Jump to content
KHashmi317

Vaccine risks, injury and related topics

Recommended Posts

Nice t-shirt also ;-), but some more serious stuff hereafter:

The NIPH calculate that for women in Norway aged 18-50, it would be more risky to get vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine, compared to waiting for an mRNA shot. https://sciencenorway.no/covid19-virus/norwegian-expert-committeecountry-should-not-use-astrazeneca-or-the-johnson-johnson-vaccines/1858821 #AstraZeneca #JohnsonandJohnson #COVID19Vaccination
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a general consensus here to get vaccinated??

 I am scheduled for the first dose of Pfizer tomorrow but concerned that there are no long-term results in humans )obviously) yet.  I am considering waiting a bit longer and/or possibly wondering how Johnson &Johnson might compare for safety.  It is approved for use in Canada but I would have to wait for possibly much longer for j&j.

Saul - you are pleased with Pfizer?!?!

any further thoughts on that particular type?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm delighted with Pfizer.  I had my second shot on Feb 2.  No problems, except for a mildly sore arm after the second shot.

The Spring semester here at UR started on Feb 1.  I always teach in person; and I sometimes forgot my mask.  My in-person students were grateful to have a prof. who wanted to teach in them directly.

  --  Saul

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2021 at 3:59 PM, Clinton said:

Is there a general consensus here to get vaccinated??

I am all for it, Clinton. While the mRNA vaccines have been sped through the trials, there are a lot of people who have already received them with relatively minor issues, and based on what I know and understand, there isn't much of a realistic danger of long-term detrimental effects. Hey, I jumped into a trial of a vaccine not even approved yet...

So, I hope you had a good shot :)

On the other hand, if I had my choice of a shot right now, I'd probably chose the J&J one, as I am not a young woman and the risks to me are probably close to zero, and it is based on a tried and true technology and thus there are none of the long-term questions lingering about the mRNA vaccines.

Plus, in terms of absolute risk reduction, the J&J (and the AstraZeneca, as well as Moderna's) vaccine is actually pretty damned good compared to Pfizer's, a fact which is completely ignored by the media:

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room

"Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2021 at 9:28 PM, KHashmi317 said:

Chris is back!!

Thanks for the video. I listened to it and found it informative.

I was also glad to hear someone finally bringing up the absurdity of the Covid-deaths numbers, in view of the CDC's guidelines and Fauci's pronouncements, which drove much of it.

There is virtually no media coverage of the evolution of the CDC's PCR test cycle guidelines, which despite numerous challenges remained at >40 cycles until just about the time of Biden's entry into the White House. Then they were quietly lowered and Fauci suddenly opined in an interview that any test with a cycle threshold of >35 was "useless." And now, the official guidance is stealthily set at 28 cycles.

Yes, as the video notes, the cycle threshold would significantly impact the number of official "Covid deaths," even if we ignore the midstream "probable" adjustments. Back in the summer of 2020, Michael Levitt noted the stupidity of PCR testing and quipped that if we did influenza testing on this scale, we would count the same absurd number of deaths. And this comment is still valid.

Yes, we have excess deaths in the US (and Sweden doesn't) for 2020, but there was a 40% drop in people seeking help for heart attacks and strokes. Add to it the deferred cancer treatments and tests, the increase in suicides and drug overdose, and therein we can find an explanation for a good portion of these excess deaths.

But nobody in the media appears to be interested, because it certainly conflicts with the political narrative of how important were the lockdowns imposed by our "true leaders." Or, why crashing the economy, and all the deaths from deferred treatments caused by the fear spread by the Left and the media, were necessary to save us from "over 2 million likely Covid deaths."

If they repeat it often enough and censor and cancel those who question or disagree with the narrative, in a decade it will be taught in first grade that 500+ thousand died only because of the Republicans, and movies and Netflix series will be made to affirm it. And Cuomo will still be governor.

Done with the rant. Phew!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clinton!

Ignore Ron's vaccine rankings -- take whatever Covid-19 vaccine that is available to you.

IMO, for those who understand the mechanisms, the MNRA vaccines are safest. 

The best tests are the ones done on humans -- and a huge number of humans have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines -- and they are not getting sick.

But to the best of my knowledge, all of the many vaccines have been effective.

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2021 at 9:08 AM, Saul said:

Ignore Ron's vaccine rankings -- take whatever Covid-19 vaccine that is available to you.

