Study creating commotion: mRNA COVID vaccines bad for circulatory system

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by Peter the Roman, Nov 26, 2021.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. kreo

    kreo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just a reminder to so called "doctor".
    COVID infection rate is about 2 - 4% of population.
    Vaccination rate that government is stupidly forcing supposed to be about 100% of population.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2021
    Eleuthera and Pneuma like this.
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have been attacked because you delivered some truth to PF. Socrates said that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. That applies here.

    You present unpopular truths, and become slandered. Julian Assange is the extreme example of that.

    Here is another article about the PULS tests you referenced. Thank you for starting a truthful thread.

    Study: COVID-19 vaccines increase risk of heart attack by 127% (pharmaceuticalfraud.com)
     
  3. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't it be safer to not get the vaccine? Info: I've already had it. Once severe and again mild.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2021
  4. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Safer than what? Safer than getting a first infection or a re-infection with the virus? Absolutely not. Especially now that we have variants that are perfectly able to re-infect (and the latest seems to be curbed by 2 doses plus a booster). This virus kills a small percentage of patients but damages organs of a large percentage of patients, while the vaccines cause problems in a very very very tiny percentage of persons, thus, the benefits far outweigh the risks, a concept that shouldn't be hard to understand.

    If the virus were to completely disappear from nature, then the risks would outweigh the benefits and there wouldn't be a point in getting the vaccines. But in the middle of a freaking pandemic? Of course the vaccines are the safer bet.
     
  5. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Playing Russian roulette with vaccines largely untested and the Pharmaceutical Companies have a free pass. If something shows up in the future, you can't even sue them. The government granted them immunity.

    Example: I was hospitalized after a very bad truck accident. The hospital administered a relatively new drug in large doses, being approved by the FDA it should have been safe. 5 years later the FDA issued a black box warning as it caused a lot of people to have their tendons become brittle. Mine did. What will you do 5 or even 10 years from now if some nasty side effects show up?
     
  6. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look, if you grant me your attention for a bit of an extended period of time, I'll appreciate it, and I'll give you a full explanation that is likely to reassure you. If you think it's Too Long Didn't Read, then fine, but I'm granting you my time in typing up all this, so bear with me, please, even if it's a very long answer. The all caps are meant for emphasis, not as if I'm yelling, please. I intend this answer to be respectful and helpful.

    ------------

    Playing Russian Roulette? Russian Roulette features one bullet in a revolver chamber that holds up to 5 bullets. That's a 20% chance of dying from this imprudent game. Here you're facing a 0.000008% chance of dying from the vaccine. Rather different from Russian Roulette, no?

    Largely untested? What exactly is the further testing you'd have wanted? Because I've worked with Virology and Immunology for the last 41 years and that's the way we always test vaccines: animal studies, then human trials phase 1 with some 25-40 subjects (young, healthy) then phase 2 with some 1,000-2,000 subjects (older, less healthy), then phase 3 with some 30,000-40,000 subjects of all ethnic background, ages, and co-morbid conditions. This was EXACTLY what these vaccines had done (some of them, more, with phase 3 gathering 45,000 or 60,000 people in multiple countries).

    Why do people keep saying that they were largely untested? They weren't. It's just that between each phase, we proceeded faster because of various governmental funding sources (here in the USA, Operation Warp Speed or Pfizer self-funding; abroad, various other sources) engaged in cost-sharing and grants that allowed the companies to move fast from one phase to the next without pausing, because they knew they wouldn't go broke if they invested billions of their own money (except Pfizer, they are filthy rich, with Viagra and all) and incur the risk of a phase 3 failure. But the tests WERE done, so I don't see why people keep saying largely untested.

    And then, post-marketing phase, these vaccines have been given already to 4,290,926,512 people while I type this, latest number from the Your World In Numbers counter, and counting. So, do you think that say, repeating another phase 3 study with another 30,000 people would have reassured you, when we've given them already to 4.3 BILLION people? I mean, I feel really sorry for you and the drug that caused your tendons to be brittle, but I'm prepared to bet that even after 5 years, that drug wasn't given to 4.3 billion people. If anything major was still to be found, we'd have found it by now, with this MASSIVE distribution of the vaccine, WAY beyond any possible testing.

    This, my friend, is not largely untested, but rather, EXTENSIVELY, MASSIVELY tested, and the problems (which do exist) are miniscule in incidence. 0.00002% of serious but non-fatal, treatable side effects, and 0.000008% of fatal side effects, are numbers I've seen, although I've also seen smaller numbers of 0.000002% of fatal side effects. Think of it. That's zero until the 5th freaking decimal case! For all practical purposes, it is indeed zero at least until the 5th case, 0.00000%. That's one in 125,000 people for the higher number, or 1 in 500,000 for the lower number,. And you compare it to 1 in 5 people of a Russian Roulette? But OK, let's run with the higher number here, for the sake of the argument. Which is very generous because correlation is not causation. Often, these "fatal vaccine reactions" can't be really proven to be caused by the vaccines, instead of being a freakish coincidence, and the person would have had the problem anyway even without the vaccine.

