Covid Vaccine

[oneforthebus]

Wow. Just listen. Pfizer stopped testing their Covid Vaccine on animals because they kept dying.



View attachment 8886

Has been debunked over and over again. But of course you'll just mock the sources even though they quote actual scientists and you'll keep posting it. Never mind if it's false.

Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines did not skip animal trials because of animal deaths

Posts claiming that COVID-19 vaccine producers skipped animal trials due to the animals in those trials dying are false. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which have been granted emergency authorization use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United...

www.reuters.com

VERIFY: No, the animals in the COVID-19 vaccine trials didn't die from the vaccine

A social media post claims all the animals died months later from the injections. It's not true.

www.wusa9.com

PolitiFact - Instagram post falsely claims COVID-19 vaccines ‘skipped all animal trials’

A viral Instagram post claimed that the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines "skipped all animal trials because all an

www.politifact.com

Your Pfizer article is typical of anti-vax misinformation that mischaracterizes VAERS reports as has been gone over here ad nauseum.

How are adverse events dismissed as unrelated to the vaccines? When they are false, when they have other underlying causes, when their incidence is no more frequent than would occur in the normal population. It happens all the time. If hundreds millions of people get a vaccine in a very short period of time, SOME of them will develop cancer. Some will have strokes, Some will drop dead of heart attacks. Some will get leukemia. Why? Because THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY in any given group of hundreds of millions of people. You can only correlate them to the vaccine if they happen more often after vaccination than they normally would. If ten million people ate a Big Mac today and a thousand of them have heart attacks, it doesn't mean the Big Mac caused their heart attack that day. Unless the normal daily rate of heart attacks is much lower. Things that happen some time after getting a vaccine are not necessarily caused by the vaccine. That is nothing new with covid vaccination. It's how VAERS reports have always been interpreted. The big difference is a huge number of vaccinations in a very short period of time. This is common mathematical sense that anti-vax sites take advantage of to scare people. It's not science, and it's irresponsible.

 

[hamster]

Putting the vaccines aside, aren't there any worthwhile therapeutics on the horizon that will reduce disease and prevent death?

 

[oneforthebus]

And, by interpreting VAERS reports it has been determined that myocarditis DOES happen slightly more often in young people who have recently been vaccinated than it otherwise would. That's how you draw a correlation to the vaccines. So ask yourself...if they are just lying to us, why tell the truth about myocarditis, anaphylaxis and GBS? Why not just say the worst side effects are a sore arm and fever? If they are trying to give us a false sense of security you would think heart inflammation would be something they wouldn't want to mention.

Common sense.

 

[IndySteel]

KFTB searching frantically for anti India and Haiti vax propaganda to dispute the facts. We’ll wait.

 

[oneforthebus]

KFTB searching frantically for anti India and Haiti vax propaganda to dispute the facts. We’ll wait.

Both countries have a lack of testing and a very young population relative to the hardest hit countries in terms of deaths. 23.5 for Haiti. 28 something I think for India which did in fact get hit pretty hard with deaths at their peaks. But I'm sure that's got nothing to do with it. The lack of vaccines saved them.

Of course a whole bunch of people died in other countries before there ever was such a thing as vaccines. Wonder why didn't the lack of vaccines save them? We'll never know I guess.

 

[Iron95]

There’s no evidence the vaccine makes Covid worse. There is plenty of evidence that it reduces risk of serious illness and death. Of course you guys only believe “data” that comes from anti-vax sites so I won’t bother posting it.

As I have said many times before, the risk from Covid is extremely low for some cohorts of people and there is not a zero risk of adverse effects from the vaccines. They clearly do not prevent spread, especially of the newer variants, so the “save grandma” argument isn’t valid either. I believe everyone should be allowed to weigh the risks and benefits and make the decision for themselves and their family. I do not feel the risk/benefit analysis works out for healthy young people as of this moment, certainly not for healthy children. I probably would not have had my young healthy adult children get them (were they not required by two of their colleges) knowing the current data about myocarditis risk (which is a rare but real adverse effect). I have advised my son not to get boosted for that reason. On the other hand Covid can also cause myocarditis and many other kinds of damage to organs, the circulatory system and possibly the brain so it is not a cut and dried decision. I know unvaxxed people who have died from covid, including one perfectly healthy 58 year old 4.0 tennis player. I look forward to learning more data as far as long term effects of covid and whether the vaccines reduce those risks. We do know that serious illness from covid is associated with long term damage, and the vaccines do reduce the risk of serious illness.