IMO, for those who understand the mechanisms, the MNRA vaccines are safest.

Saul, I believe that you misinterpreted my post. I stated that all vaccines are sufficiently safe in my personal opinion, based on reports and data that I have seen. I also strongly believe that one is better off being vaccinated.

What I pointed out is that there is a prevailing misunderstanding between "efficacy" and "effectiveness" and the media and even health professionals incorrectly tout Pfizer's product as the "best," based on this misunderstanding.

As the Lancet article I cited points out, while all currently available vaccines are very effective at preventing complications and death, the large advantage implied by the widely cited "efficacy" numbers of 95% for Pfizer and 67% for J&J and AstraZeneca do not reflect the absolute risk reduction effect, which is weakest in Pfizer's product and higher in the J&J and AstraZeneca products. This is a fact, even if for practical purposes all of the vaccines are very good at preventing death.

The reason that I would choose the J&J or AstraZeneca products, all other things being equal, is that they employ technology that does not come with long-term unknowns. I understand the basic mechanism by which mRNA vaccines work and I personally would be comfortable with the potential risks. But the fact is that the average vaccine traditionally approved takes approximately a decade of continuous trials, largely to ensure that there are no unforeseen long-term effects. While we have millions already vaccinated with mRNA vaccines and while we can say that they are largely safe, it does not know that we know with certainty that no issues may arise in a decade. To reiterate, I am not saying that there would be issues, or that there is a reason to believe that there would be, based on current knowledge -- all I am saying is that despite the nonsense relating to the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, we know a lot better what their long-term risks are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron!

 China's dictator doesn't  agree with you:  Chairman Ping criticized Chinese vaccine makers for using the traditional viral vector method to find vaccines; he essentially ordered them to work on the new novel MRNA vaccines.

Who am I to disagree with Ping?

😀

All kidding aside, IMO the two Turkish immigrants to Germany who recognized the possibility of developing these vaccines (they went to Pfizer with their research, and Pfizer paid the development costs), should receive the next Nobel Prize in medicine.

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few studies you might be interested in. Personally, I think that almost all people should get vaccinated if they've not had an infection. However, I don't think people who have been infected and recovered should be stigmatized (as is currently the case it seems) for not having the vaccine - especially if young and healthy.

I think I can understand why people are being this way...  it could be people wanting to feel as if 'we're all in this together in getting the shot' and maybe if we say that natural immunity means strong protection, that may somehow encourage more vaccine hesitancy. However, we should be encouraged by all the studies coming out that show natural immunity does confer strong lasting immunity with reinfections being rare.

SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans

We demonstrate that S-binding BMPCs are quiescent, indicating that they are part of a long-lived compartment. Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against the S protein were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, we show that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune response in humans."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4


Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection
Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory. About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory. Thus, simple serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2. This work expands our understanding of immune memory in humans. These results have implications for protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and recurrent COVID-19."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response in Persons with Past Natural Infection

Whether or not persons who have already been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) should be vaccinated is unclear. Only a few studies have shown that vaccinees who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 had a significantly higher antibody response than previously uninfected vaccinees
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825

mRNA vaccination compared to infection elicits an IgG-predominant response with greater SARS-CoV-2 specificity and similar decrease in variant spike recognition

If I understand this study correctly, it's saying, in part, that vaccines generate a much more specific response whereas natural infection may protect against more variants.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254952v1

Edited by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy

May 28, 2021

"The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies. However, the observation ended before SARS-CoV-2 variants began to spread, and it is unknown how well natural immunity to the wild-type virus will protect against variants.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2780557?guestAccessKey=5799e489-35eb-4fc7-8c11-67e793e3a89f&

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A discussion of the compelling large and growing body of evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin for both prevention and treatment of covid-19.  Recognition of Ivermectin as a solution to the pandemic however eliminates the need for proceeding with a much more expensive and risky mass vaccination campaign...

https://player.fm/series/bret-weinstein-darkhorse-podcast/covid-ivermectin-and-the-crime-of-the-century-darkhorse-podcast-with-pierre-kory-bret-weinstein

Edited by Todd Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

A discussion of the compelling large and growing body of evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin for both prevention and treatment of covid-19.  Recognition of Ivermectin as a solution to the pandemic however eliminates the need for proceeding with a much more expensive and risky mass vaccination campaign...

https://player.fm/series/bret-weinstein-darkhorse-podcast/covid-ivermectin-and-the-crime-of-the-century-darkhorse-podcast-with-pierre-kory-bret-weinstein

Yeah ... I saw the video of this a few days ago on YouTube ... I've followed Kory and Weinstein for months. Not sure why this PROVEN treatment is being suppressed in the US (other than $$). 

