And about that COVID vaccine study that supposedly shows 3000% more myocarditis post-vaccine than previously reported
Here’s an article from Hot Air that got a lot of links yesterday. An excerpt [emphasis mine]:
We keep being told that injury to the heart from the COVID vaccine is very rare, but a study done in Basel Switzerland indicates that the rate of subclinical myocarditis after the COVID vaccine is hardly rare at all.
In fact, in a study with only 777 participants with a median age of 37–all medical professionals getting the COVID vaccine–the incidence of elevated cardiac enzymes 3 days after injection was pretty substantial, at almost 3%.
The CDC did a study and from that, they claimed the rate was 0.001%, or one out of 100,000.
2.8% is a lot higher than 0.001%. Another 0.3% had “probable myocarditis,” putting the total at over 3%. That is 3000 times higher than the US government claimed.
Sounds terrible, right? But it’s actually a very misleading analysis of the data by the author of the Hot Air critique. If you don’t read carefully, you might not catch the problems, but they’re quite blatant and become more so if you follow the links and read the studies involved.
The key is that the “injury to the heart” in the Swiss study was subclinical. That means it had no clinical consequences but was a function of measurement alone. And it was temporary and resolved on its own.
And let’s look a bit closer [emphasis mine]:
In this small study, nobody had serious complications, but with a myocarditis complication rate of 3%, you would have to expect that giving out hundreds of millions of doses is a pretty risky proposition.
Yes, like maybe a risk of actual clinically noticeable complications in one out of 100,000, just like the government claimed. Oh, and what did the government actually claim? (And was it actually the government claiming it? When I look at the authors, I don’t see that it was the US government doing the research, anyway.) Let’s follow that link:
In this study, the incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was 0.95 per 100,000 individuals and was highest in men aged 18–24 years, who had received two doses of the vaccine.
This sounds as though they are talking about actual myocarditis that is measured by actually having symptoms that bring a person to the doctor. And indeed, it seems that’s what’s being measured in this study; I read the bulk of it and that is apparent.
So the Hot Air author is comparing apples and oranges. In the study that found 3% elevated enzymes, no one was ill – and ordinarily these people would not even have had their enzymes checked. The elevations subsided on their own. In the other study being compared – the one that had found a much lower level of problems – they were talking about the level of symptomatic myocarditis itself, not just elevated enzymes. No one checks the enzymes of everyone who got a vaccine, nor does that study purport to have done so.
The smaller Swiss study did something quite different; researchers took a small group and checked the enzymes of everyone in it after getting the vaccine. But only after getting the vaccine. It would have been better to have also checked those levels in those people before getting the vaccine so they could compare the actual changes in those levels post-vaccine. But they did not. Instead, the way they determined there were elevated enzymes was to compare the people’s levels to norms in the population for the age groups involved. In addition, no patient in the Swiss study “had ECG-changes, and none developed major adverse cardiac events within 30 days.”
Researchers prior to this have been quite upfront about there being a very small elevated risk of symptomatic myocarditis in certain populations after getting the vaccine, almost all cases very mild and temporary. And in that linked government study, the authors also say this:
We hypothesized that COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine-associated myocardial injury following booster vaccination may be much more common, as symptoms may be unspecific, mild or even absent, escaping passive surveillance.
What that means is that the authors are saying there may be a higher incidence of asymptomatic changes post-vaccine that were not measured in the study, because the study only looked at symptomatic cases. And that’s exactly what the Swiss study did measure: asymptomatic changes that were temporary. So of course the number of people with such changes was higher.
So there is no contradiction here at all between the two studies. And, as with nearly every single one of the articles I’ve read purporting to say how awful the COVID vaccines are in terms of side effects – and I’ve probably checked at least fifty such articles – I have never found a single one of the claims about such articles that isn’t quite flawed, sometimes very flawed. As is this one.
Unfortunately, most of my lengthy discussion of such things has been in the comments rather than in posts, so it’s very hard for me to go back now and find them and link them. But I’ve written about such things many times.
Look, the government lied about plenty of things connected with COVID, particularly the lab leak origin that was always likely and yet was strongly denied. They lied and/or were mistaken about the efficacy of lockdowns and of masking. Initially they claimed that vaccines would make the vaccinated person unable to transmit COVID and would have a very low chance of getting it in the first place, but with the newer strains that turned out to be false. There were lies about how many people were dying of COVID versus with COVID.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of these articles about how the government lied about so many other things connected with post-vaccine side effect, articles that purport to crunch numbers and understand research, are simply mistaken or lying themselves. And yet so many people seem to believe them.
