Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
You guys are drowning yourselves in facts and figures. The bottom line is that getting the vax puts you at a higher risk than getting the virus. No one can dispute that............except one clueless disciple of CNN.
They aren't rare. They happen enough that the vaccines should have been removed from the market. Every other drug prior with incidences far, far less than these were removed.
One, that's another data analysis of collected data.
Two, I've shown through FOIA provided information multiple times the CDC is definitively NOT delivering on the testing as they promised they would prior to vaccine rollout.
Three, this isn't a study of VAERS reports. VAERS is only mentioned once (in the summary) and as a part of a footnote link.
Four, I've shown the CDC is removing reports from VAERS, cleansing the records.
Five, why are there no autopsies? You want definitive proof if the vaccines are killing people? That's how you do it.
My trust and most people's trust in the CDC is pretty well gone at this point, so pardon us all for not buying a "data study" from an organization that colluded with the teacher's union to set policy for our children, an organization that colluded with Twitter to silence Americans and deliver misinformation to us all.
Wrong. I am fully well aware that people die. That people die from heart issues. That athletes once in a blue moon do die during sporting events.
My persistent argument is we don't know the truth. Not that everyone is lying. Quite a difference.
Now, on the lying. To act as if it doesn't happen is to be intentionally obtuse, or uneducated. There are cover ups (see the CDC, the FBI, the Government and Twitter). It's undeniable fact we've been lied to. There's undeniable evidence of Pfizer doctoring their testing, bypassing testing, hiding data. The CDC intentionally released faulty Covid data countless times. The CDC caught removing VAERS reports. The CDC caught lying about studying VAERS reports, proven not to be 2 years after the vaccines were released. This list could go on for pages.
You make excuses for the lies, or never ever comment on them. I guess you're fine with them because of your undying trust in Government I suppose.
So what is the truth? It lies in between "it's killing everyone" and "it's utterly safe." More people are being injured and dying from the vaccines than your extreme position allows you to believe. And fewer than you "think" I think they are.
Like Sarge and I have said, we should be questioning. We should demand answers. We should be entertaining input from both sides of the aisle on Covid vaccines. The other side of the aisle is just silenced. The right analysis and studies are not being done.
Demand autopsies. Truly investigate the VAERS reports.
They evaluated Damar Hamlin. Thoroughly. Over and over until they got the truth they wanted, or the truth that was. Why not do the same for those who die under suspicious circumstances?
Hmmm.
Sigh....
The mRNA vaccines were released globally in early 2021 with the slogan ‘safe and effective.’ Unusually for a new class of medicine, they were soon recommended by public health authorities for pregnant women.
By late 2021, working-age women, including those who were pregnant, were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the “vaccines” were safe.
Recently, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) dated January 2021 was released under a Freedom of Information request.
The report contains significant new information that had been suppressed by the TGA and by Pfizer itself. Much of this relates directly to the issue of safety in pregnancy, and impacts on the fertility of women of child-bearing age. The whole report is important, but four key data points stand out;
This point indicates that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in efficacy and must have known at the outset that the initial two-dose “course” was unlikely to confer lasting immunity and would, therefore, require multiple repeat doses. This expectation of failure was recently highlighted by Dr Anthony Fauci, former director at the US NIH.
The three remaining items should be a major cause for alarm with the pharmaceutical regulatory system. The first, as revealed in 2021, involved biodistribution studies of the lipid nanoparticle carrier in rats, using a luciferase enzyme to substitute for the mRNA vaccine.
The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection, and is found not only at the injection site, but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands, and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, lying.
Lipid concentration per gram, recalculated as percentage of injection site.
In terms of the impact on fertility and fetal abnormalities, the report includes a study of 44 rats and describes two main metrics, the pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per fetus (also expressed per litter). In both cases the metrics were significantly higher for vaccinated rats than for unvaccinated rats.
Roughly speaking, the pre-implantation loss ratio compares the estimated number of fertilised ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. The table below is taken from the report itself and clearly shows the loss rate for vaccinated (BNT162b2) is more than double the unvaccinated control group.
