Questions On Covid Vaccines ( Not Politically Motivated )

I am not going to clutter things here with 15+ citations. If you choose not to believe me, that is fine. I don't believe much of what you post, so no big deal. I know people up here who were upset when their hospice patients with terminal diseases and end-stage renal failure were classed as Covid deaths when they were expected in one case to be dead within a week. His friends and family raised heck when he was classed as a Covid death. The health department here has also added to the Covid death toll by "review of the death certificates", not the medical records but just the death certificates and the was published in a press release from the health department. I doubt Alaska is the only one to do that, ass it increases the Federal funding coming to the state.

The total death numbers from various years are available on the CDC website if you are really interested. The data on H1N1 and the protective measures was in a bulletin an after-action report not available to the public.

 

So is that like a state by state agenda, or bigger federal or other ?

 

Reading that Reminds me of 'Duck and Cover!' to prevent harm from nuclear attack in the sixties.

 

hmm... and just what were younger people supposed to do ? (if they weren't in their sixties yet?)

 

"that you might find interesting and, if you're interested in credentials, the guy on the left of the screen is Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines. The one on the right is Steve Kirsch, who started the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund to fund COVID-19 drug repurposing research. The one in middle, whose name I don't recall, was a professor who was fired a while back when he questioned the propriety of having blacks-only areas on campus. He's pretty much a liberal. He and his wife have since started a popular podcast, although not so popular that I would remember his name, discussing a number of issues.



Here is an article from Science-Based Medicine that discusses some of the same topics as covered in the video, although I highly recommend the video

By the way, I don't expect very many Dr. Fauci fans to watch the video because there's a tendency, among such believers, to simply depend on CNN and MSNBC to let them know whether something is safe or not."
================================================
================================================
When a "spike protein" in an immunization disrupts the ovaries and bone marrow, and / or also causes
a child's body (immune system) to turn on (attack) organs, like his liver, kidneys, lungs, and brain,
is that considered a short-term effect or a long-term effect ?

 

Will you please cite a credible source on the death rates, Don? I know the rhetoric; I'd like to see specific figures from agencies that track this sort of thing.

 

Look at the numbers, Ken. Short-term deaths occur from many medications; however, they're rare. And that's the case with these vaccines. Also, if you take into consideration the number of deaths from these vaccines and the number of deaths from other medications, the vaccine deaths are extremely rare compared to some others. Take a look at the chart on this page:

https://www.drugwatch.com/side-effects/

SSRI's are very commonly prescribed anti-depressants.

Fluoroquinolones are antibiotics such as Cipro.

Etc.

Here are the results of a meta-analysis of 16 studies and 375,000 people; it's studying death rates of people on SSRI's while controlling for confounding variables:

"The analysis found that in the general population, those taking antidepressants had a 33 percent higher risk of dying prematurely than people who were not taking the drugs. Additionally, antidepressant users were 14 percent more likely to have an adverse cardiovascular event, such as a stroke or a heart attack." That's a hugely higher percentage than have died from all of the COVID vaccines combined and which have been given to millions of people.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319462#Death-risk-raised-by-33-percent

 

So then, because fewer people die when shot by a 22, vs a 45 caliber, it should be allowed ?
I don't think so.

Any doctor should hopefully, though unlikely given the scenario today, go back
to first of all
do NO HARM. (not some harm).

And including quitting if they have to, like the Licensed CVS Pharmacist that quit instead of killing people (big in the media this week).

 

"Stem cell biologist Rudolf Jaenisch and gene regulation specialist Richard Young of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who led the work, triggered a Twitter storm in December 2020, when their team first presented the idea in a preprint on bioRxiv. The researchers emphasized that viral integration did not mean people who recovered from COVID-19 remain infectious. But critics charged them with stoking unfounded fears that COVID-19 vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA) might somehow alter human DNA. (Janesich and Young stress that their results, both original and new, in no way imply that those vaccines integrate their sequences into our DNA.) [emphasis mine]"

[snip]

“A team of prominent scientists has doubled down on its controversial hypothesis that genetic bits of the pandemic coronavirus can integrate into our chromosomes and stick around long after the infection is over. If they are right—skeptics have argued that their results are likely lab artifacts—the insertions could explain the rare finding that people can recover from COVID-19 but then test positive for SARS-CoV-2 again months later.”

[snip]

“The real question is whether the cell culture data have any relevance to human health or diagnostics. ‘In the absence of evidence of integration in patients, the most I can take away from these data is that it is possible to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA retroposition events in infected cell lines where L1 is overexpressed,” Feschotte says. “The clinical or biological significance of these observations, if any, is a matter of pure speculation at this point.’ ”

[snip]

“Harmit Malik, a specialist in ancient viruses in the human genome at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, says it’s a ‘legitimate question’ to ask why people who should have cleared the virus sometimes have positive polymerase chain Reaction tests for its sequences. But he also remains unconvinced that the explanation is integrated virus. ‘Under normal circumstances, there is so little reverse transcription machinery available’ in human cells, Malik says.

“The controversy has grown decidedly more civil since December. Both Young and Jaenisch say they received more intense criticism for their preprint than any studies in their careers, in part because some researchers worried it played into the hands of vaccine skeptics spreading false claims about the newly authorized mRNA vaccines. ‘If there ever was a preprint that should be deleted, it is this one! It was irresponsible to even put it up as a preprint, considering the complete lack of relevant evidence. This is now being used by some to spread doubts about the new vaccines,’ Marie-Louise Hammarskjöld, a microbiologist at the University of Virginia, posted in a comment on bioRxiv at the time.”

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...-pandemic-coronavirus-can-integrate-human-dna

 

Pros: as you posted variously, many non-toxic means you already know to prevent and to reverse health issues/problems.
Cons: as others go along with scientific mumbo jumbo, contrary to "first of all do no harm", it is possible to agree with their "reasons" and go along with the toxic shots, but it is not necessary nor healthy to do so. What was already known decades ago for preventing problems claimed to be caused by viral issues, or bacterial, the ways to stay healthy were known before anything was made up about bacteria or virus things, so older, proven ways trump newer troublesome ways, eh?

 

See Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf It offers an explanation for you.

You don't need to post 15+ citations 1 or 2 credible citations will do. Your unwillingness to post any speaks and undermines what you are posting.

Anecdotal evidence may be taken into consideration however it is unsupported. "Anecdotal evidence in a more logical sense is related to this notion of hearsay evidence, as anecdotal evidence can refer to evidence from an anecdote or personal story being used to imply a conclusion for which it actually provides no evidence . For example, anecdotal evidence might cover a situation in which an individual explains that his sister went skiing and wasn't hurt at all, thus meaning that skiing is not that difficult or dangerous." trial.laws.com/evidence/anecdotal-evidence#:~:text=Anec…

 

I am well aware however the way my mind works is that when there is an issue I look for supportable evidence regarding it before formulating an opinion. I don't formulate an opinion then try and find evidence to support it for in doing so we are engaging in confirmation bias. Most people do this. I want the truth even if I don't like what I find. There are not many people of that mind set.
I don't care if one believes the moon is made of green cheese. That belief harms no one and people are free to believe it if they want. But when ones beliefs fly in the face of evidence and endangers others then they must be confronted such as the misinformation surrounding COVID.