brain inflammation, vaccines, CFS

[cporro]

The question is: what was the chance of dying from Corona under the age of 70? 0.23%, Professor John Ioannidis

yes. i feel like there are some 1st principles that got ignored. risk stratification. the disease was heavily skewed toward old fat and sick. for me it was about the same risk as a flu. for my daughter it was less risky than the flu. i haven't had a flu shot in 25 years. my fear of a disease is based on my specific risk category. in order for me to be pressured i was told it was to protect grandma. the people that read the trials (pfizer) knew that transmission was not an endpoint aka not studied. this was in the literature end of 2020 before anyone got a vaccine. the absolute best you could say about the vaccine was that we don't know if it stops transmission. 2 years later it became obvious to the public this was a non-sterilizing vaccine (does not stop transmission). ooops.

imo these are very basic things. why would i allow my child to get an EUA product for a disease that isn't a threat to her and will not save grandma? that's taking risk with no reward. yet, every kid where i live got the vax. one my of daughter's good friends was the best player on the soccer team (comp league). after her vaccine she was unable to play for more than 10 minutes because she gets dizzy. i can't prove that this is heart damage via vaccine. but i can tell you no one will every look into it as a vaccine injury.

messaging is very powerful. i don't understand why anyone trusts corporate media after all the things they have gotten wrong: wars, pandemic, economic turns.

 

[hapl808]

We don't know if 0.23% is correct, but keep in mind that in the USA assuming there are around 300m under 70, that's still 700k people under 70 years old who would then die. That's the problem with huge numbers.

It's the same problem, sadly, with vaccine side effects. If it only has bad effects on 0.01% of people, you may not see it in a clinical trial of 20,000 people - it could affect 1 or 2 people and be dismissed. But scale that up to 200m people, and now you have tens of thousands badly affected. Public health sometimes makes the trolley problem decision, but if you're one of the people they decide to run over, that's not much comfort. So they pretend it's not a trolley problem, and usually insist basically zero people have bad effects, which is not true of anything. Give pineapple to 200m people, and some are going to react badly.

Now, since we've likely had over 1m die in the USA from it, we're going by studies from those who promoted the vaccines saying they saved countless lives. Those are, by definition, theory - as we can't really know that for sure. And I take them less at their word since the same people completely ignore and gaslight any claim whatsoever of vaccine harm - even the most mild ones.

Like for me, my guess is that vaccines help way more people than they harm. The Hep B vaccine may have helped millions avoid a chronic illness. Unfortunately, I think there's a good chance it absolutely ruined my entire life. I'd be more comfortable with that if it were admitted and we received help, but instead we can't even raise the possibility for fear of being branded a crazy person.

So it's the trolley problem, but if they throw the switch you have to pretend the other track was empty even while covered in blood.

So I don't think that "more money for studying the immune system" is likely to solve ME, at least with the present state of determining which studies get funding.

Actually, I think more money is exactly going to do that. It'll take time, but HIV went from being laughed out of briefings, into being the number one thing that ever infectious disease doctor studied - more than malaria or hepatitis or anything else, because it got more funding. And therefore we made great strides over years and decades.

 

[andyguitar]

Now, since we've likely had over 1m die in the USA from it, we're going by studies from those who promoted the vaccines saying they saved countless lives. Those are, by definition, theory - as we can't really know that for sure.

To me the main problem in reaching a conclusion about the benefits of vaccination versus the harms is that we are unlikley to have sufficient data for many years. I'm talking about the long term effect of a Covid infection on the unvaccinated compared to those who had the jab.

 

[hapl808]

To me the main problem in reaching a conclusion about the benefits of vaccination versus the harms is that we are unlikley to have sufficient data for many years. I'm talking about the long term effect of a Covid infection on the unvaccinated compared to those who had the jab.

And worse, we will likely never have sufficient data because we are actively avoiding collecting the data we would need - vaccinated vs unvaccinated, chronic health issues, etc. Instead we say:

1. Vaccines only cause short term health issues.
2. Because vaccines only cause short term health issues, we can rule out any long term issues as being caused by vaccines.
3. There is no data to support vaccines causing long term health issues (because we ruled them out in 2).



So we just won't know, unless someone accidentally discovers the actual mechanisms involved.

 

[andyguitar]

1. Vaccines only cause short term health issues.
2. Because vaccines only cause short term health issues, we can rule out any long term issues as being caused by vaccines.
3. There is no data to support vaccines causing long term health issues (because we ruled them out in 2).

We might be getting answers about some of these issues soon in the UK as about 50 people are suing Astra Zeneca for harms caused by the Covid jab. The claimants are being represented by a top notch law firm called Leigh Day. It's going to be a long hard fight I dont doubt.

 

[Wayne]

all this tells me is it may be interesting to see how doctors treat vaccine injuries

I didn't realize doctors were treating vaccine injuries. I would be interested in hearing more about that.

Here's a link to a video that should give you some insights into what some of the latest cutting edge therapies are for treating both Long COVID and Long Vaccination. I believe he says at one point that Long Vaccination is more intractable and difficult to treat than Long COVID. I think this video is quite extraordinary.

 

[cporro]

Here's a link to a video that should give you some insights into what some of the latest cutting edge therapies are for treating both Long COVID and Long Vaccination. I believe he says at one point that Long Vaccination is more intractable and difficult to treat than Long COVID. I think this video is quite extraordinary.

this is very good if you want to catch up on what's happening. of note the caparison of vaccine injury to CFS. that's my point in initial post and long historic article link: a product designed to permanently modify immune response with supposedly no collateral damage.

in video they are actually tip toeing around the issue. it's much worse than people think.

the deaths reported to VAERS for the 3 licensed covid products in the first 9 months of 2021 were greater than all deaths from all vaccine products reported from 1990 to 2021. this was reported and then i went to vaers and verified it myself (anyone can do this with a little work). of course since coivd the public has been led to believe that vaers is a worthless system. many gaslighting justifications for why they shouldn't pay attention to a 30 year old surveillance system maintained by the CDC and FDA. there IS one big issue with vaers...it UNDER REPORTS.