In a case control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group would represent a serious safety signal. Rather than take this seriously, the authors of the report then compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations; 27 studies of 568 rats, and ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses; this range is shown in the right hand column as 2.6 percent to 13.8 percent. This analysis is alarming as remaining below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere is not a safe outcome when the intervention is also associated with double the harm of the control group.
A similar pattern is observed for fetal malformations with higher abnormality rate in each of the 12 categories studied. Of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data is correct, there are only 2 total abnormalities in the control group, versus 28 with the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). In the category which Pfizer labeled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were 3 abnormalities in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group.
As with the increased pregnancy losses, Pfizer simply ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations. This is very significant as it is seen across every malformation category. The case control nature of the study design is again ignored, in order to apparently hide the negative outcomes demonstrated.
These data indicate that there is NO basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. Concentration of LNPs in ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate, and raised fetal abnormality rate across all measured categories indicates that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to available evidence. The data implies that not only was the Government’s “safe and effective” sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available.
Known unknowns and missing data:
Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of this medicine as a vaccine appears to have precluded further animal trials. Historically, new medicines, especially in classes never used in humans before, would require a very rigorous assessment. Vaccines, however, have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medicines. By classifying mRNA injections as “vaccines,” this ensured regulatory approval with significantly less stringent safety requirements, as the TGA itself notes.
In fact, mRNA gene therapies function more like medicines than vaccines in that they modify the internal functioning of cells, rather than stimulating an immune response to presence of an antigen. Labelling these gene therapy products as vaccines means that, as far as we are aware, even today no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out.
This report, which was only released after a FOI request, is extremely disturbing as it shows that authorities knew of major risks with mRNA Covid-19 vaccination while simultaneously assuring populations that it was safe. The fact that mainstream media has (as far as we are aware) completely ignored the newly released data should reinforce the need for caution when listening to the advice of public health messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccination.
Firstly, it is clear that regulators, drug companies and the government would have known that vaccine-induced immunity tails off very rapidly with this being observed in real world data with efficacy against infection falling to zero. Accordingly, the single point in time figures of 95 percent and 62 percent efficacy against cases quoted for Pfizer and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) respectively meant almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected.
Similarly, the concept of a two-dose “course” was inaccurate as endless boosters would likely have been required given the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in the monkeys.
Most importantly, the data does not in any way support the “safe” conclusion with respect to pregnancy; a conclusion of dangerous would be more accurate. The assurances of safety were, therefore, completely misleading given the data disclosures in the recent freedom of information release.
Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies showed major red flags regarding both pregnancy loss and fetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA they had been hiding from the public.
Even in March 2023, it is impossible to give these assurances, given the fact that important studies have not, to the best of our knowledge, been done.
Pfizer elected not to follow up the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they did follow. Given all of the problems with efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to women of childbearing age, and administration to healthy pregnant women is high-risk and not justified.
The False Messaging on Vaccines Given to Pregnant Women
The mRNA vaccines were released globally in early 2021 with the slogan ‘safe and effective.’ Unusually for a new class of medicine, they were soon recommended by public health authorities for pregnant women.
By late 2021, working-age women, including those who were pregnant, were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the “vaccines” were safe.
Recently, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) dated January 2021 was released under a Freedom of Information request.
The report contains significant new information that had been suppressed by the TGA and by Pfizer itself. Much of this relates directly to the issue of safety in pregnancy, and impacts on the fertility of women of child-bearing age. The whole report is important, but four key data points stand out;
- The rapid decline in antibody and T cells in monkeys following second dose,
- Biodistribution studies (previously released in 2021 through an FOI request in Japan)
- Data on the impact of fertility outcomes for rats.
- Data on fetal abnormalities in rats.
This point indicates that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in efficacy and must have known at the outset that the initial two-dose “course” was unlikely to confer lasting immunity and would, therefore, require multiple repeat doses. This expectation of failure was recently highlighted by Dr Anthony Fauci, former director at the US NIH.
The three remaining items should be a major cause for alarm with the pharmaceutical regulatory system. The first, as revealed in 2021, involved biodistribution studies of the lipid nanoparticle carrier in rats, using a luciferase enzyme to substitute for the mRNA vaccine.
The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection, and is found not only at the injection site, but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands, and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, lying.
