T O P
Edges8

lol most of these are just case reports on myocarditis or VITP. they actually even include the israel study that says 0.002% incidence if myocarditis with 95% of them being mild. nice lying headline!


SorrySilver5629

I can't believe reddit actually let you publish information that goes against the agenda. Maybe there's hope.


g0lbez

I wish these "agendas" on either side would just die in a fire already. Literally all people care about is that the side they're on is "right" instead of whatever the truth is.


Tazway68

The vaxxers won’t listen. They are sympathetic to the vaccine because they took the shots faithfully beleive IG the science. Now they have the poisonous Spike proteins in their system they can’t believe it can be lethal. They are sympathetic Vaxxers. They will never listen to facts or believe Omicron is spread by the vaccinated.


Shemilf

They are sympathetic towards the vaccine because it severely decreases mortality and infectivity. Just because a person can die in a car crash from choking by his seatbelt, doesn't mean seatbelt aren't clearly a good idea. Stopping a vaccine because 1 out of millions of vaccinated had a negative side effect which wasn't detected during trials (because of how rare it is) is stupid. It's so rare to the point where we know nothing about it, we haven't been able to find any association between the people who took the vaccine and what part of the vaccine caused it. We don't even know 100% for sure if this was really caused by covid vaccines.


Jimc91_Pres_Elect

>Stopping a vaccine because 1 out of millions of vaccinated had a negative side effect which wasn't detected during trials (because of how rare it is) is stupid. You may want to do a little more research before you make comments like this. Steve Kirsch has been researching this very topic in great depth and has published much information you may find interesting. [https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-to-verify-for-yourself-that-over](https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/how-to-verify-for-yourself-that-over)


Shemilf

I checked it but there is a flaw in his logic. 1. The study he used had 2,5/10.000 participants experiencing SEVERE reactions to the vaccine, not death. When calculating deaths he used that number to calculate the URF, which is wrong. He was supposed to use the death rate from that study. 2. The study mentioned that other similar studies had 0,025 - 0,11/10.000 participants experiencing severe reactions , instead of 2,5/10.000 from this one. So what is the explanation behind it? The study mentioned they used 4.000 people (6% out of the total 65.000 participants) that already had severe food and drug allergies. 30% of the participants already had a history of negative reactions to vaccines/drugs. So this study overly represents people with negative reactions to see the effect of the COVID vaccines on such people (which isn't wrong as long as you disclose it, knowing how much it affects people with such conditions is also important). So he basically used medical papers with inflated numbers of vaccine side effects since the point of this paper was to see how much the vaccine impacts such people. This paper isn't representative of the actual population that has such reactions. (They also mentioned that they used data from medical staff since finding such a large number of people with such problems is difficult) 3. He mentioned that vaccine related death is now 9.000 (2.000 of those had COVID symptoms), 2° largest was in 2009 (223 deaths). This is possible because the number of vaccinations this year far exceeds the total number of vaccinations that were done in 2009.


Jimc91_Pres_Elect

>The study mentioned that other similar studies had 0,025 - 0,11/10.000 participants experiencing severe reactions , instead of 2,5/10.000 from this one. So what is the explanation behind it? You should consider contacting and take him up on his offer: There is so much to talk about. Here’s a partial list. I offered $1M up front to the members of the FDA and CDC outside committee to just sit down with me for a Q&A session. Nobody accepted. I guess they don’t want to talk about any of these issues. And don’t worry, the press will never ask them any of these questions! Slide decks Vaccine essentials (source slides) Vaccine policies (source slides) All you need to know (source slides) 180 questions about the COVID vaccines that nobody wants to answer (slides PDF, slides source) Vaccine safety We have 8 different ways showing the vaccines have killed over 150,000 Americans so far. How can all 8 methods be wrong? How come nobody took my $1M offer for finding an error in Crawford’s analysis? Do I need to increase the amount? After all, everyone knows it must be wrong so it’s an easy $1M for someone. We don’t get it. The CDC says nobody has died from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Surely, you can’t believe that, can you? Peter Schirmacher showed without a doubt that at least 30% to 40% of the deaths within 2 weeks after vaccination were caused by the vaccine. Someone is lying. Do you have an expert more qualified than Schirmacher who claims he’s wrong? Why were there 4X as many cardiac arrests in the treatment group than the placebo group in the clinical trial. The VAERS data shows very clearly a 450X increase in cardiac events post vaccine. Isn’t it possible that those deaths could have been caused by the vaccine? How was that possibility ruled out? Dr Toby Rogers found we’ll kill 117 kids for each kid we save from COVID. Is this acceptable? Did he get it wrong? How? What is the correct risk-benefit analysis that we should be using that shows this number? How come sports players are dying on the field at a rate 60 times higher than normal? The Pfizer data presented at the CDC meeting showed the VAERS data for myocarditis is at least 5X under-reported. How come the CDC hasn’t said anything? Doesn’t the new updated myocarditis rate then cause us to stop? Every physician we talk to says there are higher rates of everything post-vaccine than pre-vaccine. How is that possible? Can we see evidence that the rates of myocarditis is lower with COVID than the vaccine, e.g., from actual clinical practices? We’d love to see this data. What is the stopping condition for these vaccines? How many deaths are OK? Or does it even matter? So if we kill 10M people is that OK? Were you OK that the stopping condition was never defined for the vaccine? Is this the new way we do medicine now? ​ \++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ He is offering $1 Million to anyone that can prove him wrong but so far no person has taken him up. If your resume warrants a meeting with him you should consider it.


