@Inflamed_Heart_Liberal's banner p

Inflamed_Heart_Liberal


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:30:11 UTC

				

User ID: 648

Inflamed_Heart_Liberal


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:30:11 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 648

The vaccines are dangerous precisely because we are analyzing and looking for hidden harm, after we already administered a billion doses without fully understanding the consequences and outcomes.

mRNA cardiovascular toxicity is a severe problem and if it's at all likely, the hammer should drop. This "blip" is an 18 year old about to get mandated with mRNA bivalents before going to a community college.

No there's a meaningful legal, judicial, and regulatory framework surrounding those vials. And the public health vaccination campaign.

1 in one million, compared to 1 in 100,000, in our current data collection environment, is a good signal to keep track of if you are considering your options to receive a covid-19 vaccine. Perhaps you can take J&J, Novavax, or Covaxin and maintain protection against SARS-2.

The IFR is lower and vaccines are not denting hospitalization or death rates as they plummet from their previous heights (mass naïve infection). Most people have had a much better inoculation than a monovalent vaccine - they've had a SARS-2 infection.

Do you plan on explaining why or are you just going to make assertions?

Well, because a stroke as a cardiovascular event, I'm interested in the dynamic between mRNA vaccination and your cardiovascular system. A stroke, downstream of pathology, will offer valuable information when it goes above the baseline.

It's entirely possible to build towns and cities that don't require you to drive literally everywhere....A minuscule improvement in civil design would save orders of magnitude more lives than eliminating all risk from vaccines, with lots of other positive side effects to boot.

Well, you are demanding rigor, and yet I feel like this is a complex claim. Even a city would involve having people driving to bring supplies and transportation towards these centers - a mandatory risk.

We should be paving our public serology with only the best, most well understood vaccines that we are capable of developing and testing and passing on in our limited lifetimes. There is a broader umbrella of rigor that I am requesting to be frank.

A lot of the rigor I'm demanding will also take time, more time than has been allotted for these Bivalent updates. The first injectable, multi-transcriptional (unknown if combined or separated) mRNA vaccine to market has shown an unexpected safety signal.

Agreed. I personally have a high esteem for many people on both sides of the issue - that's what makes this query so incisive and important.

Well, let's say you did not want to take the vaccine, and you were mandated to take it. You could choose either J&J, mRNA, Novavax, or even fly overseas to get Covaxin. You may begin debating at that point.

mRNA vs. Other vaccines is a very difficult topic, because defanging a countries ability to give mandated vaccines is bad, but mandating vaccines that are bad isn't good. In fact, perhaps extreme caution should be taken based on the prior.

It's an EUA vaccine approved for an emergency. I think if you want to say "legitimately safe vaccine," it would be easier if Pfizer or Moderna could actually distribute an FDA approved and LABELLED as approved "Comirnaty" or "Spikevax" vial of vaccine.

Yes, they say it's unlikely - but it's possible. SO now that we've established, it is unlikely, but possible that the vaccine can cause harm (which is occult and being undetected in other countries - if this possibility fleshes out).

No change in vaccination practice is recommended

The vaccination process will still be based heavily on a paradigm that humans MUST avoid circulating respiratory pathogens, yet if they must get infect, their best course of action is to take EUA vaccine (of which options are limited and you still cannot acquire an FDA approved and labelled vial of vaccine), at any age. They have said, the possibly the vaccine has a problem is not worth their time changing their public health campaign goal.

The evidence they cite is:

They do not submit any evidence regarding the monovalent vaccine. Yet the bivalent has the same synthetic mRNA transcripts as monovalent. Do we even know if bivalent mRNA is transcribed as a single strand, or seperated into two seperate mRNA molecules?

Not seeing any reason to get vaccinated for omicron, at almost any age or health, with an mRNA vaccine. We need a diversity of vaccines in this country, since efficacy is going to eventually drop for each mRNA boost.

I am much more worried about real, physiological implications of nanoparticle technology uptake. Not simple safety standard concerns (those already seem tattered).

Why? This seems to me like you picked "an order of magnitude safer than what it allegedly is" and if the alleged rate of danger were different, you would have picked a different goal.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35653-z

Here's one estimate. I would never base policy on one study, usually that's something the CDC would do.