Lipid concentration per gram, recalculated as percentage of injection site.
| ORGAN | 28 HOURS µg lipid equiv/g | TOTAL | CONC VS INJECTION SITE |
| ADRENAL | 18.21 | 164.9 | 11.04% |
| MARROW | 3.77 | 164.9 | 2.29% |
| SITE | 164.9 | 164.9 | 100.00% |
| LIVER | 24.29 | 164.9 | 14.73% |
| OVARIES | 12.26 | 164.9 | 7.43% |
| SPLEEN | 23.35 | 164.9 | 14.16% |
In terms of the impact on fertility and fetal abnormalities, the report includes a study of 44 rats and describes two main metrics, the pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per fetus (also expressed per litter). In both cases the metrics were significantly higher for vaccinated rats than for unvaccinated rats.
Roughly speaking, the pre-implantation loss ratio compares the estimated number of fertilised ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. The table below is taken from the report itself and clearly shows the loss rate for vaccinated (BNT162b2) is more than double the unvaccinated control group.
In a case control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group would represent a serious safety signal. Rather than take this seriously, the authors of the report then compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations; 27 studies of 568 rats, and ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses; this range is shown in the right hand column as 2.6 percent to 13.8 percent. This analysis is alarming as remaining below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere is not a safe outcome when the intervention is also associated with double the harm of the control group.
A similar pattern is observed for fetal malformations with higher abnormality rate in each of the 12 categories studied. Of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data is correct, there are only 2 total abnormalities in the control group, versus 28 with the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). In the category which Pfizer labeled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were 3 abnormalities in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group.
As with the increased pregnancy losses, Pfizer simply ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations. This is very significant as it is seen across every malformation category. The case control nature of the study design is again ignored, in order to apparently hide the negative outcomes demonstrated.
These data indicate that there is NO basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. Concentration of LNPs in ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate, and raised fetal abnormality rate across all measured categories indicates that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to available evidence. The data implies that not only was the Government’s “safe and effective” sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available.
Known unknowns and missing data:
Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of this medicine as a vaccine appears to have precluded further animal trials. Historically, new medicines, especially in classes never used in humans before, would require a very rigorous assessment. Vaccines, however, have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medicines. By classifying mRNA injections as “vaccines,” this ensured regulatory approval with significantly less stringent safety requirements, as the TGA itself notes.
In fact, mRNA gene therapies function more like medicines than vaccines in that they modify the internal functioning of cells, rather than stimulating an immune response to presence of an antigen. Labelling these gene therapy products as vaccines means that, as far as we are aware, even today no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out.
This report, which was only released after a FOI request, is extremely disturbing as it shows that authorities knew of major risks with mRNA Covid-19 vaccination while simultaneously assuring populations that it was safe. The fact that mainstream media has (as far as we are aware) completely ignored the newly released data should reinforce the need for caution when listening to the advice of public health messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccination.
Firstly, it is clear that regulators, drug companies and the government would have known that vaccine-induced immunity tails off very rapidly with this being observed in real world data with efficacy against infection falling to zero. Accordingly, the single point in time figures of 95 percent and 62 percent efficacy against cases quoted for Pfizer and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) respectively meant almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected.
Similarly, the concept of a two-dose “course” was inaccurate as endless boosters would likely have been required given the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in the monkeys.
Most importantly, the data does not in any way support the “safe” conclusion with respect to pregnancy; a conclusion of dangerous would be more accurate. The assurances of safety were, therefore, completely misleading given the data disclosures in the recent freedom of information release.
Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies showed major red flags regarding both pregnancy loss and fetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA they had been hiding from the public.
Even in March 2023, it is impossible to give these assurances, given the fact that important studies have not, to the best of our knowledge, been done.
Pfizer elected not to follow up the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they did follow. Given all of the problems with efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to women of childbearing age, and administration to healthy pregnant women is high-risk and not justified.
This may not hold true for the elderly (anyone older than me), with chronic medical conditions.
Pushing this on 5 years olds is just plain criminal.
