The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

Quote from Zeus46

Just out of interest Curbina, when you were lying in your hospital bed with “pneumonia”, did you ever for even the slightest moment regret not getting vaccinated?

Or do genuinely believe you didn’t really have covid? (Instead of just calling it was “pneumonia” out of embarrassment?)

…Genuine questions. I honestly don’t know any anti-vaxxers in my personal life*, so it’s interesting to me to understand their mindset.

*Other than the mother-in-law, but (a) we don’t share a language, and (b) she owns a massive house on a large piece of land… Therefore I whole-heartedly support whatever selfish and harmful stance she pleases.

Display More

The only thing I regretted was having let them get me hospitalized in the first place. Had I known how it was going to be, I wouldn’t have ever got into it.

Quote from Curbina

Without the intention to disagree, I am well aware of the official version. Let's hope reality never proves mr. Zaks wrong, We won't know for sure in several years, and it will be already too late for most.

There is no mechanism by which a small fragment of RNA could enter the nucleus. That is physically impossible. That is the central dogma of modern biology, and it is as certain as evolution or thermodynamics. Foreign RNA enters the body millions of times, in the form of viral infections such as the cold, influenza, or COVID. It never changes the nucleus or DNA. There is no reverse transcriptase in the human body, none in a full COVID virus, and none in this fragment.

You might as well worry that cells in the body might violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Now also CDC admits that 44% of all hospitalized patients had been boostered. The data also shows that the 4th booster makes things even worse... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szUC8GpGJ4A

Of course CDC is by far an underestimate ...

Rapid initiation of nasal saline irrigation to reduce severity in high-risk COVID+ outpatients

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01455613221123737

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether initiating saline nasal irrigation after COVID-19 diagnosis reduces hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients compared with observational controls, and if irrigant composition impacts severity.

Methods

Participants 55 and older were enrolled within 24 hours of a + PCR COVID-19 test between September 24 and December 21, 2020. Among 826 screened, 79 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to add 2.5 mL povidone-iodine 10% or 2.5 mL sodium bicarbonate to 240 mL of isotonic nasal irrigation twice daily for 14 days. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death from COVID-19 within 28 days of enrollment by daily self-report confirmed with phone calls and hospital records, compared to the CDC Surveillance Dataset covering the same time. Secondary outcomes compared symptom resolution by irrigant additive.

Results

Seventy-nine high-risk participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 64 [8] years; 36 [46%] women; 71% Non-Hispanic White), with mean BMI 30.3. Analyzed by intention-to-treat, by day 28, COVID-19 symptoms resulted in one ED visit and no hospitalizations in 42 irrigating with alkalinization, one hospitalization of 37 in the povidone-iodine group, (1.27%) and no deaths. Of nearly three million CDC cases, 9.47% were known to be hospitalized, with an additional 1.5% mortality in those without hospitalization data. Age, sex, and percentage with pre-existing conditions did not significantly differ by exact binomial test from the CDC dataset, while reported race and hospitalization rate did. The total risk of hospitalization or death (11%) was 8.57 times that of enrolled nasal irrigation participants (SE = 2.74; P = .006). Sixty-two participants completed daily surveys (78%), averaging 1.8 irrigations/day. Eleven reported irrigation-related complaints and four discontinued use. Symptom resolution was more likely for those reporting twice daily irrigation (X2 = 8.728, P = .0031) regardless of additive.

Conclusion

SARS-CoV-2+ participants initiating nasal irrigation were over 8 times less likely to be hospitalized than the national rate.

Quote from Fm1

People Are Dying. Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/…-ask.-dont-tell.-f83158b6

37-year-old mountain biker Rab Wardell died of cardiac arrest days after winning Scotland’s national senior cross-country biking championship. (Instagram)

After months of skirting YouTube censors, the ax fell on medical educator Dr. John Campbell when he spent fourteen minutes on August 20 parsing figures on two disturbing trends in the United Kingdom. First, UK deaths in 2022 were an alarming 14 percent higher than the prior five years, with 1,480 excess deaths—not attributed to covid-19—in the week ending August 5 alone.