    But sure, let's accept the higher number.

    I'm prepared to bet that your drug that made your tendons brittle hurt many more than 1 in 125,000 people.

    Drugs you take every day, even a simple aspirin, hurt way more than 1 in 125,000 people. These vaccines are among the safest things one will ever take, if one accepts them.

    Yes, people who are not vaccine scientists keep thinking that some freakish "late side effect" will show up.

    Did you know that for ALL vaccines known to men, over more than one century, NONE has presented a late side effect, beyond 2 months of administration? Much less the mRNA vaccines, which leave your body in 1 to 3 days (they are completely degraded and eliminated, as in, 100% gone, for good). The spike proteins they make also get degraded and leave your body in a month.

    So, please tell me, what freakish side effect you expect that will pop up 2 years down the line, much less 5 or 10 like you said, for something that is no longer there? How will a substance that isn't there, cause something 2 to 10 years later? By magic?

    [OK, if you think of the theoretical possibility of drop in efficacy with subsequent doses as a side effect, which is possible, I'd grant you that, but that's not what we usually call a side effect, and it's theoretical, hasn't happened yet, chances are that it never will as so far, the opposite has been true, with each booster multiplying neutralizing antibodies by up to 100 fold].

    Oh, you'll say, all vaccines known to men weren't mRNA. So what? All vaccines intend to present an antigen to the immune system. The only difference here is that instead of directly injecting the antigen into your body, the mRNA vaccines help your ribosomes make the antigen themselves. Then they degrade and are eliminated. The ribosomes then stop making the antigen. They can only make it while the mRNA is there, teaching them the sequence of the "bricks" used to make the spike proteins. The mRNA is gone, the instruction is gone.

    Once the antigen is made, it behaves exactly the same way all other antigens for all other vaccines known to men behave.

    So what is it that makes you fear so much these mRNA strains that stay in your body for 12 to 72 hours? mRNA is a natural thingy. It's just a bunch of sequenced instructions made of nucleotides (you have quadrillions of nucleotides in your body, already). You have trillions of mRNA strains in your body already. That's not some Martian stuff. It's just plain old mRNA.

    It doesn't get into the cell nucleus. It doesn't alter your DNA. It doesn't make you magnetic. It doesn't contain a chip so that Bill Gates will control you. It doesn't make you infertile. It doesn't give you Covid. It doesn't give you cancer. It does one thing and one thing only: it makes a few copies of this virus' spike protein (the antigen). Then it's gone.

    Can it cause side effects? Sure. They are actually much more caused by your own immune system reacting to the antigen, than by the antigen and the mRNA themselves. They show that the intended effect is happening (your immune system is reacting to a foreign antigen and learning to fight it). So, yes, you can have a syndrome like you get when some virus gets you and your immune system reacts to it: some muscle or joint aches, some headaches, some fatigue, some nausea, maybe a rash. This is all absolutely non-dangerous and goes away in 72 hours.

    Can it cause BAD side effects? Sure. In 1 in 125,000 people, these may even kill you (or 1 in 500,000 if we accept the smaller number). A variety of them. An issue with simultaneous blood clots with low platelets (for the J&J, not for the Moderna and Pfizer) for which there is life-saving treatment but yes, it's complicated; 20% of those threated for this extremely rare condition do die. Anaphylaxis (happens within 15 to 30 minutes; any doctor or nurse can treat it immediately with an epi-pen and you'll be fine. In extreme cases you may need respiratory assistance and you may need to be admitted, but you'll be fine. If you're worried about that, if you take your vaccine in a clinic that is in a hospital, the odds that you'd die of anaphylaxis would be minimal since it's easy to treat. Then there are a few more zebras like transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, generally transient but a handful of cases in several hundreds may go bad and kill you.

    Have any of these bad side effects showed up more than 60 days after the administration of the vaccines? No, none of them. And see, these vaccines, since the first human phase one trials, have been around for almost one year and nine months now (Moderna had their vaccine ready in February 2020 and started testing it shortly thereafter).

    But mind you, all of this together, is 1 in 125,000 people, worldwide, after 4.3 billion people got the vaccines. And it is lower here because the one that caused the most trouble, the AstraZeneca, isn't approved in America.

    But I grant you, for the 1 person in those 125,000, it sucks.