Utterly. The FDA had a major announcement this week no one is paying attention to. They should. Wise observations from Jeff Childers:
Yesterday, in a significant stealth policy change, the FDA published all-new covid vaccination guidelines. In its online news release, the FDA said that the new rules are intended to “simplify” the “complicated” U.S. vaccination program, which currently requires two initial shots, any brand, then six-month boosters, any brand. That’s it.
Apparently the FDA now feels that is too complicated or something.
The over-funded, morbidly-obese health agency “simplified” the vaccine schedule by taking a single easy-to-remember rule and creating 23 separate rules with internal conditions. I am not making that up except I didn’t actually count all the new rules, because I got distracted during counting and had to start over twice. It could be more than 23.
There are now seven different groups of people that each have their own rule or rules, including: people who got one or more regular (not bivalent) vaccines; un-vaccinated kids and adults; un-vaccinated babies and toddlers; vaccinated babies and toddlers; people who got at least one of the new bivalent vaccines, EXCEPT: 65+ who had only one bivalent vaccine, and some types of immunocompromised who’ve gotten ANY of the bivalent vaccine, except for un-vaccinated babies and toddlers, who have a different rule.
Each of the groups has their own special guidance. I can’t wait to see the flowchart for this new “simplified” vaccine schedule.
Setting that initial lie aside, the FDA buried the really big news in the second group, about halfway down the long, “simplified” list of groups and rules, which covers the largest group of vaxxers. Here it is, in full:
See that? “Not currently eligible.” They’re cut off. The FDA just ended vaccinations for almost everyone following the regularly-scheduled jab programming. This holdout group of vaccine addicts, who are still lining up every four to six months to get their FREE booster shots, have all taken the bivalent vaccine by now. So the free part of the ride is over, baby!
Enter your credit card number to continue. If they want any more of the magic covid juice, they’ll have to pay for it themselves. Bivalent boosters are no longer FDA approved, not for them. (We’ll see about letting you have another one for next year’s covid season.)
The headline should have been: FDA ENDS VACCINE PROGRAM FOR MOST VACCINATED ADULTS. All remaining private vaccine mandates at colleges and private companies just hit the wall. It’s over.
It’s a grab bag of options for everyone else, depending on age, health, and vaccine status. For example, the FDA is giving older folks (65+) just ONE MORE TASTE before cutting them off:
And they still want the kids, of course. Kids — at the lowest risk for covid — can still take advantage of a dizzying array of shots (3 doses if under five, and 2 doses of Moderna or 1 dose of Pfizer at 5 and over), unless they’ve had covid, maybe, it isn’t entirely clear.
The least newsworthy but most ironic rule was the new one for all the unjabbed people. If, like me, you’ve hesitated to get the jibby jab, there’s terrific news for you in the FDA’s new vaccine guidance:
Hahahahahahahahaha! That’s comedic gold! “Peter, how are we going to convince these hesitaters and skeptics now?” “Well Dr. Kwammi, let’s simplify their decision and let them skate with just one shot.” “But Peter, that doesn’t seem fair to all the people who took the shots we’ve required so far — they might get angry!” “Dr. Kwammi, the vaccinated will believe anything we tell them; they’ll never even notice.”
The FDA’s explanation for why an unvaccinated person can just have one shot and be “fully vaccinated” even though everyone else had to get seven shots was, get ready for this, a lot of people have already had covid.
Natural immunity!
I don’t know about you, but for me, as a vaccine-hesitant person, well, to be fair, a vaccine skeptical person … alright, truthfully I’m probably ANTI VACCINE at this point (I can’t follow all the definitional rules) — I’m going to ‘pass’ on the FDA’s offer to let me get be “fully vaccinated” with just one little prick.
Hard pass.
People who got seven+ shots should be furious about this. Many of them got multiple jabs after getting covid, sometimes even after getting covid twice or three times. The FDA says, “follow the science?” The science is meandering around crazier than a Baltimore panhandler who just finished his second bottle of Jack Daniels, and it’s only eight o’clock in the morning.
How are we supposed to follow THAT? Science needs to go to rehab.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
What makes you think deaths aren’t being evaluated? Because they don’t produce the answers you want them to? Again, there is plenty of data on what is causing excess deaths, you just ignore it or call it lies. You don’t accept any source of information that doesn’t agree with what you want to believe. Legitimate science doesn’t agree with you and the many distortions of data that you repost constantly from anti-vax sites.
