Anyone Have An Experience With Covid

For those interested in reading the actual results of the Moderna and Pfizer phase 3 trials, here are links to the research papers:

Pfizer — https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Moderna — https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

I am not confused. Fraiman manipulated the data from the trials to come up with the 1 in 800 number so you are posting misinformation.

I have posted links to both trials, please demonstrate where either of those trials state that “1 in 800 people taking the Jab end up having a life threatening experience and/or Serious long term adverse effects or both .. sometimes resulting in death.”

The truth is they don’t and you are posting false information that was presented by Fraiman after he took data from the two trials and manipulated it to come up the 1 in 800 number.

The only thing to do now is to admit that you are posting misinformation.

 

This is entertaining

CONCLUSIONS
A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728. opens in new tab.)



https://twitter.com/JanJekielek/status/1584019825927819265

"95% effectiveness. Stops transmission. Nope doesn't do that but is 90% effective at stopping hospitalization, oops not that either, how about 60% effectiveness? Anyone good with that?"

Pfizer has never lied to anyone before. Never!












"We had to move at the speed of science...uhm no, we never tested for transmission, blah blah blah!"

https://twitter.com/Rob_Roos/status/1579759795225198593

 

Amazing. 5 people hospitalized, 4 were vaccinated.

 

Look Friend . . I did not come up with the Definition for SAR .. "Serious Adverse Reaction" -- the Definition posted was from a Gov't of Canada Health site ..and you don't want to have this experience .. part of the definition includes "Death" and/or Life Treatening "Real as opposed to hypothetical" and/or long term permanent health issue ..

For example myocharditis represents the majority of SAR .. this reaction can cause death or serious risk .. life threatening situation .. but will always result in long term permanent damage to the heart.

Bottom line is that an SAR is not something to be desired . . not something you wish to go through willingly .. any more than playing Russian Roulette.

Your claim Fraiman took data from both the Moderna and Pfizer trials and manipulated this data is correct. In the Article published in the Journal Vaccine .. he took the Average SAR

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33., respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated

So .. for those not great at STEM - The Moderna SAR was 10.1 per 10,000 . the Pfizer SAR was 15.1 per 10,000

This works out to: Moderna 1 per 1000 people got an SAR and Pfizer - 1 in 666 people got an SAR. The average of which is 1 in 800. No false math here friend .. no retraction from the Journal "Vaccine" the claim to the contrary unsupported made up nonsense .. Please provide the SAR Moderna and Pfizer from your links .. backing up your claim that the numbers are different.

 

Correct on both. Deliberately conflating the "serious" nature of the reactions!

I have quoted these below as I believe every conspiracy theorist's first goal is to cover up any rebuttal that disproves their batshit claims.

Which we all know will never happen.

I'm wondering why conspiracy theorists are always afraid to be wrong as though it's something to be ashamed of! Quite clearly there is something really wrong with the data being manipulated by deceptive antivaxxers! They just completely ignore inconvenient facts and observations:

@Giftedone - But here's a question for you - try not to ignore it!

Since most people who receive full vaccinations rightly trust the process, do you think it more likely that they would attend a mass gathering such as this one (with more confidence) and that those non-vaccinated would probably think it prudent not to!?

Your answer to that will define what level of honesty you operate at. It is totally obvious that that observation is likely, so increasing the percentage of people within the infected group, way beyond the total fully vaccinated. The "study" has not taken that into account at all.

 

Here are some actual results from the Pfizer and Moderna papers.

From the Pfizer paper:

From the Moderna paper:

In fact, if you look at the supplementary tables from the Moderna paper, one can clearly see no significance differences.

The number of participants reporting serious adverse events was (overall data):

Placebo group: 153
mRNA group: 147

So, the participants who were receiving the PLACEBO reported MORE Serious Adverse Events

The number of serious adverse events (overall data):

Placebo group: 211
mRNA group: 207

Again the placebo group experienced MORE serious adverse events.

The biggest point here there was no significant difference between the two groups.

 

How disingenuous can you be? The Canadian definition of Serious Adverse Reaction/Event is:

I guess you forgot to include the following from the Canadian definitions:

Translation for those who seem confused — a person can have a real serious event after receiving a vaccine which threatens their life but whether the life threatening event is actually related to the vaccine can’t be automatically assumed.