Just because one side lies and/or is mistaken doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t lie and/or is mistaken. However, I consider government lies more serious, because they are the supposed experts and they influence policy and many more people. But I still don’t like to see research misrepresented by anyone, whether on the left or right, and I see it almost constantly.
[NOTE: By the way, there’s also symptomatic myocarditis as a complication of getting COVID itself. See this, for example; the indication is that the incidence is higher post-COVID than it is post-vaccination.]
It will be another 3 years or more before we really have any measurable effects of the mass vaccination/booster campaign. There is a reason it usually takes 3-5 years to get a new vaccine approved after it has entered Phase II studies- you are modifying the immune system in a semi-permanent manner, and you might not see the overall side effect profile for years. This is the main reason I refused to take this vaccine- it had no long-term studies of any kind done. The Phase III study was done on 2-3 billion people, and the data still isn’t complete.
Yes, pretty much neo. I mean it doesn’t help the argument about government/pharmaceutical malfeasance when people do this. (It ends up protecting them.) I mean the big knock on the vaccine/boosters was how short lived the protection was (isn’t it 6 months from the time of the last shot?) or how limited the protection against new variants actually was. Admittedly the short duration of protection might not have been a problem if there was a covid season but there isn’t. (Don’t get me started on people that think the MRNA vaccines actually change your genome. No it doesn’t.)
Yancey Ward:
Agreed that it certainly always takes time to get a full picture of anything.
But what frustrates me are the misrepresentations about the research that HAS been done. The errors in that Hot Air article are egregious. Are they committed through ignorance or are they willful lies? Fool or knave? – the old question.
Thanks Boss… I’m no scientist and I don’t play one on TV…but I read that article and came to the same conclusion you did…I appreciate your deep dives here. Helps me see stuff at another level.
Plenty of lies and misrepresentation from the “experts” is not made true by misrepresentation from we who are not.
@neo:Just because one side lies and/or is mistaken doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t lie and/or is mistaken.
Yeah, the “sides” heuristic raising its ugly head again. neo, you expressed doubt that anyone is religiously converted by arguments; I’m beginning to doubt that ANYBODY changes their mind in ANY way due to an argument; most of the time people might change the “side” they think they’re on and then they go along with whatever people on that “side” generally say.
There’s not just two “sides”, to begin with, and even if there were, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus* might be an effective legal principle but it is a very poor tool for understanding reality. Nature does not care who said what when or if they had an ulterior motive for saying so or lied about something else.
And yes, conservative-leaning media will sell you a false narrative just like any media does. They are all in the same business…
*”It may be said, once for all, that the maxim is in itself worthless, first, in point of validity, because in one form it merely contains in loose fashion a kernel of truth which no one needs to be told, and in the others it is absolutely false as a maxim of life; and secondly, in point of utility, because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do or must not do, and therefore it is a superfluous form of words. It is also in practice pernicious, first, because there is frequently a misunderstanding of its proper force, and secondly, because it has become in the hands of many counsel a mere instrument for obtaining new trials upon points wholly unimportant in themselves.”
See also “isolated demands for rigor”.
The troponin levels observed in the study are a serious issue, even if the patients exhibited no physical harm. You can damage the heart and not be aware of it for years.
The study that will have to be done (or should be done but we know it never will be done) over the next decade is to follow a large cohort of people vaccinated with m-RNA vaccines and one made up of those who were not vaccinated, tabulating all medical outcomes.
Yancey Ward:
You provide no link for your assertion, nor do you explain it. The articles I linked certainly don’t support it. The higher levels were not large, were unconnected with any symptoms or any evidence of any damage to the heart, and were temporary. And yet you posit some sort of delayed action and give zero explanation of why you claim that.
Nor would the study you propose in your second paragraph be a good one, at least not with the study design you describe. It is extremely difficult to design a valid or meaningful study of that type, for the very simple reason that the populations of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people are not randomly chosen and are not otherwise the same but for their vaccination status. The populations are very different, and not just on traits such as age and prior health – although they are certainly different on those things.
Not much of a study. But context matters.
After watching endless pharmaceutical commercials on television, with their rapidly-covered possible side effects, some of horrifying severity, one might ask when the last time was anybody said anything about side effects of routine vaccinations we’ve done for generations.