I find these numbers to be particularly confusing in light of how dangerous COVID itself is. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext#seccestitle140 says that at age 65, the IFR for COVID is about 1.7%

This is data from a year ago. We are talking about how the bivalent booster is associated with ischemic strokes, especially held against the risk of omicron.

And according to https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm, the baseline rate of ischemic stroke in the US is slightly over 2 per 1,000 people, again much higher than the alleged risk of the vaccine.

Let's stick to relative risk? This is not useful.

Driving is dangerous.

Agreed. But we have to go places, like schools, small business, and our places of worship. So no one proposes stopping driving. I'm proposing stopping the EUA novel biotechnology vaccination campaign.

CDC has released a report today finding preliminary association between the Pfizer vaccine and stroke for those over 65 years of age.

Another drop in the bucket - or is the bucket spilling out the top now?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/bivalent-boosters.html

Following the availability and use of the updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccines, CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a near real-time surveillance system, met the statistical criteria to prompt additional investigation into whether there was a safety concern for ischemic stroke in people ages 65 and older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent.

Pfizer is associated significantly with strokes - CDC is keeping us in the dark about the exact data.

This preliminary signal has not been identified with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent. There also may be other confounding factors contributing to the signal identified in the VSD that merit further investigation. Furthermore, it is important to note that, to date, no other safety systems have shown a similar signal and multiple subsequent analyses have not validated this signal:

They then list multiple studies that did not replicate this finding for the BIVALENT vaccine - well of course, this vaccine was testing on mice, and then deployed without long term testing. Do they have monovalent data they are not mentioning?

EDIT: Is it possible monovalent risk benefit analysis is simply using a different pathogen, and now with the advent of Omicron, this is a medical update saying this level of strokes is no longer worth the benefit vs the current pathogen? Food for thought.

No change in vaccination practice is recommended.

This contradicts what Paul Offit's opinion is, which was posted in the NEJM. Paul Offit believes we should not give bivalent boosters to young healthy patients.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780

It would be much more shocking to announce a chance to the vaccine campaign, than to keep the current inertia the same. I think we are seeing a communication strategy developing to deliver the population into accepting yearly mRNA vaccines - instead, they will be directed to other worthwhile candidates for vaccination - IF pharma companies can even deliver those.

In my eyes: mRNA vaccines are dangerous, so you need to determine how dangerous the pathogen presenting is. I see a great use case for mRNA developing for Airborne Ebola Zaire strains (90% mortality) or other disease of similar magnitude. Simply put: your vaccine should not significantly increase cardiovascular risk. It should be absolutely negligible. 1 in a million, whereas these vaccines might be 1 in 100,000.

Fair, and yet here we are, 1/11/2023, and somehow there is disinterest in important Covaxin to increase the vaccination rate. All because they can't say "we have the real ones now."

Have you seen booster update? pitiful. This is the future for mRNA when held in a free and open market next to protein-adjuvanted vaccines.

Also - don't forget that development of inactivated vaccines seems to have been halted in its tracks, and Covaxin rejected by the FDA because "we have vaccines already."

Of course, the market would prefer a vaccine that is 100 times safer than mRNA style, but the FDA helped embargo any protein vaccines.

I literally think the FDA blocked conventional vaccines, to make sure no "anti-vaxxer" could score a win by being hesitant until a better vaccine is available - a total cluster for people trying to paint anti-vax as anti science, if they line up to accept a conventional vaccine. Will they now? Probably not.

Since you can die suddenly from dysrhythmia after vaccine induced myocarditis, we need to reevaluate where we are in this campaign. This was not known at the EUA authorization in 2020.

Everyone in the myocarditis study was not a young male. It just proves, that sudden death after vaccination can be downstream from the very "well understood" and "mild" myocarditis that the vaccine is associated with.

You are tricking out old Covid morbidity statistics against your best possible analysis of mRNA. For the right age group, you could see a 1 in 2,000 risk of heart damage.

Anyone who's heart stops after vaccination, could have died from the vaccine. The vaccinators did not study the vaccine long enough to even know this until part-way through the campaign, when it became "a known issue that doesn't hold up."

