news/gates-foundation-grants-annenberg-institute-999260

Facts are facts no matter who is the messenger, that's why there are links contained within any reports to take you to the source and verify yourself. Besides which do you really think its only Factcheck.org that has exposed his misinformation?

[Red Phoenix]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Really?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8848203/

 

And a third vaccinations greatly lowers the risk of hospitalization:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/01/19/1071809356/covid-booster-omicron-efficacy

 

You are referring to a January 2022 opinion-piece, which states in the opening sentence

We've known for about a month now that a third shot of the vaccine is critical for protecting against infection with the omicron variant — and for keeping people out of the hospital.

Now for some credible evidence that you are more prone to get covid-infected with every shot you take >

The very large April 2023 Cleveland study, where more than 50.000 thousand Cleveland Clinic employees were followed from Sept 2022 confirmed in its results statement: The risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.

 

> The Figure 2 graph shows that with each additional vaccine dose, the risk of catching Covid INCREASED.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37274183/

Figure 2 (see below) of that study shows the cumulative incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for study participants stratified by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. Day 0 was 12 September 2022, the date the bivalent vaccine was first offered to employees. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals are jittered along the x-axis to improve visibility.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

You are referring to a January 2022 opinion-piece, which states in the opening sentence

We've known for about a month now that a third shot of the vaccine is critical for protecting against infection with the omicron variant — and for keeping people out of the hospital.

Now for some credible evidence that you are more prone to get covid-infected with every shot you take >

The very large April 2023 Cleveland study, where more than 50.000 thousand Cleveland Clinic employees were followed from Sept 2022 confirmed in its results statement: The risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.

 

> The Figure 2 graph shows that with each additional vaccine dose, the risk of catching Covid INCREASED.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37274183/

Figure 2 (see below) of that study shows the cumulative incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for study participants stratified by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. Day 0 was 12 September 2022, the date the bivalent vaccine was first offered to employees. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals are jittered along the x-axis to improve visibility.

One big problem with this study that you failed to mention. It's an observational study. Participants weren't randomly assigned to different groups. This was not a clinical trial. Clinical trials show that the vaccines were effective.

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-cleveland-clinic-study-did-not-show-vaccines-increase-covid-19-risk/

[watthong]

16 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Based on your rationale, what is your take on Bill Gates, who is not a doctor and has no training in medicine or public health whatsoever, yet is one of the most influential forces with regard to the Covid response and vaccines, and is a massive WHO donor ($531 million in 2018-2019)?

 

What about Whataboutism? Deflect much - don't you?  Try to get a good grasp of my "rationale" before you hit the keyboard. Btw we need more of your links. Pile them up. They might work as arguments, some times.

Edited October 27, 2023 by watthong

[connda]

Heck.  I have no problem with the mRNA Covid vaccines. 

I want all those AN members who believe in their heart of hearts that Pfizer, the WHO, the FDA, and the CDC only care about saving humanity from the deadly Covid disease to continue taking the mRNA shots every time a new batch is releases.  And don't ever miss an opportunity to take one of those new boosters.  If Pfizer recommends a booster and the FDA approves it - get it as soon as possible. 

Me personally?  I'll wait to around 2030 to see the long-term effects of all Covid vaccinations based on mRNA technology.  And I'll wait 7 to 10 years as well for any mRNA 'vaccine' created and approved by the FDA for human use in less than a year.
 
But for all of you who "Trust The Science?"  Please.  Get the new and novel shots early and often.

Me.  I trust the 'scientific method' which requires that all inquiries into the safety and efficacy of new vaccines and new vaccine technology be thoroughly vetted by independent researcher with no affiliations to the vaccine's creators or manufacturers or conflicts of interest with any public or private stakeholder associated with the vaccine's creation or approval.  This include research into the long-term effects of both the vaccines and the underlying vaccine technology.

[connda]

5 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

You are referring to a January 2022 opinion-piece, which states in the opening sentence

We've known for about a month now that a third shot of the vaccine is critical for protecting against infection with the omicron variant — and for keeping people out of the hospital.