I do think a lot of people who are at far greater risk from Covid than they are from the vaccines are refusing them due to misinformation. So I will occasionally try and correct that when I see it. Until I grow weary of it and leave you all to your own devices again.

Myself and my wife are both over 65. We both have some of the so called red flags. Neither one of us got the vax. We both just got over covid. I was sick for two days. My wife fared even better. My son who got the vax tested positive a week before we did is still sick. My daughter in law got the vax six months ago and almost died from it. She has had multiple issues eve since. He still has heart rythemia, brain fog, kidney issues, and depression. If you dont beleive her I will give you her phone number. I am sure she will want to tell you all about it. I dont need any of your bull **** statistics. I have my own.

 

[oneforthebus]

Myself and my wife are both over 65. We both have some of the so called red flags. Neither one of us got the vax. We both just got over covid. I was sick for two days. My wife fared even better. My son who got the vax tested positive a week before we did is still sick. My daughter in law got the vax six months ago and almost died from it. She has had multiple issues eve since. He still has heart rythemia, brain fog, kidney issues, and depression. If you dont beleive her I will give you her phone number. I am sure she will want to tell you all about it. I dont need any of your bull **** statistics. I have my own.

My entire family had covid twice: both pre-vax and post-vax. We all had very mild cases. None of us had any side effects from the vaccines aside from a little fatigue and sore arms. I know vaxxed people who have done terribly and unvaxxed people who have done just fine, and vice versa. I know three people personally who have died from covid, all unvaxxed. Two with underlying conditions, one young and healthy. I don't personally know a single person except for some on this site who has had a serious reaction to the vax. In all fairness my brother in law did get a skin rash they think is from the vax that took a long time to go away. But he's diabetic and has some heart risk factors so I'd rather see him get a rash than a bad case of covid.

I don't claim that my family's personal experience is data. It's a crap shoot. There are no guarantees. There is only a risk/benefit analysis that we all have to make for ourselves based on as much credible information as we can gather.

I'm sorry for your family's issues.

 

[Confluence]

I'll leave it at this, thalidomide was a hell of a drug for morning sickness, until it wasn't.

Chirality is not your friend!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Has been debunked over and over again. But of course you'll just mock the sources even though they quote actual scientists and you'll keep posting it. Never mind if it's false.

Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines did not skip animal trials because of animal deaths

Posts claiming that COVID-19 vaccine producers skipped animal trials due to the animals in those trials dying are false. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which have been granted emergency authorization use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United...

www.reuters.com

VERIFY: No, the animals in the COVID-19 vaccine trials didn't die from the vaccine

A social media post claims all the animals died months later from the injections. It's not true.

www.wusa9.com

PolitiFact - Instagram post falsely claims COVID-19 vaccines ‘skipped all animal trials’

A viral Instagram post claimed that the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines "skipped all animal trials because all an

www.politifact.com

Your Pfizer article is typical of anti-vax misinformation that mischaracterizes VAERS reports as has been gone over here ad nauseum.

It wasn't an article. It was a video posted via Twitter.

How are adverse events dismissed as unrelated to the vaccines? When they are false, when they have other underlying causes, when their incidence is no more frequent than would occur in the normal population.

Or when they aren't investigated. As the FOIA information I've posted twice shows they weren't.

It happens all the time. If hundreds millions of people get a vaccine in a very short period of time, SOME of them will develop cancer. Some will have strokes, Some will drop dead of heart attacks. Some will get leukemia. Why? Because THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY in any given group of hundreds of millions of people.

In the past, when a vaccine was suspected to have killed 50 people, said vaccines were pulled. Now?

Things that happen some time after getting a vaccine are not necessarily caused by the vaccine.