Tazway68

Well what if I told you that the Vaccines were only 1% real efficacy and not 95% Covid efficacy. [watch this video on how they calculated efficacy. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/comments/s3mf39/all_hail_the_95_and_chant_with_me_effi_cacy_effi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)


Shemilf

Yes only 0,85% got infected with COVID. But that depends on how they are doing the trial and the exposure of the virus they got. I can surround a person with severely ill COVID patients or I could put them into a room where an asymptomatic covid patient was for 15 min. That's why they look at the relative risk, how much lower is the risk of getting infected when getting the vaccine. • In the first example: - 100/200 non vaccinted people may get infected with COVID - 5/200 of the vaccinated people got infected with COVID => The relative risk is 95% lower when getting a vaccine (5/100 = 0,05 = 5%) • In the second example: - 40/200 non vaccinated got infected with COVID - 2/200 vaccinated got infected with COVID => The relative risk is still 95% lower when getting the vaccine (2/40 = 0,05 = 5%) The second trial is more preferred because it's not really a good thing to have people die during your trials. That's why most trials have such low death rates, they try to minimise the risk as much as possible but at the same time get the most accurate results. Extra info: • The efficacy rate is not the determining factor wether or not a vaccine gets approved, it certainly is important but not the only factor. It has to be worth it. If people don't get infected by a disease then why should there be a vaccine for it? In this case there is a reason for developing a solution (not specifically a vaccine). There are many other factors involved as well. • During such efficacy trials they can chose the type of trial group. They mostly consist of young relatively healthy men. When people control for quality they check the effectiveness when applied to people with health issues and even different types of the disease. (More diverse trial groups.) That also why Johnson and Johnson had a lower efficacy rate, they did their trials in multiple different locations which got exposed to different kind of varients of the virus.


Tazway68

Ultimately Covid is 99.9% recoverable and Omicron is Sweeping across the world and 10 times the original spread and it’s 85%less severe so 99.99% recoverable. I think Omicron is our last shot at herd immunity before a 5th and 6th variants show up to scare the shit out of the vaccinated. At this point we should be more afraid of the vaccines than Covid.


Shemilf

I'm not going to start a discussion about what "recoverable" means. But Omicron is only the first step to herd immunity. At the moment the COVID cases from our hospital still contain 15% of the delta variant. (The number of cases is increasing fast, but the amount in critical care is stable). The delta variant is unfortunately still able to stay in the fight against Omicron. We need to hope that the next variant is going to emerge from Omicron and that that variant isn't going to be more lethal than Omicron. (Omicron is still dangerous, but considerably less dangerous than delta. They're more infectious which can cause hospitals to overrun, but they do considerably less harm than Delta.)


JRM34

This article is a rather shallow discussion of vaccines. Nobody has ever said that deaths *don't happen*, they are an acknowledged but *exceedingly rare* side effect (true of virtually every medical intervention). Despite being about "over 1000 studies" the OP link cites less than 2 dozen. Of these many are case reports (aka detailed analysis of one or a few very rare complications). Nothing in the link gives evidence suggesting that the vaccines are not safe. Implications to the contrary do not agree with the data


qay_mlp

There is a link at the bottom with the full list of studies


LumpyGravy21

Fauci's buddy, Peter Daszak research grant proposal to receive government funds for his gain of function covid spike protein. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencey (DARPA) rejected the proposal for funding. Here it is, DRASTIC Analysis of the DEFUSE Documents https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/s4dvna/faucis\_buddy\_peter\_daszak\_research\_grant\_proposal/


JRM34

Relevance?