What is ‘myocharditis’? If you are going to attempt to speak with some kind of authority at least get the name right and then get the actual information right.

You have just posted outright BS. Myocarditis is rare after vaccination and IT DOES NOT ALWAYS RESULT IN LONG TERM PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE HEART because investigation into post-vaccine myocarditis has been shown to be mild and full recovery is experienced.

So stop with the DRAMA of ‘Russian roulette’

From: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html

And From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ination-guidance-for-healthcare-professionals

Regarding Myocarditis

Are you not capable of looking at the data yourself from the links provided, there is a lot of data in the ‘Supplementary Material’ section at the end of the paper.

If you look at the both studies, you can clearly see within the papers and within the supplementary material that there were no significant difference between the reported SAR’s between the vaccine group and the placebo group. Let’s look at some of the results and stop the passive-aggressive crap of referring to me as ‘friend’.

In the Moderna study, in the Supplementary Materials, some examples of Serious Adverse Events that were reported by the team were Atrial Fibrillation, Pneumonia, and Pulmonary Embolisms

Atrial Fibrillation:
— Placebo Group = 5 reported
— Vaccine Group = 5 reported

Pneumonia:
— Placebo Group = 7 reported
— Vaccine Group = 5 reported

Pulmonary Embolism
— Placebo Group = 5 reported
— Vaccine Group = 4 reported

So, no significant differences and if you go to the Supplementary Materials, you can see this happening with all the SAE’s which is why they found no significance difference between the 2 groups. If the placebo group was reporting just as many severe adverse events, what does this suggest?

What you are disingenuously doing is totally ignoring the data for the Placebo group and so did that ninny Fraiman — if there is no significant difference between the groups, one can say that in the Moderna trial — approximately I per 1000 people in the vaccine group AND 1 per 1000 people in the PLACEBO group got a SAR. You say no ‘false math’ but you are totally ignoring the actual results of the Moderna trial and conveniently ignoring the lack of statistical difference between the 2 groups. Fraiman had to totally fudge the data for that. Anybody, with any kind of STEM knowledge could discern that if they looked at the Modern/Pfizer papers and then compare it to Fraiman totally ignoring the placebo vs vaccine group results.

You can also look at the data related to the 12 to 17 year old group in the Moderna study;

The proportion of participants who reported at least ONE serious adverse event were:

— 0.2% in the vaccine group
— 0.2% in the placebo group

There were 9 serious adverse events among 6 vaccine recipients which included appendicitis, diarrhea, vomiting, drug-induced liver injury, pectus excavatum, post-procedural fever, suicidal ideation, depression.

None of the SAE’s were considered to be directly related to the vaccine. So again, no statistical difference between the two groups and obviously the Serious Adverse Events could have occurred by chance in either group.

Will you stop posting FALSE and MISLEADING information.

YOU’RE WELCOME

 

Still getting reports of more a nd more health issues and it's all from the spike proteins of the unapproved as they call it vaccines.

Thery are NOT vaccines,,,,you are all rats in a trial....

Me 85 yrs and health is good, no way in hail will I listen to govt for my health,

 

Proof for any of that noise?

This below is the kind of post you should take notice of:

Perfectly reasonable request - bolding mine.

 

Holy Carp what a bunch of nonsense .. nothing I posted was false or misleading .. the definition of an SAR "Serious Adverse Reaction" as per the Canadian health site that you claim I ignored .. Was posted by me friend. So the only thing false and misleading is your comments about me.

Now that we are on the same page as per the definition of SAR = Nasty life threatening reaction and/or long term nasty consequences .. a bad trip one does not want to take .. far worse than "long covid" in terms of risk of harm.

According to the Phase III clinical Trials of Moderna and Pfizer .. the SAR was found to be 1 in 800 .. which is quite a high risk of harm .. especially relative to the risk of Covid to your average healthy person which was extremely low.

Funny you put it in Caps .. No problem on my end .. glad to assist in your education.