Second, figures on deaths after covid vaccinations were wildly uninformative. One government document put them as low as 10—“incredulous,” Campbell said—while another official report put them as high as 21,000 when underreporting was considered.

A careful, evidence-based analyst with 2.4 million subscribers, Campbell wanted to know: “Why is no one talking about this in the UK?”

YouTube provided an answer: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”

Indeed, but for a small cadre of brave doctors and researchers, few dare discuss the aftermath of covid management in the UK, US, and elsewhere—and chiefly the wisdom of repeated vaccinations. Instead, the questionable “safe and effective” mantra infuses media reports and, remarkably, science publishing that sometimes indicates quite the opposite.

“We have a million injuries and all these deaths,” Dr. Meryl Nass said in reference to figures from the US vaccine reporting system, “and there’s a combination of hiding information and misinterpreting data in the public domain by the CDC and FDA.”

Nass, a Maine doctor and anthrax vaccine expert, knows the toll of challenging covid dogma. Her medical license was suspended last January over charges she did not support covid vaccines and used treatments that—while legal and off-label—were “not authorized or approved” for covid-19.

“I prescribed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine”—shown in many studies to save lives—“and advised against the vaccine,” she told me. In return, Maine’s medical board ordered a neuropsychological exam—essentially a test, she said, of her mental stability—for disseminating “misinformation regarding the SARS CoV2 pandemic and the official public health response calling for vaccinations.” A hearing will be held in coming months.

Even as people like Campbell and Nass remain in the crosshairs, prominent experts in the alt-vaccine world have told me recently of a groundswell of movement. This view is not based on a distinct shift in the public perception or fixed official dogma. As a headline in the Wall Street Journal on August 28 stated: Latest Covid Boosters Are Set to Roll Out Before Human Testing Is Completed.

Still, experts say the evidence of post-covid damage—from a vaccine-centered pandemic response that rejected early treatment—is becoming too big to ignore.

“The dam wall is cracking,” said Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care expert and chairman of the Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance. “The data is coming out,” he told me.

“The excess mortality data, miscarriage data, and dropping birth rates are accumulating from numerous places around the world. All data timed in relation to vaccine rollouts,” agreed FLCCC’s president, Dr. Pierre Kory, when I asked his view on these trends. “It is an unmitigated humanitarian catastrophe that is being systematically censored.”

Now, as covid recedes, these experts see vaccines as issue number one.

“No sane person vaccinates the entire country with an experimental vaccine without trials,” Dr. Nass said. “Particularly since the whole country already has some immunity; the virulence is low, and”—the focus of this article—“the evidence supports higher all-cause mortality with an increasing number of vaccine doses.”

More are dying, still

As the Omicron chapter closes and covid deaths decline, another ominous trend, many months in the making, is coming into stark relief. People in the prime of life are dying in unexpected numbers.

The trend was noticed in the third quarter of 2021, as I wrote last January, when the OneAmerica group of insurance companies reported a 40 percent increase in deaths in 18- to 64-year-olds. “Our data,” the company told me then, “shows an increase in death rates in our business across the U.S., which aligns with what we’re seeing in national industry data.” Of 250,000 deaths in that age group, the company statement said, just 20 percent, 50,600, were attributed to covid. The company refused to answer follow-up questions.

What happened in Germany a month later may explain why.

The chart above, labeled “Number of vaccinations versus excess mortality,” is from a German study on excess pandemic deaths. It states: “The red line shows the death deficit, respectively the excess deaths, the four dashed lines the number of vaccinations from January 2021 to June 2022.”

In February 2022, the insurance giant BKK ProVita reported startling findings in a study of 10.9 million client records from the first seven months of 2021. Nearly 217,000 patients had sought medical attention after vaccination against covid, the study found, putting the company’s vaccine-injured figure more than ten times above official estimates and translating into a national rate of 4 to 5 percent of vaccinees.

Company Director Andreas Schöfbeck wrote in a letter that the data indicated “significant underreporting of suspected side effects following Corona vaccinations” in the government tracking system.

“We regard this as a significantly alarming signal that must be taken into account in the further use of vaccines,” he wrote.