The bottom line is vaccinated people are not dying at greater rates than unvaxxed ones. So what you have convinced yourself of is simply not true.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
Here’s a UK study that draws the same conclusions since you don’t trust the CDC.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
The US birthrate has increased each of the last 5 years including the current one, after decades of decline.Sigh....
The False Messaging on Vaccines Given to Pregnant Women
The mRNA vaccines were released globally in early 2021 with the slogan ‘safe and effective.’ Unusually for a new class of medicine, they were soon recommended by public health authorities for pregnant women.
By late 2021, working-age women, including those who were pregnant, were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the “vaccines” were safe.
Recently, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) dated January 2021 was released under a Freedom of Information request.
The report contains significant new information that had been suppressed by the TGA and by Pfizer itself. Much of this relates directly to the issue of safety in pregnancy, and impacts on the fertility of women of child-bearing age. The whole report is important, but four key data points stand out;
We focus on the last three items as, for the first point, it is enough to quote the report itself “Antibodies and T cells in monkeys declined quickly over 5 weeks after the second dose of BNT162b2 (V9), raising concerns over long term immunity…”.
- The rapid decline in antibody and T cells in monkeys following second dose,
- Biodistribution studies (previously released in 2021 through an FOI request in Japan)
- Data on the impact of fertility outcomes for rats.
- Data on fetal abnormalities in rats.
This point indicates that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in efficacy and must have known at the outset that the initial two-dose “course” was unlikely to confer lasting immunity and would, therefore, require multiple repeat doses. This expectation of failure was recently highlighted by Dr Anthony Fauci, former director at the US NIH.
The three remaining items should be a major cause for alarm with the pharmaceutical regulatory system. The first, as revealed in 2021, involved biodistribution studies of the lipid nanoparticle carrier in rats, using a luciferase enzyme to substitute for the mRNA vaccine.
The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection, and is found not only at the injection site, but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands, and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, lying.
Lipid concentration per gram, recalculated as percentage of injection site.
ORGAN 28 HOURS µg lipid equiv/g TOTAL CONC VS INJECTION SITE ADRENAL 18.21 164.9 11.04% MARROW 3.77 164.9 2.29% SITE 164.9 164.9 100.00% LIVER 24.29 164.9 14.73% OVARIES 12.26 164.9 7.43% SPLEEN 23.35 164.9 14.16%
In terms of the impact on fertility and fetal abnormalities, the report includes a study of 44 rats and describes two main metrics, the pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per fetus (also expressed per litter). In both cases the metrics were significantly higher for vaccinated rats than for unvaccinated rats.
Roughly speaking, the pre-implantation loss ratio compares the estimated number of fertilised ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. The table below is taken from the report itself and clearly shows the loss rate for vaccinated (BNT162b2) is more than double the unvaccinated control group.
In a case control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group would represent a serious safety signal. Rather than take this seriously, the authors of the report then compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations; 27 studies of 568 rats, and ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses; this range is shown in the right hand column as 2.6 percent to 13.8 percent. This analysis is alarming as remaining below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere is not a safe outcome when the intervention is also associated with double the harm of the control group.
A similar pattern is observed for fetal malformations with higher abnormality rate in each of the 12 categories studied. Of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data is correct, there are only 2 total abnormalities in the control group, versus 28 with the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). In the category which Pfizer labeled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were 3 abnormalities in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group.
As with the increased pregnancy losses, Pfizer simply ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations. This is very significant as it is seen across every malformation category. The case control nature of the study design is again ignored, in order to apparently hide the negative outcomes demonstrated.
These data indicate that there is NO basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. Concentration of LNPs in ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate, and raised fetal abnormality rate across all measured categories indicates that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to available evidence. The data implies that not only was the Government’s “safe and effective” sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available.
Known unknowns and missing data:
Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of this medicine as a vaccine appears to have precluded further animal trials. Historically, new medicines, especially in classes never used in humans before, would require a very rigorous assessment. Vaccines, however, have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medicines. By classifying mRNA injections as “vaccines,” this ensured regulatory approval with significantly less stringent safety requirements, as the TGA itself notes.