Might want to watch this ASAP .... YouTube has a habit of disappearing  such content .... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn_b4NRTB6k

 

Edited by KHashmi317

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KHashmi317 said:

Might want to watch this ASAP .... YouTube has a habit of disappearing  such content .... 

Thanks, although  I stopped watching YouTube several weeks ago out of disgust with their censorship.  But I think this deserves a second listen and I'll make an exception to watch it there, if I can't find the video somewhere else.

Found it here on the FLCCC's site:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/covid-ivermectin-and-the-crime-of-the-century-podcast-with-dr-pierre-kory/

 

Edited by Todd Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is arguably the best overview I've seen of the rise and fall, and rise of Ivermectin around the globe:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest from Dr Bret Weinstein ... joined by:

Quote

Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology.
Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines.
Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist.
Bret talks to Robert and Steve about the pandemic, treatment and the COVID vaccines.

It's 3hr 16min long. If you got an mRNA vax, you may want to skip this video as it paints a depressing picture of potential hazards.

Anyway ... "enjoy"....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KHashmi317 said:

Anyway ... "enjoy"....

I think you have masochistic tendencies.  Shouty Steve Kirsch was painful to listen too.  If I was still on the fence and he was the sole source of info I might have rushed back to my doctor begging for the vaccine similar to how Ron Put so effectively stimulates visceral gut level fear of covid and vegetables.  But the sometimes under spoken Dr. Robert Malone engaged me on a more rational level forcing me to admit some merit in Steve's rants.  And I have increasing respect for Brett Weinstein and he is quite clear and precise in the positions he advocates.

Edited by Todd Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Shouty Steve Kirsch was painful to listen too.

Well ... maybe ... but if one is hard-core CR'd, not a lotta emotions get ramped up. So no "pain" on my end ;)  Kirsch made important, accurate points .... and was ENTERTAINING to see in action. In fact, the whole 3+ hour video was more engaging than anything Hollywood and Netflix is putting out these days.

Edited by KHashmi317

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another blow .... 

...

Bottom line:

If you got the mRNA jab, watch out for warnings .... and on top of that ... get your 8rs sleep FROM NOW ON ... get regular exercise FROM NOW ON ... and CRON from NOW ON, heavy on the restriction, heavy on optimal nutrition. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, KHashmi317 said:

Another blow .... 

And all this stuff has been published in peer-reviewed articles, has it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AlPater said:

And all this stuff has been published in peer-reviewed articles, has it?

This is neither a meaningful,  nor a productive question. Address the arguments made and if you disagree with specific points, show why you do.

I don't agree with many things Martenson says, but far from everything he says is wrong either.

Fauci was, in fact, playing politics and it appears that he privately did not believe in at least some of the politically imposed Covid-related mandates that he publically supported.  There appears to be some evidence to indicate that he may have been actively influencing the steering of the investigation of the Covid-2 origin. The Anderson email suggesting lab involvement, the undisclosed Fauci-Anderson conversation, and Anderson's subsequent 180-degree turn in Nature, and the $2 million NIH grant given to him shortly after the article are all things that should raise everyone's eyebrows. Neither The Lancet nor Nature should have published such opinion pieces, and should at least allowed rebuttals. But that pales with the unprecedented lockdowns that may have changed the course of history.

I am hoping that this will be looked at, as part of the US and EU investigation, as well as the WHO's role in adamantly supporting China's position and promoting its methods of containment. I also hope that this will not be swept under the rug, because if there are irregularities, they must be addressed at a structural level so that it doesn't happen again.

There are also real questions about the mRNA vaccines and I am glad to see that the CDC is holding an emergency meeting to address some of them. An Oxford study claimed that the mRNA vaccines have similar clotting effects to those identified in the AZ and J&J populations.

I don't subscribe to some the doom and gloom scenarios presented in some of the posts above, but the process and "the science" have been politicized enough to raise reasonable doubts and to merit an open discussion. Because the questions are real and must be addressed, not suppressed.

Allowing social media to delete such discussions, and allowing politicians and the media to cancel scientists, or bully science journals to publish, or refuse to consider, or retract politically unpopular research, is just wrong and it must be stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×