Of course not. This many things after vaccines though is grave cause for alarm.

It's how VAERS reports have always been interpreted.

Except these aren't being interpreted the way vaccine data historically has been.

 

[oneforthebus]

The thalidomide disaster led to many of the safety protocols we have today. It was never even tested on humans before being used. You guys act like we vetted the vaccines no differently than we did thalidomide in the 1950s . Ridiculous.

How medical research changed after thalidomide

In response to the thalidomide tragedy, governments mandated stricter regulations for approving new drugs. In this feature, we outline those important changes.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

 

[Confluence]

"When I exposed Merck’s Vioxx scandal in 1999 in this newsletter, before they even released their drug on the market, I thought that was huge. Their drug killed more than 60,000 people, and they could have been liable for $25 billion in damages, but their clever lawyers reduced it to $5 billion.
Well, that catastrophe is a drop in the bucket compared to the COVID scam, which has likely killed between 600,000 and 750,000 Americans, disabled as many as 5 million, and injured an estimated 30 million Americans in one way or another.26,27 That’s just the estimated toll in the U.S., so you can imagine what the global numbers might be. It’s a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. "
https://www.theepochtimes.com/will-...t=When I exposed,of unprecedented proportions.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Putting the vaccines aside, aren't there any worthwhile therapeutics on the horizon that will reduce disease and prevent death?

Yeah. The Pfizer pill Fauci took that caused his Covid symptoms to get worse v better.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

And, by interpreting VAERS reports it has been determined that myocarditis DOES happen slightly more often in young people who have recently been vaccinated than it otherwise would. That's how you draw a correlation to the vaccines. So ask yourself...if they are just lying to us, why tell the truth about myocarditis, anaphylaxis and GBS? Why not just say the worst side effects are a sore arm and fever? If they are trying to give us a false sense of security you would think heart inflammation would be something they wouldn't want to mention.

Common sense.

You would think it's common sense. And oh, I don't know, "if they were lying to us" why would they try to hide their documents for 75 years? And why did a judge have to order them to be released?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Myself and my wife are both over 65. We both have some of the so called red flags. Neither one of us got the vax. We both just got over covid. I was sick for two days. My wife fared even better. My son who got the vax tested positive a week before we did is still sick. My daughter in law got the vax six months ago and almost died from it. She has had multiple issues eve since. He still has heart rythemia, brain fog, kidney issues, and depression. If you dont beleive her I will give you her phone number. I am sure she will want to tell you all about it. I dont need any of your bull **** statistics. I have my own.

Every one of us...every one...has these stories. All we have to do in 2022 is see. Be alive. Communicate with people. Be a part of social media and stay in contact with our friends and families. You can see those vaccinated are the ones suffering the most right now.

I know more people than I can count with my 10 fingers that are vaxed and boosted who are 3 and 4x Covid victims. Not including my oldest son.

My wife and I, unvaxed, have had it once. No issues since.

Saw an article today about the NYT and the amazing wealth of data they 'were' sharing. They had incredibly detailed graphs showing cases and deaths among the vaccinated and unvaxed. Of course in the beginning more cases and deaths afflicted the unvaxed population. Slowly, over time, those lines on the graph began to converge. Cases and deaths among the vaxed and unvaccinated came within millimeters of the other.

In March, the NYT stopped updating the graphs. They show that they have updated it daily...but the data hasn't changed since March.

EDIT: Found the data. Go to: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

Scroll down to Rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated



May 15-May 21 was the last update for Cases
Apr 24-Apr 30 was the last update for Deaths

They just stopped updating these charts.

In Jan, the death rate was 10x higher for the unvaxed. In Feb it was 12x. As they began to merge together...showing the vaccinated weren't really better off than the vaxed...they stopped updating the data.

Odd...that.

 

[Confluence]

The thalidomide disaster led to many of the safety protocols we have today. It was never even tested on humans before being used. You guys act like we vetted the vaccines no differently than we did thalidomide in the 1950s . Ridiculous.