 

This is not the results of either the Pfizer of Moderna Phase 3 trials. You are quoting directly from Fraiman et al’s paper (see below) which is a secondary analysis of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s results. Somebody else could reanalyze the trial results and come up with totally different statistics. I have already explained in a post why Fraiman’s paper is biased.

Stop using the reanalysis presented by Fraiman et al to represent the findings of Pfizer and Moderna as Fraiman used the reanalysis to get the results he wanted. For Fraiman to make any definitive statements, he would have had to do trials like this himself and see what SAR’s were reported in a vaccine group compared to a placebo group.



As you can clearly see in both the results of Pfizer and Moderna, they stated no such thing. They clearly stated there was no significant difference between the vaccine group and the placebo group.

Pretty much everything you have posted is false and misleading misinformation. I have shown that over numerous posts and you have done nothing to actually show that I am wrong except to keep repeating the results presented by Fraiman where he reanalyzed the data to misrepresent the findings of the original trials. Not only that, Fraiman conflated his results with the vaccines are causing the SAR’s when in fact neither trial was dealing with causation. You have also repeatedly try to claim the vaccines directly caused the SAR’s and that is misinformation. I stand by the fact that you have been repeatedly posting misinformation and I challenge you to prove me wrong by doing more than repeating the numbers provided by Fraiman.

QUOTE="Giftedone, post: 1074597962, member: 50378"]Now that we are on the same page as per the definition of SAR = Nasty life threatening reaction and/or long term nasty consequences .. a bad trip one does not want to take .. far worse than "long covid" in terms of risk of harm.

According to the Phase III clinical Trials of Moderna and Pfizer .. the SAR was found to be 1 in 800 .. which is quite a high risk of harm .. especially relative to the risk of Covid to your average healthy person which was extremely low.



Funny you put it in Caps .. No problem on my end .. glad to assist in your education.[/QUOTE]

That is a poor refutation of the points I have presented which just shows you have no argument to refute them. In terms of the definition of a Serious Adverse Event, you don’t seem to be able to grasp that you can’t automatically conflate that the vaccines are causing the SAR’s. Of course, and a big DUH, that people don’t want to experience serious adverse reactions. If you want to disingenuously try to state that vaccines caused the SAR’s in the Moderna trial, consider the following. In the Moderna trial, the number of serious adverse events reported by the Vaccine group was 147. Does that mean the vaccine directly caused 147 serious adverse events. If you are prepared to claim that is true, then you also have to consider that 153 serious adverse events were reported by the placebo group. Does this mean that a placebo directly caused 153 serious adverse events? Please also explain why if there was no difference in number of serious adverse events between the two groups, why are you trying to state the vaccine is associated with SAR’s when the results don’t demonstrate this.

You keep mentioning the 1 in 800 figure which came from the Fraiman paper, not the phase 3 studies. Show where in either of the phase 3 studies the 1 in 800 result is mentioned. If you can’t, then you are posting misinformation. Perhaps show the part of the each study where Pfizer and Moderna stated that the vaccines directly caused the SAR’s.

The ONLY thing you have educated me on is how you don’t seem to understand the results or the purpose of the phase 3 trials, you certainly don’t understand the results, and you are using faulty data from a totally different research study to support your statements. You don’t seem to be able to refute anything I have said without posting the same erroneous data over and over. I think most of the members reading this thread can see that you aren’t refuting anything, and are constantly posting misinformation. It’s obvious you have nothing to refute the points I have made so why do you keep posting?

You definitely posted outright false information related to myocarditis as well.

I suppose your posts are an example of seeing cause and effect where there is none and you are using a faulty biased paper to support what you believe. It is also obvious that you are not considering the big consensus on the research. There is a huge amount of data from all over the world which agrees the vaccines are safe. When there are concerns — like myocarditis, researchers address the concerns and even if there is consensus that myocarditis is rare and mild, some, like yourself, still insist myocarditis is lethal despite reams of research saying otherwise.

If you want people to believe you, then refute what I have said, refute the consensus on vaccines by using actual research as opposed to one paper that just happens to support your views.

 

https://www.authorea.com/users/3378...vage-on-nasopharyngeal-viral-load-in-covid-19

Simple solutions for complex problems?