Nine days later, Schöfbeck was fired, amid assertions he was seeking attention and showed “embarrassing ignorance or insidious intent to deceive.” This is what happens when 11 million records come up with an answer that defies the vaccine narrative. “Danger to human life cannot be ruled out,” the disgraced official had warned in his missive.

Some see that danger being realized.

Dr. Eyal Shahar, a physician and retired public health professor at the University of Arizona, recently analyzed three datasets of United States deaths, including two from the Centers for Disease Control and one from Our World in Data.

He observed that the share of excess deaths, above what would be considered normal and not accounted for by covid, grew over time, even as the nation’s supposed best method of controlling the pandemic—vaccines—was being rolled out. From April to December 2020, non-covid excess deaths ranged across the datasets from 11 percent to 27 percent of all excess deaths; by June to September 2021, they roughly doubled, to 26 percent to 43 percent, Shahar found. Some 47,000 to 82,000 unexplained, non-covid excess deaths occurred in those four months alone, he estimated.

Shahar was so disturbed by his findings that he examined death statistics in his home state of Arizona. The trend was the same. Twenty-two percent of excess deaths in the eighteen months through September 2021—more than 5,000 Arizonans—were not from covid, he found. Asked why non-covid excess deaths were soaring, he told me, “I wish I knew.”

Theories for the increase focus on two complex dynamics:

Lockdown effects related to untreated disease, economic deprivation, violence, suicide, and overdose.

The role of covid vaccines.

While the first dynamic is generally recognized, the second has been minimized and dismissed. It cries out for more honest scientific study. Indicative, perhaps, of a turning tide, a new peer-reviewed study in Vaccine journal analyzed the aftermath of jabs, finding serious and under-studied injuries: “These results raise concerns that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time of emergency authorization.”

Lives lost too soon—and in utero

In perhaps the most exhaustive analysis yet, posted online on August 18, researchers at two German universities found disturbing trends in death data. “Something must have happened in April 2021 that led to a sudden and sustained increase in mortality in the age groups below 80 years,” the study states. “[N]o such effects on mortality had been observed during the COVID-19 pandemic so far.”

Unlike covid, which disproportionately kills older people, the explosion of non-covid deaths in Germany was across the board—“almost entirely due to an increase in deaths in the age groups between 15 and 79,” the report said. The group with the largest share of unexplained excess deaths, 9.3 percent above expected, was 40- to 49-year-olds; but even 15- to 29-year-olds had 3.5 percent more unexplained deaths.

When the researchers charted the numbers, they saw eerie parallels, called “covaries,” between four covid inoculation campaigns and tandem surges in deaths. As they put it, “the strong increase in mortality in April 2021 and the further development of the excess deaths covaries [correlates] with the strong increase of the number of vaccinations.” In other words, more shots aligned with more deaths.

The chart above, labeled “Monthly stillbirths in the years 2020 to 2022 in Germany,” is from a German study on excess pandemic deaths. It states: “The upper panel shows the number of live births per quarter since 2019; the middle panel the number of stillbirths per quarter since 2019; and the lower panel the number of stillbirths per 1000 births per quarter since 2019.”

If this wasn’t bad enough, the study, performed by an actuary-mathematician and psychologist, picked up a 10.9 percent increase in stillborn babies from 2020 to the second quarter of 2021. The uptick, also “sudden and sustained,” the study said, continued through the first quarter of 2022, when 9.9 percent more stillbirths were recorded as a share of births. “In the year 2021, starting in April, a striking excess [stillbirth] mortality is observed,” they wrote.

Study author Matthias Reitzner, a widely published mathematician based at University of Osnabrück, told me he was surprised by the dearth of research on excess deaths using standard actuarial models long employed by insurance companies and pension funds.

“Maybe the outcome of the computations does not fit into the official COVID19-narrative,” he wrote in an email. “In all major German media this issue is totally ignored as it does not fit into the storytelling-line the government wants to be published.”

Uncounted, underreported

Although the problem is not acknowledged, many analysts, physicians and scientists are expressing growing alarm over the effects of covid vaccines on pregnancy.