How medical research changed after thalidomide

In response to the thalidomide tragedy, governments mandated stricter regulations for approving new drugs. In this feature, we outline those important changes.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

You act like there were pre-clinical studies. There were not.
You act like there were completed safety and efficacy studies (phase 1 and phase 2). There were not.
You act like there were completed and satisfactory phase 3 studies. There were not.

You act like the FDA did not just authorize EMERGENCY USE of these same damn drugs on INFANTS when there is no efficacy, negative safety ....
and NO EMERGENCY.

How can you possibly defend these actions?

Hell, you even missed Zona's point on thalidomide: the governments DIDN'T DO THE NECESSARY SAFETY STUDIES and the effects were disastrous. American women were " saved" by the dogged determination of an FDA worker who screamed loud enough that the anti-nausea drug was not ready for widespread use because of the lack of complete testing. Unlucky were the British, Australian, Canadian women who took the drug not knowing that safety studies were not complete.

You act like these issues do not matter........

 

[ZonaBurgh]

The thalidomide disaster led to many of the safety protocols we have today. It was never even tested on humans before being used. You guys act like we vetted the vaccines no differently than we did thalidomide in the 1950s . Ridiculous.

How medical research changed after thalidomide

In response to the thalidomide tragedy, governments mandated stricter regulations for approving new drugs. In this feature, we outline those important changes.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

I only used thalidomide as an example because like it, the current "vaccines" haven't been subject to the current safety protocols either.
We simply don't know but are told to trust companies that are exempt from lawsuits should something go sideways.

 

[oneforthebus]

You act like there were pre-clinical studies. There were not.
You act like there were completed safety and efficacy studies (phase 1 and phase 2). There were not.
You act like there were completed and satisfactory phase 3 studies. There were not.

You act like the FDA did not just authorize EMERGENCY USE of these same damn drugs on INFANTS when there is no efficacy, negative safety ....
and NO EMERGENCY.

How can you possibly defend these actions?

Hell, you even missed Zona's point on thalidomide: the governments DIDN'T DO THE NECESSARY SAFETY STUDIES and the effects were disastrous. American women were " saved" by the dogged determination of an FDA worker who screamed loud enough that the anti-nausea drug was not ready for widespread use because of the lack of complete testing. Unlucky were the British, Australian, Canadian women who took the drug not knowing that safety studies were not complete.

You act like these issues do not matter........

And you missed my point...these vaccines did not go through the lack of process that thalidomide did. Comparing the two is ludicrous. They did not skip phases of clinical trials, that's just not true. (Of course it's an NIH link which will be immediately discounted. Sorry I don’t have an anti-vax source for this you might trust). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8243025/

Why were they sped up? I dunno, maybe because people were dying? Isn’t death kind of a bad thing you want to rush to prevent if you can? And I happen to agree with you on infants. Because the risk of death to them from Covid is exceedingly low. So no reason not to proceed with much more caution.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You act like there were pre-clinical studies. There were not.
You act like there were completed safety and efficacy studies (phase 1 and phase 2). There were not.
You act like there were completed and satisfactory phase 3 studies. There were not.

You act like the FDA did not just authorize EMERGENCY USE of these same damn drugs on INFANTS when there is no efficacy, negative safety ....
and NO EMERGENCY.

How can you possibly defend these actions?

Hell, you even missed Zona's point on thalidomide: the governments DIDN'T DO THE NECESSARY SAFETY STUDIES and the effects were disastrous. American women were " saved" by the dogged determination of an FDA worker who screamed loud enough that the anti-nausea drug was not ready for widespread use because of the lack of complete testing. Unlucky were the British, Australian, Canadian women who took the drug not knowing that safety studies were not complete.

You act like these issues do not matter........

History repeats itself.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Because the risk of death to them from Covid is exceedingly low.

It's...exceedingly low...for the vast majority of us under 60.

 

[Iron95]

My entire family had covid twice: both pre-vax and post-vax. We all had very mild cases. None of us had any side effects from the vaccines aside from a little fatigue and sore arms. I know vaxxed people who have done terribly and unvaxxed people who have done just fine, and vice versa. I know three people personally who have died from covid, all unvaxxed. Two with underlying conditions, one young and healthy. I don't personally know a single person except for some on this site who has had a serious reaction to the vax. In all fairness my brother in law did get a skin rash they think is from the vax that took a long time to go away. But he's diabetic and has some heart risk factors so I'd rather see him get a rash than a bad case of covid.