Is it possible there are none?
Not at all. But nobody looks. The same actual or paranoiac interest we see wrt Covid could well be applied to other vaccinations, but is not.
What would we find? Certainly something versus finding nothing.
But even to ask the question regarding Covid vaxxes was to be labled an anti-science antivaxxer who wanted to kill grandma.
In which context we have myocarditis. Were it not for the atmosphere described in the previous graf, myocarditis as a possible side effect could be more sensibly considered. But, as usual, “what are they hiding?” The vaxxes’ EUA would have been voided if an effective therapeutic were available. Is that the reason HCQ and ivermectin were slagged and slandered and those suggesting them might even have professional difficulties? Hate to be paranoid, but prove that wasn’t the reason….
So we’ve gone from don’t even SPEAK about myocarditis to myocarditis isn’t that bad. Just a heart inflammation or something which usually goes away. Oh, yeah? It’s the freaking HEART, without which everything stops. Isn’t some concern justified?
At a certain stage in life, one expects–which is not entirely separate from “accepts”–that one is aging. Get up in the morning, query the various parts as to duty status. If there’s anything new, make a note to mention it to the doctor next time…when was that? anybody seen the calendar?–and maybe don’t note it because the stupid knee is acting up again. Does asymptomatic include you don’t notice it because other stuff is worse?
Since Covid is far more dangerous in the presence of various comorbidities, would it not be useful to try to figure out if the presence of myocarditis in the same folks is more, less, or about the same dangerous?
Given what we now know about Covid’s lethality, the vaccines’ efficacy, and now know about myocarditis, is the last a justified price for mitigating the first? Great question for hindsight. But this is Covid and the question is whether hindsight actually applied. What did they know in the beginning?
I suggest that, of practically any question of public interest one might think of, Covid is most affected by context and this context is the result of lies. That will never go away.
@neo:Nor would the study you propose in your second paragraph be a good one, at least not with the study design you describe.
You’d select matched groups out of each population.
In my insurance days people I worked with were always looking at our claims experience and saying that here’s a group who got X and and here’s a group who didn’t get X and look at how much better the X people did. Well, in every case I saw of these, the “benefit” was a function of how people were selected for X and not X itself.
Since we couldn’t experiment on people, and all we could do was look at what others had already done, a matched group would be about the only good way to determine if X made a difference. It has to be done very carefully by people who know what they are doing, of course, and even they don’t always get it right… in the end I insisted that if we wanted to do studies like that we had to hire people who were experts or we’d just be expensively fooling ourselves…
@Richard Aubrey:one might ask when the last time was anybody said anything about side effects of routine vaccinations we’ve done for generations. Is it possible there are none?
Not at all. But nobody looks.
Are you kidding? If you search “side effects of routine vaccinations” you’re going to find a lot of people looking at and talking about them. Why on earth would you say “nobody looks” with a straight face?
This really troubles me that you would post what you did and not do thirty seconds of searching.
From CDC, “Possible Side Effects from Vaccines”
Any vaccine can cause side effects. For the most part these are minor (for example, a sore arm or low-grade fever) and go away within a few days. Listed below are vaccines licensed in the United States and side effects that have been associated with each of them. This information is copied directly from CDC’s Vaccine Information Statements (VISs), which in turn are derived from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for each vaccine.
Underneath that is a list of every routine vaccine and its known side effects. For example, the DTap that little kids get includes SEIZURES and DEATH:
What are the risks from DTaP vaccine?
Soreness or swelling where the shot was given, fever, fussiness, feeling tired, loss of appetite, and vomiting sometimes happen after DTaP vaccination.
More serious reactions, such as seizures, non-stop crying for 3 hours or more, or high fever (over 105°F) after DTaP vaccination happen much less often. Rarely, vaccination is followed by swelling of the entire arm or leg, especially in older children when they receive their fourth or fifth dose.
As with any medicine, there is a very remote chance of a vaccine causing a severe allergic reaction, other serious injury, or death.
How can you say, sir, with a straight face, that no one studies or talks about this when the freakin’ CDC that pushes vaccinations has it prominently on their freakin’ website?
Now do climate change.
@Cornhead:Now do climate change.