Pfizer documents released under a judge’s order showed an astronomical 87.5 percent fetal and neonate death rate after maternal vaccination: In 32 pregnancies, there were 25 miscarriages and three neonatal deaths. The documents were inscrutable, perhaps intentionally so, stating that “no outcome was provided” for another 238 pregnancies, according to an article by FLCCC’s Dr. Kory.

It’s tempting to dismiss such figures, as an AP “fact-check” did, as lacking context. Based on its own study, the CDC calls vaccination in pregnancy “safe and effective.” But that “preliminary” study used data tracked through online surveillance systems in selective ways, researchers found.

Among 827 women vaccinated during pregnancy, rates of miscarriage were comparable to pre-pandemic levels, the CDC study said. But among 127 women vaccinated before 20 weeks gestation, 104 pregnancies—82 percent—ended in spontaneous abortion, according to a critique in Science, Public Policy and the Law.

“Our re-analysis indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion 7 to 8 times higher than the original authors’ results,” the November 2021 study concluded.

As of August 19, 2022, Vaccines Adverse Events Reporting System listed 1,769 miscarriages in the United States and its territories, among a total of 4,963 including foreign reports.

Government and media routinely dismiss these figures as anecdotal and lacking foundation.

In reality, public reporting systems were widely acknowledged before covid to suffer from vast undercounting of harm. A 2009 US study estimated that just 1 percent of vaccine injuries were reported, while in the UK “only 10% of serious reactions, and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported,” a 2018 government report found.

This suggests that those 1,769 doomed pregnancies reported in the US are but the tip of the iceberg.

“The reasons behind these horrific numbers [of overall excess deaths] are complicated and none of us fully understand them,” London GP Charles Levinson said in a rare UK media report. “That is exactly why there should be an urgent and comprehensive government inquiry.” Instead, he saw “total silence” on the issue.

The German scientists, similarly, called for “a reassessment of the mortality burden brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

That, of course, is the point. Find out what is going on. Instead, Dr. Campbell asked the question on YouTube and was censored. As a journalist, I espoused early covid treatment and was suspended for life from Twitter—for tweeting on Nobel Prize-winning ivermectin, which could have saved hundreds of thousands from covid death.

One singular study

Leave it to researchers in Thailand to do what the United States and others countries have not: Follow a group of healthy adolescents double-vaccinated for Covid-19 and see how they fared. Dr. Marik said their effort is the first prospective study since the vaccine rollout on anyone, let alone youngsters. “It’s really important,” he said.

The Thai study, of 301 adolescents from 13 to 18 years old, found significant cardiac and other anomalies after getting the Pfizer vaccine. Nearly 18 percent had abnormal electrocardiograms; 7.6 percent suffered tachycardia; 4 percent had high blood pressure, and 4.3 percent each had palpitations and chest pain. Moreover, chemical markers of heart inflammation were found in 2.3 percent, among them one teenager who suffered myocarditis; two with suspected pericarditis, and four with likely “subclinical myocarditis.”

In a comment posted on the study’s preprint, Dr. Rosamund Jones, a British pediatrician and critic of covid vaccines for children, called the findings “hugely concerning” and challenged the weak conclusion, as did others, that teens be monitored after covid vaccination. That’s typical of the concessions such studies make to get published.

“In normal times, the conclusion would have been to withdraw this drug urgently,” Dr. Jones wrote.

Another physician, Dr. Paul Spradbery said the study’s characterization of myopericarditis cases as “usually mild,” was “dangerous.” The condition “leads to cardiac tissue scarring and hence impaired ability to pump blood,” he wrote.

While other studies have found post-vaccination heart injury in adolescents—one reported a 133-fold higher rate of myocarditis in vaccinated teenage boys—the Thai research suggests the damage may be far more common than retrospective studies found.

One among many

On August 22, a 37-year-old Scottish mountain biker, Rab Wardell, went into cardiac arrest while lying in bed with his partner, Olympic cyclist Katie Archibald. She tried desperately to revive him. The athlete’s death came two days after Wardell won Scotland’s national senior cross-country biking championship, having won the junior title two decades earlier. “Stoked to be able to take the win,” he wrote on Instagram, where, just hours before his death, he posted a photograph of his appearance on The Nine, a Scottish BBC sports program.