 

That is a poor refutation of the points I have presented which just shows you have no argument to refute them. In terms of the definition of a Serious Adverse Event, you don’t seem to be able to grasp that you can’t automatically conflate that the vaccines are causing the SAR’s. Of course, and a big DUH, that people don’t want to experience serious adverse reactions. If you want to disingenuously try to state that vaccines caused the SAR’s in the Moderna trial, consider the following. In the Moderna trial, the number of serious adverse events reported by the Vaccine group was 147. Does that mean the vaccine directly caused 147 serious adverse events. If you are prepared to claim that is true, then you also have to consider that 153 serious adverse events were reported by the placebo group. Does this mean that a placebo directly caused 153 serious adverse events? Please also explain why if there was no difference in number of serious adverse events between the two groups, why are you trying to state the vaccine is associated with SAR’s when the results don’t demonstrate this.

You keep mentioning the 1 in 800 figure which came from the Fraiman paper, not the phase 3 studies. Show where in either of the phase 3 studies the 1 in 800 result is mentioned. If you can’t, then you are posting misinformation. Perhaps show the part of the each study where Pfizer and Moderna stated that the vaccines directly caused the SAR’s.

The ONLY thing you have educated me on is how you don’t seem to understand the results or the purpose of the phase 3 trials, you certainly don’t understand the results, and you are using faulty data from a totally different research study to support your statements. You don’t seem to be able to refute anything I have said without posting the same erroneous data over and over. I think most of the members reading this thread can see that you aren’t refuting anything, and are constantly posting misinformation. It’s obvious you have nothing to refute the points I have made so why do you keep posting?

You definitely posted outright false information related to myocarditis as well.

I suppose your posts are an example of seeing cause and effect where there is none and you are using a faulty biased paper to support what you believe. It is also obvious that you are not considering the big consensus on the research. There is a huge amount of data from all over the world which agrees the vaccines are safe. When there are concerns — like myocarditis, researchers address the concerns and even if there is consensus that myocarditis is rare and mild, some, like yourself, still insist myocarditis is lethal despite reams of research saying otherwise.

If you want people to believe you, then refute what I have said, refute the consensus on vaccines by using actual research as opposed to one paper that just happens to support your views.[/QUOTE]

There is no need to refute the information you posted as it confirms what I told you 10-15 per 10,000 Serious adverse Reaction (SAR) .. which .. for those of us with math skills take the average of 12.5 per 10,000 = 1 in 800 ... just as I have been telling you all along.

The paper is neither faulty nor biased .. the numbers are what the are .. and if what you were saying was true .. it would not be published in the peer reviewed Journal Article .. in the Journal Vaccine.

You are talking total nonsense friend .. there is nothing wrong with the journal article .. which finds the same SAR as what you posted. .. you just having trouble understanding that 12.5 per 10,000 = 1 in 800 .. sorry I did not pick up on your confusion earlier.

No idea what you are claiming is a myocharditis falsehood .. what on earth are you talking about .. the majority of the Severe Adverse Reactions from the Jab is myocharditis and related issues.

What is this falsehood ? you stammer around crying out "Falsehood Falsehood" .. but fail to state what the falsehood you are referring to is .. this is like naked claim personal invective fallacy of some sort ..

 

https://twitter.com/CShoemakerMD/status/1744224722919755813

 

As I suspected, you have not produced any refutation of what I have pointed out. Just the same number you got from Fraiman — 1 in 800, which I totally understand is the same as 12.5 per 10,000 but you are ignoring that the Pfizer and Moderna studies DID NOT claim that the vaccines caused 1 in 800 or 12.5 out of 10,000 SARS.

Show me where. in either study, they stated a number of 12.5 SARS per 10,000 subjects. Fact — they didn’t. Those were Fraiman’s numbers.

One last time, Pfizer and Moderna found no significant difference in SARS in the vaccine vs placebo group. This does not translate into 1 in 800 unless you start changing definitions and fudging data to get the results you want, which is what Fraiman did.