Not sure if this is directed at me or not, but it’s a pretty pure example of “sideism”. Whatever is going on with vaccines rests on entirely different evidence, and is real or not, regardless of who told what lie about COVID or climate change or any other thing ever said by a Dem at any point. Reality is going to horsewhip you if you insist on using your perception of what “side” someone is on to judge whether what they say might be true.
If I’ve got your intent wrong, kindly explain what you really meant.
Sideism, and Unipartyism, and Globetrotterism. They just keep coming.
Frederick.
Okay. Let’s put it this way: You have to search which almost nobody does and the subject never arises when vaccinations are encouraged. Not, as I say, when advertising on television for a treatment for, say, plaque psoriasis.
Yes, the information is available but for purposes of public acceptance may as well not exist.
Ask the next ten people whom you know who are not in the medical field if they know what the side effects are, or if they’d ever heard of anybody talking about them. Or if it had occurred to them to look.
And prior to the internet, it would have required quite a bit of effort–talk to a doctor which few of us do very often, ditto pharmacist who may or may not know, get to a decent library. The average person, even if he thought about it, wouldn’t likely have bothered.
And what do you think is the public attention to the CDC website? And how many were looking at it before there was a CDC website?
Point to all this is that, I would bet, the vax purveyors depended on a similar lack of public interest in the subject. Once the dam broke, to the extent it really has, they needed to fight back.
That included switching to “it’s not that bad”, which may well be true. But, except for those who were really interested, to whom the question suggested itself, the lack of assertive public information effort looked like an effort to conceal.
And since the Bigs have lied and lied and lied, why would anybody believe them?
That’s the context.
I’m not a doctor, but I’ve read enough articles to decide that I will never take a mRNA vaccine.
@Richard Aubrey:You have to search which almost nobody does
Seriously?
I don’t think you are making any kind of effort to look for evidence to support anything you are saying. It’s one thing to not know, but it’s a totally other thing to refuse to look, and make all kinds of unsupported statements, and it’s a third thing yet to double down on refusing to look when called out on refusing to look.
And prior to the internet, it would have required quite a bit of effort…
25 years ago yes it was harder. The babies born that year got immunized, grew up, and had babies of their own which they also got immunized since that time, and were able to search for this stuff online if they wanted. In that time my wife and I had a baby and yes we learned all this stuff about vaccines at that time, not just online but also from childcare books and pediatricians.
the lack of assertive public information effort looked like an effort to conceal.
I guess they should have driven to your house and shouted in your ear, anything short of that is an “effort to conceal”? It’s very very strange to “conceal” things by making them easily available online to anyone who can type three words… much less is on all packaging and anyone having a child of course is probably seeing a pediatrician who will tell them and give them paperwork on it.
And since the Bigs have lied and lied and lied, why would anybody believe them?
Doubling down on the fallacy doesn’t make me more confident you have anything but the fallacy behind what you are saying.
Richard Aubrey:
Long before the COVID vaccine, there was a ton of controversy about vaccinations. Some of it was connected to the autism brouhaha, some was about other vaccines. But anti-vaxxers have been a thing for decades, perhaps more. People following these issues or curious about them have had tons of information available to them from both sides. The CDC has been upfront about certain rare complications for decades. No, they probably haven’t put up billboards about it, but it’s otherwise not only readily an easily available but has been part of public discussion.
And in particular, with COVID vaccines, the risks of myocarditis post-vaccination, particularly in young men, got a lot of publicity and the CDC put out information about how often it happened and how it usually is mild. And that remains true.
Occasional Commenter:
I have always supported the right of everyone to make the decision as they see fit.
Richard Aubrey:
Also, for many and perhaps even all of the shots I’ve gotten, I’ve had to sign a paper that lists the possible side effects.
neo, frederick, et al. I’ve signed the paper as well. But the point is…there is nothing like the tail end of the commercials on television ads.
If you want to be an anti-vaxxer, the information is available. If the idea doesn’t occur to you, as it does not to most people, there is little information outside the anti-vaxxers’ own efforts.
So for those who are interested, it is possible to find out. For those not interested, there is little easily available to spark the interest.
This is not the place to condemn the ordinary folks’ lack of curiosity and other moral failings. It’s the way things are and have been for many decades.
Thus the context in which the authorities “lied” about this as about everything else. Keep in mind this was not FDA approved, which many people knew and knew to be less thorough than the FDA’s imprimatur. The EUA looked like, “We’ll use this until it turns out we shouldn’t, and in the meantime quit talking about those stupid therapeutics.”