Statistically, Wardell most certainly fits into the category of the moment: unexplained, early, non-covid death.

Of note, the Scottish Parliament launched an inquiry last January into a growing trend of above-average deaths that emerged in mid-2021. Last May, the nation’s health secretary issued a response to the concerns of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee of The Scottish Parliament that revealed little about why Scots were dying.

“We have recently reviewed the content and frequency of all COVID-19 data reporting, working in partnership with Public Health Scotland and National Records of Scotland,” Humza Yousef wrote, “and will continue to closely monitor excess deaths.”

The word vaccine was not mentioned.

Display More

I won't spend much time here - but for those still following the antivaxxers posting trialsite antivaxxer and obviously antiscience content a comment on this.

COVID-19 vaccination and mortality in young people during the coronavirus pandemic - Office for National Statistics

The UK is carefully monitoring death rates amongst different age groups - and open to the possibility that vaccination (amongst many other covid-related causes) might contribute to this.

Thus far we do have an uptick in young people mortality - but those who bother to look at the data see that it contradicts the antivaxxer anecdote-rich propaganda:

• There is currently no evidence of a change in the number of cardiac-related deaths or death occurring from any cause after a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination in young people aged 12 to 29 years in England.
• More deaths were registered in young people aged 15 to 29 years in England in 2021 than the average number registered in 2015 to 2019; however, there was no excess in 2021 for deaths from circulatory diseases.
• We do not yet have a complete picture of how the coronavirus pandemic has affected deaths in young people, because it takes a long time to investigate deaths from external causes; we will continue to monitor the safety of vaccines and the changes in excess deaths.
• Early indications show deaths in 2020 increased for some causes, particularly suicides in young females and accidental poisonings (mostly drug poisonings) in young males.

So, basically - as we all know - lockdowns (and now possibly pressure from cost-of-living crisis) affect suicides

Lack of timely response from health services very overstretched from covid and its backlog - particularly in the area of mental health - affect suicide rates

Everyone is expecting an uptick in cancer deaths due to longer waiting lists for everything - but it is too early for this to be seen in the figures.

These things about whole-population health and what affects it are important, and interesting. It is a real shame that sites like trialsite promote anecdote claiming to be scientific study, and opinion that cannot be substantiated, instead of reflective analysis of the statistical picture as it emerges. There is a lot we still don't know. What we DO know contradicts the narrative in the trialsite link.

For those who want to follow numbers for themselves, and are not professional data scientists (or who are, still do not have 5 hours to spare from a day job to collate data) here is the best resource I know:

Quote from JedRothwell

COVID does cause pneumonia, but a serious case causes many other problems, such as brain damage and other organ failures.

In the case of many antivaxxers, on evidence posted here, it is not clear that any brain damage would change cognitive ability at least in the area of processing information on vaccines...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Just to note that correlation does imply causation, and we know that many illnesses result in low vitamin D levels. I think there may have been some RCTs testing vit D supplementation in COVID patients that would provide definite info? Or maybe other drugs (ivermectin etc) are reckoned a better bet. We should have international coordination, instead of 4 different trials all looking at ivermectin.

It is definitely a better bet to try to change the immunomodulation that covid does, than to find an antiviral. I agree Vit D has possibilities here - as do a lot of othrer things!

Correlation creates confusion! Vitamin D correlates with sunlight exposure. Therefore it correlates with everything sunlight exposure does.

However there are many things sunlight exposure does that don't involve Vitamin D.

It turns out the Red and Near Infrared light have a profound effect on COVID and the work has been done to isolate this effect from the Vitamin D effect!

One place this has been popularized is in Youtube MedCram series, which has had several videos on the topic.

By the way, you will die waiting for an RCT of a non-profitable treatment.

And RCT's are an inappropriate way to deal with a war or pandemic.

No one did a RCT of antibiotics in WWII before the Dept of Ag started making it in giant vats.

When they say "there is insufficient evidence for <<any cheap drug>>" it's dishonest to not complete the sentence with "...and there never will be because FDA has zero budget for trials and private companies aren't allowed to throw money away."