Since, you obviously haven’t refuted anything I have said, it’s obvious you can’t. Silly comments likely meant to provoke and lack of refutations demonstrates you have nothing other than misinformation to present. I have nothing else to say about it. I have repeatedly shown you are posting falsehoods and misinformation. I have corrected it for those who are unaware of Fraiman’s dishonesty as well as yours.

Just because an article is posted in a journal doesn’t mean there are no problems with it. Have you never seen research studies get retracted after being peer reviewed? A reanalysis isn’t exactly real research; it’s just messing around with data.

The Fraiman paper has been repeatedly misrepresented as being an “independent” randomized controlled clinical trial when in fact it was merely a “reanalysis” of the trial using different definitions of adverse events.

One can read about the peer review issues at the following link — https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-fail-vaccine-publishes-antivax-propaganda/

There is no such thing as ‘myocharditis’ — it’s myocarditis and I totally refuted your blatant falsehoods in a previous post — here it is again:

From: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html

And From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ination-guidance-for-healthcare-professionals

It seems the consensus is that any vaccine related myocarditis appears to be mild and self-limiting. You blatantly attempted to misinform by saying myocarditis was always fatal.

Enough. I stand by my claims of you posting misinformation.

 

I would be nice if, instead of going in circles and pretending, you just stuck to the points he made.

 

Pfizer are Doubling Down on mRNA as Well, Making A Staggering $ 43 Billion Bet that “Turbo Cancers” are About to Explode around the world.

Last Month Pfizer Stunned the Medical World by Acquiring Seagen, A Small Drug Company that treats Turbo Cancers and Barely makes $ 2 Billion per Year.

 

I posted this in another forum, but it doesn't seem like any of the online Dr's there want to touch it. Does anyone in here want to put forward a hypothesis?
---------

My mother lives nearly across the continent from me.
Recently she has been admitted to long term care.

She originally got the first two shots in 2021. Modena in both cases.

On the second, almost exactly three weeks later, she was admitted to hospital for shortness of breath and being unable to think clearly.

She was in for a little over two weeks and received medication for heart inflammation.

She was not told it was a myocarditis to the best of her recollection. July 2021.

She also never had or tested + for covid before or after vaccination, also to the best of her knowledge based on no symptoms or sickness.

In the last two years her health has deteriorated. She no longer can take care of herself. She's 73. In October 5 days after my uncle died, she collapsed. I'm certain the shock and subsequent depression that was likely was a contributing factor. She was already pretty weak to begin with.

Luckily someone who regularly takes her for blood work found her on the floor. She didn't remember what happened.

After nearly 6 weeks in hospital, also fighting a urinary tract infection and two doses of Digoxin, they were able to remove fluid in her heart, as it was explained to me, and bring her heart rate from an average of 130-150BPM when to something manageable. They were also able to fast track a long term care facility.

I'm grateful that they were able to keep her alive but I'm asking myself now if her current suffering and condition was worth it. I say yes, but she's really in tough shape right now.

It's mandatory that all patients get flu and covid shots at her long term care. She did so in early December.

Yesterday I got a call that she tested positive for covid. Briefly spoke with her. No lung symptoms but extremely tired. No worries says the doctor, they're giving her paxlovid

Great vaccine, right?

Every single word I've said is true.

Doctors or other experts online here, explain this to me?

 

Sounds like your mom may have been septic from the UTI, possibly to the toxic shock part of it. Glad she is on the mend. People dying from UTI's is higher than people appreciate.

As for COVID, who knows. I had two shots and a booster and I have had it twice. The version 2 weeks ago was nothing in my lungs. It was like a bad sinus/allergy attack that lasted for a few days.

 

I'm no doc thank god, and the shot is NOT a vaccine, it's an unapproved SHOT IN THE DARK, making Mega Bucks for pharm,....

 

NO❌️SPIKE

 

Right then, why don’t you post your wisdom of what a vaccine is and why the various covid vaccines are not vaccines.

Then you can go on and explain why all the approved Covid vaccines are ‘unapproved’.

Then you might want to explain how after billions of vaccines they are a ‘shot in the dark’.

After that we can discuss how unproven and unapproved supplements are making mega bucks for Big Alt (Not) Medicine.

Please provide links to support your wisdom.

Thank you.

 

I think I can help you out MuchAdo...