I don't claim that my family's personal experience is data. It's a crap shoot. There are no guarantees. There is only a risk/benefit analysis that we all have to make for ourselves based on as much credible information as we can gather.

I'm sorry for your family's issues.

If it is just a crap shoot then why are you fighting so hard for something that you dont even know is true?

 

[Confluence]

And you missed my point...these vaccines did not go through the lack of process that thalidomide did. Comparing the two is ludicrous. They did not skip phases of clinical trials, that's just not true. (Of course it's an NIH link which will be immediately discounted. Sorry I don’t have an anti-vax source for this you might trust). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8243025/

Why were they sped up? I dunno, maybe because people were dying? Isn’t death kind of a bad thing you want to rush to prevent if you can? And I happen to agree with you on infants. Because the risk of death to them from Covid is exceedingly low. So no reason not to proceed with much more caution.

"Such compressions prompted discussion about where exactly the risk–benefit line should be drawn, notably at the meeting of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities which took place in March 2020 and where most of the participants agreed that data generated in pre-clinical trials should be available prior to enrolling large numbers of human subjects into Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials."

This did not happen.

 

[oneforthebus]

If it is just a crap shoot then why are you fighting so hard for something that you dont even know is true?

When I say it’s a crap shoot I mean nothing is 100% guaranteed. I don’t mean some things aren’t statistically more likely than others. Your experience and my experience are not data. Data exists even if you think it’s bullshit. The vaccines aren’t a panacea, nor are they murderous poisons designed to harm us while enriching Pfizer. And I’m not fighting for anything, I’m disputing misinformation so people can make an informed decision. I’m giving my perspective just like everyone else here is. I have no dog in this fight, you do you.

 

[oneforthebus]

It's...exceedingly low...for the vast majority of us under 60.

Not really. I mean the risk of hospitalization and death is much higher for a 60 year old than an infant, it’s also much higher for obese people, people with diabetes etc. conditions which 60 year olds are much more likely to have.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Not really. I mean the risk of hospitalization and death is much higher for a 60 year old than an infant, it’s also much higher for obese people, people with diabetes etc. conditions which 60 year olds are much more likely to have.

No. Really. Data and facts you like to consume. It's exceedingly low for those 60 and under. It's the flu.








There are several observations worth noting. First, as we have long known, people of college age and younger are very unlikely to die. The 5-9 and 10-14 age groups are the least likely to die. (Note that an IFR of 0.001% means that one person in that age group will die for every 100,000 infected.) The 0-4 and 15-19 age groups are three times likelier to die than the 5-9 and 10-14 age groups, but the risk is still exceedingly small at 0.003% (or 3 deaths for every 100,000 infected).

Second, the IFR slowly increases with age through the 60-64 age group. But after that, beginning with the 65-69 age group, the IFR rises sharply. This group has an overall IFR just over 1% (or 1 death for every 100 infected). That's a fairly major risk of death.

 

[oneforthebus]

No. Really. Data and facts you like to consume. It's exceedingly low for those 60 and under. It's the flu.

View attachment 8890

View attachment 8891

View attachment 8892

View attachment 8893
There are several observations worth noting. First, as we have long known, people of college age and younger are very unlikely to die. The 5-9 and 10-14 age groups are the least likely to die. (Note that an IFR of 0.001% means that one person in that age group will die for every 100,000 infected.) The 0-4 and 15-19 age groups are three times likelier to die than the 5-9 and 10-14 age groups, but the risk is still exceedingly small at 0.003% (or 3 deaths for every 100,000 infected).

Second, the IFR slowly increases with age through the 60-64 age group. But after that, beginning with the 65-69 age group, the IFR rises sharply. This group has an overall IFR just over 1% (or 1 death for every 100 infected). That's a fairly major risk of death.

I don’t consider .5% exceedingly low especially with how contagious this illness is. Don’t really want to die of the flu either if I can help it. Not to mention that death is only one possible complication.