...and by all means, make sure everyone has enough Vitamin D.

Of all the stupid things doctors say, the fear they have of "vitamin D overdose" is remarkable. They all get taught some 50 year old myth in medical school and never update-- because there is no marketing team paying to update textbook knowledge of any inexpensive treatment.

I'm not saying Vitamin D is bad, when I'm saying Sunlight (and light exposure) is good.

Fear of Melanoma from the UV in sunlight is a true concern. And it can be ennumerated and compared to other things.

It turns out that insufficient sunlight exposure causes 30 times more health damage, than melanoma does.

For instance, if you have high blood pressure, sunlight can help with that, and that's likely to be way more important than your risk of melanoma. Particularly if you are older and probably won't be waiting 30 years to see if you started a new melanoma today.

But you don't have to trade melanoma for light exposure. Significant UV is near midday only. So you could avoid the midday sun, like everybody but mad-dogs and Englishmen.

And light bulbs such as therapeutic Red and NIR or even Blue come with zero elevated cancer risk.

Saunas provide IR and health benefits without elevated cancer risk.

Quote from Fm1

Rapid initiation of nasal saline irrigation to reduce severity in high-risk COVID+ outpatients

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01455613221123737

I've been doing this for years, and still haven't got COVID.

But I also take vaccines and antivirals.

I believe science, no matter which political party decides to align with part of it.

Quote from grumpy

By the way, you will die waiting for an RCT of a non-profitable treatment.

And RCT's are an inappropriate way to deal with a war or pandemic.

No one did a RCT of antibiotics in WWII before the Dept of Ag started making it in giant vats.

When they say "there is insufficient evidence for <<any cheap drug>>" it's dishonest to not complete the sentence with "...and there never will be because FDA has zero budget for trials and private companies aren't allowed to throw money away."

I'd agree with a lot of this.

It did however not apply to covid treatment options.

There were many big govt-funded studies looking at repurposed (essentially zero cost) drugs - for which dexamethazone was the first example - that help with covid. These studies were revolutionary in being adaptive and multi-arm, while having the statistical integrity of one-drug RCTs.

ivermectin - due to massive PR - and hydroxychloroquine (the lab info case here was stronger) both got many funded studies, ivermectin many large multi-arm randomised trials.

I think the response finding drugs has been really good - with the exception that social-media generated demands for ivermectin skewed things as well as making it difficult for serious studies to look at ivermectin because of the death threats that anyone releasing negative ivermectin information received. Who would want to add a not good looking drug to their trial if a likely negative results (most drugs tested are negative) might require investigators getting social media death threats and branded as a killer of millions of people?

I'm not a fan of social media as a tool to influence the world. Rather like taking mob psychology and amplifying it so that it affects people even when not part of a mob baying for blood.

THH

Quote from grumpy

Correlation creates confusion! Vitamin D correlates with sunlight exposure. Therefore it correlates with everything sunlight exposure does.

However there are many things sunlight exposure does that don't involve Vitamin D.

It turns out the Red and Near Infrared light have a profound effect on COVID and the work has been done to isolate this effect from the Vitamin D effect!

One place this has been popularized is in Youtube MedCram series, which has had several videos on the topic.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Display More

well who knows? Getting clear evidence for any of these hypotheses is remarkably difficult - and the fact that unclear evidence can often be presented as strong evidence muddies the water.

Clinical Manifestation, Management, and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Acute Encephalitis: Two Case Reports and a Literature Review

Clinical Manifestation, Management, and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Acute Encephalitis: Two Case Reports and a Literature Review - PubMed

The use of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent and control SARS-CoV-2 infections and complications is the most practicable policy worldwide. However, inaccurate…

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract

Introduction: Vaccination is one of the best strategies to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and multiple vaccines have been introduced. A variety of neurological adverse effects have been noted after the implementation of large-scale vaccination programs.

Methods: We reported two rare cases of possible mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced acute encephalitis, including clinical manifestations, laboratory characteristics, and management.