In fact, mRNA gene therapies function more like medicines than vaccines in that they modify the internal functioning of cells, rather than stimulating an immune response to presence of an antigen. Labelling these gene therapy products as vaccines means that, as far as we are aware, even today no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out.
This report, which was only released after a FOI request, is extremely disturbing as it shows that authorities knew of major risks with mRNA Covid-19 vaccination while simultaneously assuring populations that it was safe. The fact that mainstream media has (as far as we are aware) completely ignored the newly released data should reinforce the need for caution when listening to the advice of public health messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccination.
Firstly, it is clear that regulators, drug companies and the government would have known that vaccine-induced immunity tails off very rapidly with this being observed in real world data with efficacy against infection falling to zero. Accordingly, the single point in time figures of 95 percent and 62 percent efficacy against cases quoted for Pfizer and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) respectively meant almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected.
Similarly, the concept of a two-dose “course” was inaccurate as endless boosters would likely have been required given the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in the monkeys.
Most importantly, the data does not in any way support the “safe” conclusion with respect to pregnancy; a conclusion of dangerous would be more accurate. The assurances of safety were, therefore, completely misleading given the data disclosures in the recent freedom of information release.
Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies showed major red flags regarding both pregnancy loss and fetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA they had been hiding from the public.
Even in March 2023, it is impossible to give these assurances, given the fact that important studies have not, to the best of our knowledge, been done.
Pfizer elected not to follow up the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they did follow. Given all of the problems with efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to women of childbearing age, and administration to healthy pregnant women is high-risk and not justified.
More lies I guess…
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
UK and Norwegian studies showing no increase in miscarriage risk among vaccinated women
Add them to the list along with the lying CDC American one:
jamanetwork.com
Add them to the list along with the lying CDC American one:
Spontaneous Abortion Following COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy
This study presents findings from case-control surveillance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.
jamanetwork.com
I am 67 and a borderline diabetic. Me and my wife both got the covid. It lasted 2 days and was gone.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
The vast majority of doctors and epidemiologists would dispute that but ok.
Because I've provided endless documented evidence of it.
Plenty of data on both sides of the aisle. You only listen to that which supports your position.
No I read it. When I find evidence to the contrary, I know we don't have the answers. So I question it all. You just drink from the fountain of information from the Government and trust it.
You do realize that that article exposed Pfizer hiding and distorting data don't you?
Instead of addressing that issue (which should concern us all - when a pharma hides/buries important test data), your position is "that's fine, I don't care if they lie to us, distort the truth, I found a source that says births are up."
Brilliant.
You also realize there are sources that contradict those that serve to support your confirmation bias? Are you spreading misinformation? You hate misinformation spreading.
Worldwide birthrates:
United States birthrates:
Who's lying?
A review of this study: "The heterogeneity in the study designs and patient characteristics, along with the risk of bias, limited the generalizability of the current meta-analysis. It also highlights the need for better-quality research involving pregnant women in the future. Most studies performed suboptimal protocols, resulting in varied study outcomes. This restricted analysis of high-quality evidence. The low-quality data also decreased the certainty of pooled estimates, particularly for pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy was not reported in any studies considered...No apparent elevated risk of miscarriage was observed among pregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. This rate was consistent with the miscarriage rate in the general population before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the certainty of this observation is low due to the presence of inconsistencies in the data.
In the future, there is a need to evaluate the short and long-term safety and efficacy of all COVID-19 vaccines on pregnant women and their offspring. In addition, extensive prospective cohort studies matched controls, along with epidemiological and translational studies, must be conducted to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the different COVID-19 vaccination programs, which will help reduce adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes."
You realize the NEJM article is from late 2021...yes??
Add them to the list along with the lying CDC American one:
Spontaneous Abortion Following COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy
This study presents findings from case-control surveillance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.
And that is from September 2021. Come on LOL. There wasn't enough baseline time to even evaluate the issue at that point. First wave of Jabs started 9 months before that.