The mode of action of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines should classify them as gene therapy products (GTPs) <- but they have been excluded by regulatory agencies. Some of the tests they have undergone as vaccines have produced non-compliant results in terms of purity, quality and batch homogeneity. The wide and persistent biodistribution of mRNAs and their protein products, incompletely studied due to their classification as vaccines, raises safety issues




Traditional vaccine's never delivered DNA into cell nucleus.






Not just hidden in plain sight, but right in front of your nose!

Pfizer are Doubling Down on mRNA as Well, Making A Staggering $ 43 Billion Bet that “Turbo Cancers” are About to Explode around theWworld.

Last Month Pfizer Stunned the Medical World by Acquiring Seagen, A Small Drug Company that treats Turbo Cancers and Barely makes $ 2 Billion per Year.

The Nature of the Acquisition has Left Many People Scratching their Heads. There is Something Very Sinister Lurking in the Details of this Deal.

Pfizer’s New Acquisition Takes Them from Being Able to “Treat” Two of These Turbo Cancers, to Being Able to Treat Seven Out of 10. Not Bad for A Company Looking to Corner the Market in Treating the Same Problems It is Causing.

---
Many Supplement companies are owned by pharmaceuticals, so you are wrong there too.

https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/dietary-supplements-market-102082

NIH hosts a Dietary Supplement Label Database where you can search for any supplement and review the label breakdown. The following list outlines several popular supplement companies, their countries of origin, and in some cases, which companies acquired them.

Here are but a few examples:

Company: Atrium Innovations
Country: Canada
Founded: 1999
Acquired By: Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2018

Company: Arizona Nutritional Supplements
Country: United States
Founded: 1996
Acquired By: Endeavour Capital
Acquired Date: 2013
Note: Arizona Nutritional Supplements is a contract and private label manufacturer of vitamins and supplements.

Company: Best Formulations
Country: United States
Founded: 1984
Acquired By: Sirio Pharma Acquired Date: 2023


Company: BYHEALTH International
Country: China
Founded: 1995

Company: Country Life
Country: United States
Founded: 1971
Joint Venture Agreement With: Kikkoman, partly owned by Master Trust Bank of Japan, Japan Trustee Services Bank & Oriental Land Company Joint Venture Agreement Date: 2005

Company: Doctor’s Best
Country: United States
Founded: 1990
Acquired By: sold to North Castle Partners in 2014, acquired by Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co, China
Acquired Date: 2016


Company: Gaia
Country: United States
Founded: 1987
Acquired By: merger with SALUS Haus, Germany
Acquired Date: 2021

Company: Garden of Life
Subsidiary Of: Atrium Innovations, Canada
Country: United States
Founded: 2000
Acquired By: Parent company Atrium Innovations acquired by Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2018

Company: GNC
Country: United States
Founded: 1935
Acquired By: Thomas H Lee Investment group, 1989, then sold to Harbin Pharmaceutical Holding Group Co. LLC, China
Acquired Date: 2021

Company: GSK
Country: United Kingdom
Founded: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd founded in 1924
Note: Here is an A-Z list of GSK brands

Company: Kirkland (Costco)
Country: United States
Founded: 1995
Note: Kirkland products are manufactured by their partners. Each supplement sold under the Kirkland name may have a different manufacturer. Kirkland labeled bottles have a vitamin information hotline to call for more information. Kirkland supplements are made in the United States with ingredients that may be sourced from other countries.

Company: Klean Athlete
Subsidiary Of: Douglas Laboratories, Canada
Country: United States
Founded: 2012
Acquired By: Parent company Douglas Laboratories acquired by Atrium Innovations in 2005, which was acquired by Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2018

Company: MegaFood
Subsidiary Of: FoodState, United States
Country: United States
Founded: 1973
Acquired By: Parent company FoodState acquired by Pharmavite, a subsidiary of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Japan
Acquired Date: 2014

Company: Metagenics
Subsidiary Of: Alticor, Inc., United States
Country: United States
Founded: 1983
Acquired By: Gryphon Investors
Acquired Date: 2021

Company: Nature Made
Subsidiary Of: Pharmavite, United States
Country: United States
Founded: 1971
Acquired By: Parent company Pharmavite acquired by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Japan
Acquired Date: 1989

Company: Nature’s Bounty
Subsidiary Of: The Bountiful Company, United States
Country: United States
Founded: 1971
Acquired By: Parent company The Bountiful Company acquired by Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2021

Company: New Chapter
Country: United States
Founded: 1982
Acquired By: Procter & Gamble
Acquired Date: 2012
Note: In 2018 the founders of New Chapter left the brand citing “’financial pressures to accelerate profits’ meant they could no longer in good conscience continue to associate themselves with the brand.”