Now for some credible evidence that you are more prone to get covid-infected with every shot you take >

The very large April 2023 Cleveland study, where more than 50.000 thousand Cleveland Clinic employees were followed from Sept 2022 confirmed in its results statement: The risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.

 

> The Figure 2 graph shows that with each additional vaccine dose, the risk of catching Covid INCREASED.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37274183/

Figure 2 (see below) of that study shows the cumulative incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for study participants stratified by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. Day 0 was 12 September 2022, the date the bivalent vaccine was first offered to employees. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals are jittered along the x-axis to improve visibility.

I've learned that quoting individual studies on this forum is an exercise in futility.  We are going to need to patiently wait 3, 5, 7, and then 10 years for the metadata research and analyses to be published (assuming that any research not reflecting the mRNA technology and vaccines in a positive light isn't actively suppressed). 

Metadata analyses is the "Gold Standard" of research.

"Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) have long been recognised as a gold standard approach. They offer many advantages over analyses that use aggregated data extracted from publications. These include: increased opportunity to identify and include unpublished studies and obtain full outcome data (thereby reducing the potential for bias arising from the absence of unpublished studies and unreported outcomes); checking and transforming data to common scores or measures; standardising analyses across studies; and undertaking more flexible and powerful statistical analyses including exploration of potential effect modifiers."
--The Global Health Network, "Gold-standard reporting of IPD meta-analyses." 13Jul2015

Eventually - one way or the other, given time - we'll have factual research analysis. 
And let the chips fall where they may.

[xylophone]

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Factcheck.org is owned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is part of the Annenberg Foundation, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annenberg_Foundation

 

https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/about/

 

https://www.annenberginstitute.org/news/gates-foundation-grants-annenberg-institute-999260

 

I wondered how long it would be before the conspiracy theory muppets would get round to quoting the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with misinformation from various YouTube posters with dubious "qualifications", and now it's arrived, so I will take my leave from this thread because it has become a nonsense.

 

Just to reiterate what I have said earlier; the mRNA vaccine has been worked on since the early 1960s and perfected in the 80s/90s and has and will be proven to be a potential godsend with regards to curing illness and diseases.

 

Many tens of millions of people around the world have received this vaccination and many more will do so in years to come as it proves successful against other diseases such as cancer.

 

It is in use currently and I see no reason why a thread like this should even exist because what the anti-vax/conspiracy theory muppets fail to realise is that the mRNA vaccination process is being used today and is here to stay.

 

Thanks to all of the intelligent and levelheaded posters who do post on here, and as for the others, why not go and join the "flat earth society" for something else to occupy your time. Or you could rail against the fact that motor vehicles have replaced horses on the roads today........oh sorry that one has long gone!!!

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, connda said:

Heck.  I have no problem with the mRNA Covid vaccines. 

I want all those AN members who believe in their heart of hearts that Pfizer, the WHO, the FDA, and the CDC only care about saving humanity from the deadly Covid disease to continue taking the mRNA shots every time a new batch is releases.  And don't ever miss an opportunity to take one of those new boosters.  If Pfizer recommends a booster and the FDA approves it - get it as soon as possible. 

Me personally?  I'll wait to around 2030 to see the long-term effects of all Covid vaccinations based on mRNA technology.  And I'll wait 7 to 10 years as well for any mRNA 'vaccine' created and approved by the FDA for human use in less than a year.
 
But for all of you who "Trust The Science?"  Please.  Get the new and novel shots early and often.

Me.  I trust the 'scientific method' which requires that all inquiries into the safety and efficacy of new vaccines and new vaccine technology be thoroughly vetted by independent researcher with no affiliations to the vaccine's creators or manufacturers or conflicts of interest with any public or private stakeholder associated with the vaccine's creation or approval.  This include research into the long-term effects of both the vaccines and the underlying vaccine technology.