FDA Knew 44% of Pregnant Women in Pfizer Trial Suffered Miscarriages - UncoverDC
The FDA's ongoing Pfizer data dump reveals the agency looked away as 44% of pregnant trial participants suffered heartbreaking miscarriages.
uncoverdc.com
Seems to me there's a lot to be concerned about. While you're operating primarily on information from 2021, I'm posting information presented this month in Australia from FOIA-like inquiries showing Pfizer covered up damning data about the vaccines and their impact on reproduction.
Birth rates are dropping (they have been everywhere for years).
We should be investigating.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
A review of this study: "The heterogeneity in the study designs and patient characteristics, along with the risk of bias, limited the generalizability of the current meta-analysis. It also highlights the need for better-quality research involving pregnant women in the future. Most studies performed suboptimal protocols, resulting in varied study outcomes. This restricted analysis of high-quality evidence. The low-quality data also decreased the certainty of pooled estimates, particularly for pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy was not reported in any studies considered...No apparent elevated risk of miscarriage was observed among pregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. This rate was consistent with the miscarriage rate in the general population before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the certainty of this observation is low due to the presence of inconsistencies in the data.
In the future, there is a need to evaluate the short and long-term safety and efficacy of all COVID-19 vaccines on pregnant women and their offspring. In addition, extensive prospective cohort studies matched controls, along with epidemiological and translational studies, must be conducted to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the different COVID-19 vaccination programs, which will help reduce adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes."
You realize the NEJM article is from late 2021...yes??
And that is from September 2021. Come on LOL. There wasn't enough baseline time to even evaluate the issue at that point. First wave of Jabs started 9 months before that.
View attachment 10821
FDA Knew 44% of Pregnant Women in Pfizer Trial Suffered Miscarriages - UncoverDC
The FDA's ongoing Pfizer data dump reveals the agency looked away as 44% of pregnant trial participants suffered heartbreaking miscarriages.
View attachment 10820
Seems to me there's a lot to be concerned about. While you're operating primarily on information from 2021, I'm posting information presented this month in Australia from FOIA-like inquiries showing Pfizer covered up damning data about the vaccines and their impact on reproduction.
Birth rates are dropping (they have been everywhere for years).
We should be investigating.
You continue to post anti-vax crap that has been repeatedly debunked. Of course all you have to do when it is scientifically debunked is dismiss the source and claim scientists are lying. It's hilarious. I know you will just say the AP is lying (they're all in on it! Everyone wants to enrich big pharma and they don't care how many people die!) but please note, the site that originally posted this claim issued a correction.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
Meanwhile pregnant women are 7 times more likely to die from Covid so this little piece of misinformation likely killed some women and their unborn children.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/pregnant-women-are-7-times-more-likely-die-covid-19-study
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
So, if birth rates are going down, it’s the vaccine! If birth rates are going up, it’s a lie!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
A more thorough explanation of how the data was distorted to arrive at the false 44% number. Yes, it’s fact-check.org which will be immediately dismissed. Read the facts and see how clearly the anti-vax movement has intentionally distorted them.
A more generous explanation is that they simply don’t understand how science and statistics work but I doubt that.
www.factcheck.org
A more generous explanation is that they simply don’t understand how science and statistics work but I doubt that.
COVID-19 Vaccination Doesn’t Increase Miscarriage Risk, Contrary to Naomi Wolf's Spurious Stat - FactCheck.org
Studies have repeatedly found that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase the risk of miscarriage. Bogus claims that 44% of pregnant women in the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine trial miscarried rely on a faulty tally of miscarriages that counted each miscarriage twice and included miscarriages...
www.factcheck.org
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
This document contains links to numerous (real) studies having to do with vaccination, fertility, menstrual cycles and pregnancy outcomes for anyone who's interested.
Cool. I am willing to stand corrected when errors are found. So it wasn't 44%. What was it in actuality? They did happen among test participants.
Odd that the AP "fact check" doesn't fess up to how many there were.
Odd that the AP doesn't slam Pfizer for hiding all of this data, which had to be obtained through court filings, leaving it up to 3rd parties to analyze/investigate.
Odd no one cares about the vast increase in miscarriages reported to VAERS, CMS, et al.
So, if birth rates are going down, it’s the vaccine! If birth rates are going up, it’s a lie!
That was a great opportunity to say "whoops, I was wrong. I try not to spread misinformation."
Similar threads