Company: Nutranext
Country: United States
Founded: 1986
Acquired By: The Clorox Company (subsidiary of P&G)
Acquired Date: 2018



Company: OLLY Nutrition
Country: United States
Founded: 2013
Acquired By: Unilever
Acquired Date: 2019

Company: Pentavite
Country: Australia
Founded: 1940
Acquired By: Roche in 1991, Bayer in 2004, then sold to BYHEALTH, China
Acquired Date: 2018

Company: Puravida
Country: Brazil
Founded: 2015
Acquired By: Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2022


Company: Pure Encapsulations
Subsidiary Of: Atrium Innovations, Canada
Country: United States
Founded: 1991
Acquired By: Parent company Atrium Innovations acquired by Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2018

Company: ReNew Life
Country: United States
Founded: 1997
Acquired By: Swander Pace Capital and Triangle Capital in 2008, then acquired by The Clorox Company (subsidiary of P&G)
Acquired Date: 2016

Company: Ritual
Country: United States
Founded: 2016
Partnered With: Whole Foods
Partner Date: 2022

Company: Royal DSM
Country: Netherlands
Founded: 1902
Note: DSM has subsidiaries and equity interests in hundreds of companies all over the world, ranging from biotech companies to nutritional product companies.

Company: Schiff Nutrition
Country: United States
Founded: 1936
Acquired By: Reckitt Benckiser with operations in over 60 countries, and headquarters in the UK, Singapore, Dubai and Amsterdam
Acquired Date: 2012

Company: The Better Health Co. (TBHC)
Country: New Zealand
Founded: 2008
Acquired By: CDH Investments, China in 2016, then acquired by Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2022

Company: The Clorox Company
Country: United States
Founded: 1913
Acquired By: Procter & Gamble
Acquired Date: 1957



Company: Vital Proteins
Country: United States
Founded: 2013
Acquired By: Nestle Health Science
Acquired Date: 2020

Company: Zarbee’s, Inc.
Country: United States
Founded: 2008
Acquired By: Johnson & Johnson
Acquired Date: 2018

Pfizer Acquires Alacer Corp., a Leading Vitamin Supplements Company
Monday, February 27, 2012 - 01:30am
View pdfOpen in tab
Maker of Emergen-C®, #1 U.S. Vitamin C brand, expands Pfizer’s vitamin and dietary supplement business

"Today marks the beginning of an exciting new chapter for Alacer and the Emergen-C health and wellness brand. It is a unique opportunity to join one of the world’s top performing consumer health care businesses,"

 

She acquired the UTI after being hospitalized for her heart failure about three weeks into her hospital stay. I failed to mention in my previous post that she was diagnosed with CGF in June 2022, two months after a booster shot.

The myocarditis incident after the 2nd moderna was July 2021.

She was a Type II diabetic before hand and on medications that kept that under control, and still pretty much independent, able to drive herself around and living alone.

After July 2021 her health rapidly deteriorated. She stopped driving because she felt too weak and not confident in Feb 2022. In March 2022 she had a booster.

She never had Covid, to the best of her knowledge based on symptoms and sickness prior to being diagnosed with it last week. This was after the flu and covid combo shot she needed to take to be admitted to long term care. She's been bed ridden for this whole time, also now on Paxlovid.

I think it's safe to say the last booster failed, and also more than coincidental that she had a myo after the 2nd shot and now suffering from heart failure, a situation that isn't isolated to her as many in here would probably suggest.

 

Just make the most of whatever time you have left. Spend some time asking about all the old stories or family info you want to have some day and write it all down.