A lot of people had investment in mRNA stopping transmission, and that was why this rare side effect of "some heart damage to young people" was being hand waved. During the "we are getting herd immunity phase," It seemed like you would accept any risk to young patients to stop community spread. That's concept has collapsed, and you're trying to say that the vaccine is only somewhat as deadly as the disease you are actually trying to vaccinate against!

5 per 100k, 150 in 100k. Think of ALL the unreported covid cases that were mild or asymptomatic. You are showing me the best possible rate of myocarditis, and it holds up next to a disease. That's not great vaccine, even if you think an 85 year old in 2020 should have obviously received it (and then it wore off by mid 2021).

Thanks. I read all your comments.

You are detecting partisanship, as well as someone who was mandated. This is a huge deal for me. I cannot thank you enough for engaging me, it's extremely difficult to find people to debunk my own thought etc. I think you make a lot of good points and it will help me moderate as I look forward to further evidence.

I think some developments are going to vindicate me in the future, and a lot of your objections are well placed to defuse my ability to make claims at this current time. Until then, I unfortunately am bubbling with some vitriol.

Opinions I cannot prove to you the way you'd like:

Covid is safer than they can possible report.

The vaccine is more dangerous than they can ever possibly report.

Maybe take a gander:

This study finds a 1 in 100,000 death rate for the vaccine.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35653-z

Thought it was interesting, if you have not yet seen. Thanks again and have a good one.

Among the 35 cases of the University of Heidelberg, autopsies revealed other causes of death (due to pre-existing illnesses) in 10 patients (Supplementary Table 1). Hence, these were excluded from further analysis. Cardiac autopsy findings consistent with (epi-)myocarditis were found in five cases of the remaining 25 bodies found unexpectedly dead at home within 20 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

5/25

Well, this is not the statistical smoking gun I want per say.

So of 35 sudden deaths, 10 were other causes. And then of 25 sudden deaths, 5 were found to have thee abnormality. They were looking for sudden deaths from myocarditis and they found it.

Who knows. We basically agree in a bunch of domains, I just think it's still not possible to say this is a disproportionally unimportant issue.

That hardly explains why the same lymphocytes at the deltoid vaccine site were found in the cardiac tissue. It was a specific immune related reaction.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=j_DdSMn55cA&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell

Here's Mr. Campbells exploration. If you're looking for more.

Yes, the evidence is the nature of how effective natural immunity is compared to the vaccine induced immunity, which wanes. You will receive the protection of the vaccine, and more, if you get natural immunity, therefore your next encounter will have a reduced magnitude compared than if you had just the vaccine alone.

I feel like you're fishing for exact, quantitative data - I need you to be patient as data about our current times is collected. I'll have evidence to back up thr natural immunity claim in the future, just like we saw develop in 2020-2022. This is a developing emergency, that the vaccine has had some malfunction / additional risks of heart problems that are only being discovered recently. I wish I had the long term data of our developing vaccine emergency NOW, but that's simply not an option. I'm happy you agree with my overall hypothesis though.

There is no experimental research finding heart damage in cadavers after receiving ibuprofen. Only mRNA. Not terrifying to me.

I would take another look at the study. There was cellular evidence that these cadavers could have had a dysrhythmia from the mRNA associated lymphocyte aggregation in the myocardial tissue. Not causal but pretty convincing.

Fair. But during a period of intense censorship, a diffuse cloth of similar anecdotes and experiences actually ended up with some evidence and studies to confirm. Take the myocarditis risk, as well as possible sudden death from myocarditis, being proved experimentally. (check my post history if you interested in link)

Understood - I felt like it was wrong. I was blocked by aaa, I'm assuming because it was inconvenient to his argument or annoying.

I still find it odd that people skip over like this study doesn't exist, as it keep bubbling into all these tertiary debates about the possibility of vaccine sudden death.

Feels like an influx of a persuasion hit the board. Which I welcome, frankly.

Stopping immediately.

Um no.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/

Here's a scientific paper showing there is a special link between mRNA and sudden death. Why would the right not be interested in the counternarrative developing? It's a smoking gun.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/

Check out this study - you can do an autopsy and link sudden death to mRNA myocarditis. This should help you understand a bit more why such a rare risk is worth your time.