Congratulations on volunteering to be part of a long-term study for people who don't get vaccinated. It's well known that viral infections can often result in severe even life-threatening conditions that emerged years later. No such connection has ever been found for a vaccine. Thank you for your service.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Also notable was senior Pfizer executive Janine Small, who admitted that the company did not know whether its Covid vaccine prevented transmission of the virus when it rolled out the shots globally:

 

There was nothing for her to admit.

 

Unearthing more of the same past vaccine misinformation claims, I see:

 

Alleged revelation about Pfizer vaccine trial is nothing new

"Pfizer did not claim that a clinical trial for its COVID-19 vaccine was testing whether the vaccine prevented transmission of the coronavirus to other people. The aim of the drug trial was to study whether the vaccine was safe and if it prevented disease from SARS-CoV-2."

...

"Pfizer, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and news reports before the vaccine’s approval were clear that while the vaccine was effective in preventing symptomatic and severe disease, there was no data [from the Pfizer trials] about whether it stopped transmission to others."

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/13/instagram-posts/alleged-revelation-about-pfizer-vaccine-trial-noth/

 

As it turned out, the COVID vaccines did help prevent transmission in the real world, as many studies later showed... But that wasn't the basis that Pfizer originally ran their trials on, as was made clear throughout the approval process.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, watthong said:

 

What about Whataboutism? Deflect much - don't you?  Try to get a good grasp of my "rationale" before you hit the keyboard. Btw we need more of your links. Pile them up. They might work as arguments, some times.

Your rationale is that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

[rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

 

I wondered how long it would be before the conspiracy theory muppets would get round to quoting the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with misinformation from various YouTube posters with dubious "qualifications", and now it's arrived, so I will take my leave from this thread because it has become a nonsense.

 

Just to reiterate what I have said earlier; the mRNA vaccine has been worked on since the early 1960s and perfected in the 80s/90s and has and will be proven to be a potential godsend with regards to curing illness and diseases.

 

Many tens of millions of people around the world have received this vaccination and many more will do so in years to come as it proves successful against other diseases such as cancer.

 

It is in use currently and I see no reason why a thread like this should even exist because what the anti-vax/conspiracy theory muppets fail to realise is that the mRNA vaccination process is being used today and is here to stay.

 

Thanks to all of the intelligent and levelheaded posters who do post on here, and as for the others, why not go and join the "flat earth society" for something else to occupy your time. Or you could rail against the fact that motor vehicles have replaced horses on the roads today........oh sorry that one has long gone!!!

 

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

 

By the way, I noticed you did not address the study I posted, COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere.

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

I know I made the right call. However it was absolutely true, the humour is a by product of the reality of some of those conspiracy theories that were prevalent at the time with others now, just as evil taking their place.

 

The actual subject matter and question you wanted to raise, a comparison of a nurse blogger making money from clicks and Gates is about as ridiculous as is possible. I suspect that was also intended to be humorous but if not then try again. This is not about Gates.

The rationale in question was that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Facts are facts no matter who is the messenger, that's why there are links contained within any reports to take you to the source and verify yourself. Besides which do you really think its only Factcheck.org that has exposed his misinformation?

Facts are facts no matter who is the messenger.

 

Agree 100%, I will be quoting you on that.

[Bkk Brian]

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Facts are facts no matter who is the messenger.

 

Agree 100%, I will be quoting you on that.

Good..................can't wait but you forgot the important bit, so long as they can be verified by source

[watthong]

33 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

4 hours ago, watthong said:

What about Whataboutism? Deflect much - don't you?  Try to get a good grasp of my "rationale" before you hit the keyboard. Btw we need more of your links. Pile them up. They might work as arguments, some times.

Your rationale is that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

 

Wrong - maybe my rationale went over your head but never mind.

And the answer to my question is, yes, deflect, deflect, deflect.

Edited October 27, 2023 by watthong

[watthong]

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The rationale in question was that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

 

Wrong - maybe my rationale went over your head but never mind.

And the answer to my question is, yes, deflect, deflect, deflect.

[owl sees all]

22 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Facts are facts no matter who is the messenger.

 

Agree 100%, I will be quoting you on that.