LumpyGravy21

"By no later than April 11, 2005, Dr. Anthony Fauci was publicly acknowledging the association of SARS with bioterror potential. Leveraging the fear of the anthrax bioterrorism of 2001, he publicly celebrated the economic boon that domestic terror had directed towards his budget. He specifically stated that NIAID was actively funding research on a “SARS Chip” DNA microarray to rapidly detect SARS (something that was not made available during the current “pandemic”) and two candidate vaccines focused on the SARS CoV spike protein.7 Led by three Chinese researchers under his employment – Zhi-yong Yang, Wing-pui Kong, and Yue Huang – Fauci had at least one DNA vaccine in animal trials by 2004.8 This team, part of the Vaccine Research Center at NIAID, was primarily focused on HIV vaccine development but was tasked to identify SARS vaccine candidates as well. Working in collaboration with Sanofi, Scripps Institute, Harvard, MIT and NIH, Dr. Fauci’s decision to unilaterally promote vaccines as a primary intervention for several designated “infectious diseases” precluded proven therapies from being applied to the sick and dying.9 The CDC and NIAID led by Anthony Fauci entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with EcoHealth Alliance Inc.) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences) through the 2014 et seq National Institutes of Health Grant R01AI110964 to exploit their patent rights. This research was known to involve surface proteins in coronavirus that had the capacity to directly infect human respiratory systems. In flagrant violation of the NIH moratorium on gain of function research, NIAID and Ralph Baric persisted in working with chimeric coronavirus components specifically to amplify the pathogenicity of the biologic material. By October 2013, the Wuhan Institute of Virology 1 coronavirus S1 spike protein was described in NIAID’s funded work in China. This work involved NIAID, USAID, and Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance. This work, funded under R01AI079231, was pivotal in isolating and manipulating viral fragments selected from sites across China which contained high risk for severe human response.10 By March 2015, both the virulence of the S1 spike protein and the ACE II receptor was known to present a considerable risk to human health. NIAID, EcoHealth Alliance and numerous researchers lamented the fact that the public was not sufficiently concerned about coronavirus to adequately fund their desired research.11" The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier [https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/8079569/The%20FauciCOVID-19%20Dossier.pdf](https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/8079569/The%20FauciCOVID-19%20Dossier.pdf) Just for fun here is some additional information: mRNA "Vaccines" Are Gene Therapy. May cause Undesirable Side Effects That Could Delay Or Prevent Their Regulatory Approval According To BioNTech SEC Filing [https://archive.is/K5rZw#selection-227.0-227.155](https://archive.is/K5rZw#selection-227.0-227.155) US Military Report States COVID-19 Was Created by a US-Funded EcoHealth Alliance Program at Wuhan Institute of Virology [https://archive.ph/K9UBZ#selection-517.8-517.127](https://archive.ph/K9UBZ#selection-517.8-517.127)


Standard_Carpenter51

I've never heard anyone in the mainstream come out and say that you might die from the vaccine, on the contrary all I've ever heard was that they're safe and effective. When you see your typical medical advertisement, it always lists off all the side effects because there are laws requiring this. When a TV personality or government official is selling the vax , they never tell you the risks. This should be illegal.


JRM34

>I've never heard anyone in the mainstream come out and say that you might die from the vaccine, on the contrary all I've ever heard was that they're safe and effective. You're literally told about potential side effects/adverse reactions when you go to get it, and required to stay for 15mins afterwards to monitor for potential allergic reactions. It sounds like you're expecting a talking head on TV to be giving you the medical details, but that is not the person responsible for knowing/explaining these things to you


Sirmalta

Right, every single medical treatment has a chance of some random adverse reaction. You dont see these morons raging against heart surgery or \*tylenol\*


ranting80

I would generally agree with you were these not being given to absolutely everyone and, in some cases, under duress. This means even rare side affects are showing up in large numbers simply due to the sheer volume of vaccinations. If one or two deaths previously would pull a treatment of the shelves, what metric do we use? What is the ratio of death to administration that we should use to determine safety? Simply being less lethal/adverse than the disease itself should not be the qualification.


JRM34

> What is the ratio of death to administration that we should use to determine safety? I can't answer that question because I'm not involved in that process, but there is a robust discussion of exactly that at every FDA approval meeting on the vaccines. That's exactly the question at the center of all those discussions, where to draw the line when balancing those questions. The answer is out there and you can probably find it, I just don't have the time to search it for you


Few_Paleontologist75

Sure - like I'd believe a source called 'truth unmuted'. Who believes this crap?


LumpyGravy21

Did you bother to look at the titles of the studies and what journals they were published in?