Results: The clinical manifestations might be related to hyperproduction of systemic and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytokines. mRNA vaccines are comprised of nucleoside-modified severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA, which is translated into SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by the host's ribosomes, activating the adaptive immune response. Exposed mRNA or vaccine components may also be detected as antigens, further resulting in aberrant proinflammatory cytokine cascades and activation of immune signaling pathways. Both patients exhibited significant clinical improvement after a course of steroid therapy.

Conclusions: The use of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent and control SARS-CoV-2 infections and complications is the most practicable policy worldwide. However, inaccurate diagnosis or other diagnostic delays in cases of vaccine-induced acute encephalitis may have devastating and potentially life-threatening consequences for patients. Early diagnosis and timely treatment can result in a favorable prognosis.

Neurological and neuropsychological adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines – where do we stand?

Neurological and neuropsychological adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines – where do we stand?

The devastating characteristic of COVID-19 pandemic calls for immediate and effective solutions to tackle it. Vaccines seem to be the only promising and…

www.degruyter.com

Abstract

The devastating characteristic of COVID-19 pandemic calls for immediate and effective solutions to tackle it. Vaccines seem to be the only promising and effective way to fight against the novel coronavirus – even against new mutated variants. Because of the rapid development and distribution of numerous COVID-19 vaccines in different platforms, meticulous evaluation of vaccines’ safety is more critical than ever – especially given the fact that most of the candidates have not completed the clinical phase. Therefore, to optimize the vaccines’ safety and efficacy, it is highly important to carefully report and scientifically discuss the serious adverse effects following vaccination. In this respect, we discuss different neurological and neuropsychological adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines including demyelinating diseases, Bell’s palsy (BP), cerebrovascular complications, seizures, functional neurological disorders (FNDs), and some other rare adverse events, and hypothetical mechanisms which can lead to the reported side effects. Given the fact that the incidence of such events are rare and most of them are treatable, the current review aims to shed light on how much the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and these complications can be reliable and provide an insight for future studies with much more meticulous methodologies to discuss the possible correlational or causal relationship between these complications and COVID-19 vaccines and elucidate whether or not the neurological side effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines can count as a considerable threat to public health

Quote from Fm1

Neurological and neuropsychological adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines – where do we stand?

The adverse effects are transient, predictable, and limited to a few small, well defined groups. In all but a handful of cases they have caused no serious harm. The likelihood of serious harm is roughly 1 per billion, which is the best safety record in the history of medicine. You are probably more likely to be killed by a falling meteorite than by the COVID vaccine. There are more adverse effects from eating grapefruit than getting a COVID mRNA vaccine.

Does that answer your question? Fretting about adverse affects is irrational.

Quote from Fm1

Therefore, to optimize the vaccines’ safety and efficacy, it is highly important to carefully report and scientifically discuss the serious adverse effects following vaccination.

Yes. They always do report them. In the U.S., they have to, by law. So why even say this?

Quote from JedRothwell

The adverse effects are transient, predictable, and limited to a few small, well defined groups. In all but a handful of cases they have caused no serious harm. The likelihood of serious harm is roughly 1 per billion, which is the best safety record in the history of medicine. You are probably more likely to be killed by a falling meteorite than by the COVID vaccine. There are more adverse effects from eating grapefruit than getting a COVID mRNA vaccine.

Does that answer your question? Fretting about adverse affects is irrational.

Yes. They always do report them. In the U.S., they have to, by law. So why even say this?

Must be a lot of meteorites falling

Quote from Fm1

Must be a lot of meteorites falling

Don't kid yourself. Learn the facts. No one has been killed or seriously hurt by the mRNA vaccines. The adenovirus ones killed a few people. Reports that there have been casualties are written by people who do not understand statistics. Especially the stats as VAERS, which are difficult to interpret. All of these reports are mistaken. For details, see:

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(2), August 12, 2022 | 321Self-Selected COVID-19 “Unvaccinated” Cohort Reports Favorable Health Outcomes and Unjustified Discrimination in Global SurveyRobert

Timeline: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

Timeline: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 - U.S. Right to Know

Introduction “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” is one of the most influential scientific articles in history. In February 2020 — about a month before a…

usrtk.org

Introduction

“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” is one of the most influential scientific articles in history.