So it looks to most people as if NOW THEY TELL US.
When you were signing the paper for the shot, did you see anybody trying to read that tiny font? Nope, one more thing to do to get the shot. Happens all the time. Anything more involved than getting a wart removed.
I figured I was healthy enough, or perhaps kind of fatalistic, that either getting the shot and its possible follow-ons was about as threatening as getting the Wuflu was a fifty-fifty choice and some of my volunteer activities required I be shot, so to speak. So I did.
Got the crud anyway, a day’s URI and some home quarantine. Wasted the time for the shot and the risk, whatever it was/is of getting the shot.
Total waste. Should have flipped a coin.
Neo, what appears to be your continual efforts to minimize the real, severe, even life ending damage these experimental mRNA injections do is perplexing. I am starting to wonder if Phizer is supporting the costs of the blog. 😉
And it is vital that we use the proper language when talking about the shots. These are NOT vaccinations, in the sense of the word as we all know it, so comparing them to other vaccinations as far as harm v benefit is simply ridiculous.
Their filing with the SEC is correct–it is a genetic therapy. Given preemptively, in this situation, for an infection one MAY get later.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm
That is extremely important, because in that setting, ANY risk should never be tolerated. You are not preventing transmission; you are not creating herd immunity. There is no reason in the world to do any damage. The person getting Covid may well have been on of the 60% they knew of way back in spring 2020 who was antibody positive for infection and even on very close, leading questioning, had no recollection of ever being ill. Not even a runny nose.
CDC redefined the word vaccine in 2021, when it became clear they weren’t effective after the July Provincetown outbreak. 80% of those hospitalized had been “fully vaccinated” (injected twice w mRNA.)
(Side note–this is where we lost Alex Berenson from Twitter. By government “request.” (?decree? ?edict?) He Tweeted out the obvious–experimental mRNA shots didn’t prevent infection or transmission. So–not vaccines. He was also documenting the data from Israel showing the the more shots the more likely to get infected. The immune suppression effect.
Such DANGEROUS information for the masses to have!!!!!
Imagine if a majority of DOCTORS knew that–even OBs might have stopped telling pregnant women it was “safe and effective.” )
They do NOT reliably prevent infection–EVER. Not from day one, and by a few months out, they don’t even reduce it. (Why they demolished the control group when they did, probably. Less controls were getting Covid eight weeks out than the injected.) Nor do they reduce deaths. And it is abundantly clear at this point in time, that the more shots a person has received, the MORE likely one is to get infected–they DO suppress innate and cellular immune responses after shot three. The IgG3 and IgG4 balance flips.
The higher the chance of hospitalization, and the higher the chance of death. (This data has to come from other countries, because the CDC won’t release ours. That “possible vaccine hesitancy thing.” You know, they do know what is best for me and you.)
A good place to get a feel of what these injections do is Amy Kelly and Naomi Wolf’s detailed analysis of the Phizer data–data that was available before the injections were released; the data the FDA wanted to take 75 years to release—- to understand what has been documented as far as the real, undeniable harms they cause. To comprehend the enormity of what happened in the mass injection program. What has happened to far too many young people, who had almost no risk from this virus.
https://www.amazon.com/DailyClout-Documents-Analysis-Volunteers-Reports-ebook/dp/B0BSK6LV5D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3FP1YVNQ3I5NS&keywords=amy+kelly+naomi+wolf&qid=1690579413&sprefix=amy+kelly+naomiwolf%2Caps%2C297&sr=8-1
Your take on myocarditis is novel. There is nothing about even a subclinical episode of myocarditis that is in any way trivial. Our hearts are not like our livers or a kidney, where you can knock out a hunk of it and simply carry on with what is left and never look back. Your assertion that a lack of symptoms means the heart damage–from the myocarditis done by the injections as documented by the Swedish study showing cellular damage –is insignificant is what is completely without basis.
We don’t know that. It depends what specific cells got damaged; what cells are lost.
The symptoms can well be minor, but the damage can be ultimately fatal.
NOBODY knows what comes of this cardiac damage at the cellular level–because it has never been examined in a prospective fashion before.
(There’s never been reason to do so–no vaccination–or any ongoing therapeutic– has ever cause this number of cases of myocarditis. Or a fib. They do that too. MIs as well. (Strokes, PEs, neuropathy…)
These researchers didn’t pull myocarditis out of the air to examine–say, compared to renal damage.)