    But think of this. Give the virus to 125,000 people and see how many will get in trouble. 20% will end up in hospitals, that's 25,000 people. Given 1 to 2% mortality, 1,250 to 5,000 people will die. Then think of the other problems with the live virus. Most studies showed between 20% and 50% of damage to major organs like the heart, the liver, the coagulation system, the lungs, the pancreas, and the kidneys among survivors. That's up to 62,500 people, in various degrees, from minor damage that is largely not felt or seen, to major issues that will hinder the person's quality of life for the rest of their shortened lives, such as a weakened heart with intolerance to minimal exertion or a fibrotic lung and permanent shortness of breath.

    Doesn't it all seem to you to be a bit worse than 1 in 125,000?

    I know it is hard to convince you, because you were the victim of a bad side effect to a drug. I'm sorry to hear that. But it doesn't mean you'll have anything happening again to you, with these vaccines.

    It would be like saying - I once had trouble with an antibiotic, so I'll never again take any medication for high blood pressure. Because these vaccines have nothing to do with the medication that caused your brittle tendons. It's not rational to feel this way although emotionally, I understand.

    OK, the companies don't take responsibility if something goes wrong? I know it's hard to understand, but it's the only way any company will ever risk their assets by making vaccines. Why? Because vaccines are unsafe? No. Because vaccines are given to billions and billions of people. So even very good, very safe vaccines with a very very tiny percentage of bad adverse reactions, when multiplied by billions and billions, will make a large number of people suing the company, that might make its operation non-viable.

    A medication for, say, diabetes, is given to say, 1 million people. So if a tiny percentage of them get really sick, the company can absorb the costs of lawsuits. But if that medication is given to 4.3 billion people, even a tiny percentage of them getting sick might ruin the company.

    So, if we didn't grant protections to vaccine makers, they wouldn't make vaccines. Not because vaccines are bad or dangerous (they are often much safer than other medications) but rather because they are given to too many people. No medicine or vaccine known to men being 100% safe, they can't afford it.

    The choice is, either we grant to vaccine-making companies some protections, or we live in a world without vaccines. If you pick the latter, then be prepared to see a child of yours, God forbid, easily die of polio or measles. Is that what you'd prefer? Not me.

    I hope the thoughts above will be helpful to you, to see things with a different perspective. Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2021
  7. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope you feel better.

    mRNA vaccines may provide lower immunity to new SARS-CoV-2 variants

    Good Luck.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2021
  8. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh come on. You give me this garbage from February 2021? LOL. 10 freaking months ago? Medical News Today? What about Medical News Yesterday?
    Written by a freaking "science journalist" with no Virology, Immunology, or Epidemiology credentials. Great. Just great.
    The situation has changed five times over. Do you have any idea about how outdated this information is? Written in laughable, layman terms?
    Do you think you're teaching me something, son? Really?
    The P.1 variant? It didn't amount to much, globally. Also known as Gamma. Never spread much beyond Brazil.
    The B.1.1.7 also known as Alpha, did spread, but the vaccines performed exceedingly well against it, and it is gone. Good luck finding any trace of it.
    The B.1.351 or Beta, also never amounted to much. Never spread much beyond South Africa. A handful of cases here and there, abroad.
    Do you think a freaking virologist and immunologist ignores these things? You present it to me like a bombastic revelation? TO ME??? LOL.

    Look at my State of the Vaccines thread and my Variants thread and you'll find ABUNDANT information on these, of a much higher quality than this freaking Medical News Today you are quoting.
    Meanwhile all concerns about these fizzled and the mRNA vaccines did pretty well against them, unlike your pitiful source anticipated.

    Then came Delta and they faltered a bit but a booster restores immunity, bumping up neutralizing antibodies 25 to 100-fold.

    Different story with Omicron, but again, a booster seems to take care of it, so far. We'll see. If not, we can adapt the mRNA vaccines to its new spike protein. It's in the works, already.

    Your source is old news. Get a grip. "A new study suggests..." Well, big guy, those suggestions were not confirmed. And "new", 10 months ago in an evolving pandemic, is not new, is old.
    You make a half-baked Google search and you think you can teach a Virologist/Immunologist MD/PhD something "new" about coronavirus strains and antigenic drift? Really?

    I give you all this thoughtful information in my post above, genuinely trying to be helpful, and that's what you throw back at me? Really?
    You don't deserve me.
    This really pisses me off. After all the effort I put into trying to open your eyes, that's your smug (and utterly misguided) response!. Unbelievable!
    OK, I will no longer waste my time with you. Welcome to my Ignore list, "Professor." LOL
    Have a safe and long life. Over and out.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2021
  9. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thoughtful information? No you offered an opinion however misguided it was.
     

Share This Page