In February 2020 — about a month before a pandemic had been declared — five top virologists huddled to examine aspects of a rapidly emerging coronavirus that seemed primed to infect human cells. (The furin cleavage site kept one virologist up all night.) A few days later, they concluded the virus had not been engineered. In March, their conclusions were published in Nature Medicine.

“We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the article read.

The article assured much of the media, Washington and the broader infectious disease community that there was no need to scrutinize the labs at the pandemic’s epicenter in Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is well known for research on SARS-like coronaviruses, including gain-of-function research. Though a “correspondence” and not a formal paper, the article has been cited in the press 2,127 times.

It took 15 months and a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to reveal that each of the five authors had expressed private concerns about engineering or the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s store of novel coronaviruses.

Quote from Fm1

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research2(2), August 12, 2022 | 321Self-Selected COVID-19 “Unvaccinated” Cohort Reports Favorable Health Outcomes and Unjustified Discrimination in Global SurveyRobert

FM1 is good at finding quack journals...

Is “The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research” a serious, science-based publication or a mouthpiece for anti-va...

Answer (1 of 5): Well, let’s see. The first issue features an article about what the “elite plutocrats” (that’s an exact quote) don’t want you to know about…

www.quora.com

Obviously this is a quack journal. In addition to the excellent points others have made, look at the editorial board, the supposed experts who direct this publication:

• Editor-in-chief: John W. Oller, Jr., PhD in General Linguistics from the University of Rochester in New York, now a professor at ipaknowledge.org

  and consultant to Veritas International University… A professor of linguistics, now working at a website and as a “consultant:” how is he a vaccine expert?

• Senior editor: Christopher A. Shaw, PhD, Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia… A real college at least, but again, wrong area of study.

But here’s the real kickers in the associate editors list:

• Mary S. Holland, MA, JD, General Counsel for Children's Health Defense 2019-present; formerly Director Graduate Lawyering Program, New York University School of Law 2004-2019; expertise in children's health and litigation concerning vaccines; renowned author of works in that area. A lot of “former” here, an anti-vaccine litigation professional, and “renowned” author of unlisted “works;” no real journal uses a fluff word like “renowned” in describing its editors.
• Robert J. Krakow, JD, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, Representing the Vaccine Injured in All 50 States. All credibility is now gone. This man has a vested interest in seeking or manufacturing evidence against vaccines.

Always check out a journal’s background and board as well as its content. Lawyers don’t belong on the editorial board of a medical journal.

and

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck …

It would be a very confusing title for a “mouthpiece” however, because it would imply that there is at least some theory, practice and research.

But as I said, sometime you can tell from the smell alone.

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research

is a peer-reviewed scholarly open access journal concerning the development, distribution, and monitoring of vaccines and their components.

Components? That is a very strange word to use. Why not just “vaccines”?

This issue begins to explore the language, policies, practices, and science examining the range of known interactions between some of the toxicants in vaccines

Toxicants? Another very strange word to use. Of course a particular “component” of a vaccine may be “toxic” in some way, but then we would just expect the word “component”.

So in summary, I think it is quite obvious what it really is.

• It uses the word “components” when that is implied by “vaccine”.
• It uses the word “toxicants” when that is not implied by “components”.
• It uses the word “toxicants” rather than just “toxic components” - and the implication is that many of the components are inherently “toxic” when the science of vaccines is based on immunology, not on toxicity in application.
• It “explores language” which is a purely propaganda objective - in other words, it already has an obvious objective, which is nothing to do with the theory, practice and research of vaccines in themselves.

And of course the more we read, the more we realise we have seen this sort of thing before, all too often.

It is an attempt at self-delusion.

The duck thinks that by looking like a swan, and honking like a swan, it is a swan. It tries to pretend it is a valid source of science information.

But it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, stinks like a propaganda mouthpiece, and therefore is one.

And what is so sad about this is that it is still so badly done, even when they have put so much effort into it. They are so delusional as to believe what they upload, just by giving us something that looks like the real thing.