There’s no long term follow up of what happens when a person has what you are calling subclinical myocarditis, so you cannot be correct in saying it is not an issue.
To say it isn’t a problem is a wish, one I do share, but it is not a fact.
Time will tell what becomes of these people (assuming there is follow up. That costs money. It’s not the sort of thing Phizer will be funding. All kinds of things that I’d have thought would be studied–just seeing which of us frontline people became infected, for one— never got examined.)
Dr. Steven Gundry DOES have the data that you say doesn’t exist. He presented that data in fall 2021 —before boosters got mandated in many colleges–from his patients, showing the increase in cardiac and endothelial inflammatory markers AFTER they were injected with their second mRNA shot.
He had his patients’ baselines from before injection. (His is a preventative practice, based on data.)
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
I would think he has patients in his practice who never got injected, so they could serve as a control population in a retrospective analysis.
An experienced physician (one who can, that is–may need to be self employed ) will tell you that ANY cardiac damage is a concern, especially in light of the well documented increase rate of a fib in injected people, and the huge increase in sudden death in previously healthy young people.
The forty per cent increase death rate in Q3 and Q4 of 2021 in working people 18-64 confirmed by the Society of Actuaries, which has remained elevated through 2022, has not been explained.
The concern that even subclinical, transient myocarditis is a problem is because of the number of young people who are experiencing MIs or dying with exertion or in their sleep.
Might there be long term damage done to the conduction system, or even just a few cells, that sets them up for a fatal arrhythmia? A real–and valid –concern. That is what happens in scarred hearts, something long known.
My advice to the young people, to anyone who has been multiply injected: do NOT ignore any symptoms of cardiac issues.
Chest heaviness; left arm, jaw, facial or ear pain; “heartburn” or indigestion; “funny” heartbeats. Even fatigue.
And no, sadly, thirty is NOT too young to have an MI . Even 19.
We are seeing them.
Somewhere along the way, “First do no harm” got skipped when this experimental mRNA got authorized for general use–which it is NOT in most of the first world.
An Israeli study of 196,992 adults shows there is almost no myocarditiis or pericarditis associated with Covid infections. (0.0046% and 0.0056%, virtually identical as that in a general control population).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
There is at this at time point in time no documented proof of benefit of multiple injections this product for anyone for the current variants in circulation that I can find.
The data actually shows the opposite.
I am no fan of lawfare, but in this case–let the class action suits begin!
(I know about the indemnification as a result of being included on the childhood schedule which now exists; I have read though that the deliberate misrepresentation of the data–such as the cases of infection in controls being less–will void that protection.)
I have sadly learned over in the past three years how the German physicians came to do what they did in the 1930s and ’40s.
I think it was RFKj who I heard make a comment along these lines:
“We wondered who it was who would load their neighbors in boxcars. It was people just like us.”
Which I take to mean–we all have the capacity.
Maybe what we really ought to look into is what made people NOT participate, to prescribe effective outpatient therapy under threat of losing their licenses, to stand on the steps of The Capitol to speak out after they had been censored by the government, to lose their jobs and practices and continue to speak THE TRUTH. (Not THEIR truth; what they are saying is true.
It is THE STATE that is still trying its best to keep it from people.
Ignore that at your peril.)
lee wastes everyone’s time after proclamining that no level of risk is acceptable with the Covid 19 vaccines.
After that grand assertion the rest is moot. Because the risk from Covid 19 was minimal, eh lee?
I’m beginning to doubt that ANYBODY changes their mind in ANY way due to an argument;
==
The problem is that the topic attracts obsessives who are haphazard in their selection of source materials, often don’t have the tools to engage critically with the literature, and are emotionally invested in one conclusion or another. It’s like the Kennedy assassination as a topic.
==
One thing you can say is that the vaccines proved to resemble flu shots. Manufacturers need to update them every season, a great many people get sick anyway, and the illness they’re meant to combat is a nuisance problem for all but a few.
==
What was bizarre was the way taking the vaccine and following certain treatment programs were incorporated into the cultural left’s ongoing series of status games, some of them quite abusive.
after three years, they should have data, showing the benefits of said vaccines, yet they don’t the data from swiss, israel and a dozen other places suggest the converse, add to that the way we know tests for hcq and ivm were sabotaged or censored in some way, the reservations of doctor malone, who is a pioneer in said technology,
https://substack.com/inbox/post/135582273