I prefer 'truth' to 'facts'.

[rattlesnake]

3 minutes ago, watthong said:

 

Wrong - maybe my rationale went over your head but never mind.

And the answer to my question is, yes, deflect, deflect, deflect.

Please explain your rationale.

[owl sees all]

45 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Your rationale is that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

Oh yes! Doctors! All they have to do is learn what the Big Pharma tells them. A pill for every ill. An injection for every infection.

 

They should learn about the most important things that keep us healthy.

 

Good wholesome food

Uncontaminated water

Clean air

Love

 

If they concentrated on the above only the A&E would see people. The rest of the building would be empty.

 

Can't poison a healthy body back to good health!!! What?? That's what 'modern' medicine is all about.

Edited October 27, 2023 by owl sees all

[Bkk Brian]

47 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The rationale in question was that one has to be a qualified doctor to make assessments about Covid.

 

Your rationale in a comparison of a nurse blogger making money from clicks and Gates is about as ridiculous as is possible. 

 

Re read my post. 

[Bkk Brian]

17 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Oh yes! Doctors! All they have to do is learn what the Big Pharma tells them. A pill for every ill. An injection for every infection.

 

They should learn about the most important things that keep us healthy.

 

Good wholesome food

Uncontaminated water

Clean air

Love

 

If they concentrated on the above only the A&E would see people. The rest of the building would be empty.

 

Can't poison a healthy body back to good health!!! What?? That's what 'modern' medicine is all about.

B.S.

[rattlesnake]

18 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Oh yes! Doctors! All they have to do is learn what the Big Pharma tells them. A pill for every ill. An injection for every infection.

 

They should learn about the most important things that keep us healthy.

 

Good wholesome food

Uncontaminated water

Clean air

Love

 

If they concentrated on the above only the A&E would see people. The rest of the building would be empty.

 

Can't poison a healthy body back to good health!!! What?? That's what 'modern' medicine is all about.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[watthong]

28 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Please explain your rationale.

 

Consider this my one compliment to you - and those others to whom the concept of "context" did not seem to register:

 

The individual in question has a PhD but he's not an MD. As been called out before, a PhD holder can go by the title "Doctor" anywhere. Fair enough...However, his real-life medical career consisted of nursing. Ie a nurse, not a physician. Therefore in the context that he presents himself on his youtube channel, which deals with medical matters and mostly covid-related, he should present himself as Nurce C. - not Dr. C. And if he chose the latter, it would call out to his ethics, that is if he had any, to put a disclaimer that he is NOT a medical doctor by trade. Failing to do either, he unwittingly presents himself as a fraud (and we are not talking about his channel content just yet.) 

 

My rationale was about his inclination to deceive, and not his medical qualifications, or lack thereof. In short it was an ethical matter and  I'm NOT surprised that many on this thread failed to see it. 
 

Edited October 27, 2023 by watthong

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I wholeheartedly agree.

So if you agree full heartedly why would only the A&E would see people. The rest of the building would be empty?

[rattlesnake]

2 minutes ago, watthong said:

 

Consider this my one compliment to you - and those others to whom the concept of "context" did not seem to register:

 

The individual in question has a PhD but he's not an MD. As been called out before, a PhD holder can go by the title "Doctor" anywhere. Fair enough...However, his real-life medical career consisted of nursing. Ie a nurse, not a physician. Therefore in the context that he presents himself on his youtube channel, which deals with medical matters and mostly covid-related, he should present himself as Nurce C. - not Dr. C. And if he chose the latter, it would call out to his ethics, that is if he had any, to put a disclaimer that he is NOT a medical doctor by trade. Failing to do either, he unwittingly presents himself as a fraud (and we are not talking about his channel content just yet.) 

 

My rationale was about his inclination to deceive, and not his lack of medical qualifications, or lack thereof.

In short it was an ethical matter and  I'm NOT surprised that many on this thread failed to see it. 
 

So in order to be ethical, anyone speaking about Covid-related matters who is not a medical doctor by trade should add a disclaimer to each of their interventions, correct?