Official Covid Vaccine thread

Doctors, unfortunately, have a history of prescribing placebos to placate patients. There are many things that have a chance of actually working against long COVID. I hope she can start trying those.

Can't you just admit you fell for the lies of Big Pharma, the MSM, and the puppet pols?

Well if his "rep" says it wasn't the jab then I guess it wasn't

She would probably be better served by walking barefooot through hookworm infested dungpiles and having an indigenous New Guinean’s poop sprayed up her rectum.

What VAERS Can and Can’t Do, and How Anti-Vaccination Groups Habitually Misuse Its Data

factcheck.org

What VAERS Can and Can’t Do, and How Anti-Vaccination Groups Habitually Misuse Its Data - FactCheck.org

@factcheckdotorg

For decades, the ​​Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, has been exploited by people opposed to vaccination. Here, we’ll explain how VAERS works and run through five misconceptions that anti-vaccination activists...

Link:www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-wha...

“For decades, an unassuming government vaccine safety surveillance system has done its job, quickly flagging possible side effects and allowing scientists and regulators to investigate further.
But for nearly as long, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, has also been exploited by people opposed to vaccination. With a publicly searchable database, full of unverified reports of health problems that occurred sometime after vaccination, VAERS has proven irresistible to the anti-vaccination community, which often falsely claims the number of reported deaths or other issues is proof that vaccines are dangerous.
That’s despite the fact that the reports aren’t vetted for accuracy and don’t mean that a vaccine caused a particular problem.
VAERS is an early warning system used to identify potential safety concerns after a vaccine has been authorized or approved in the U.S. It’s often described as a “frontline” system, since it’s frequently the first vaccine safety system to detect a problem. But it’s also noisy and prone to distortion.
“Most of the anti-vaccine stuff that you hear, when they start to talk about how vaccines caused whatever, they’ll point to VAERS data,” Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccine expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told us. “It is just manna from heaven to get bad information out there.”
While VAERS distortions were already a staple of vaccine misinformation prior to the pandemic, misuse of VAERS exploded with the arrival of the COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020. At FactCheck.org, we’ve written story after story debunking false or misleading claims about the COVID-19 vaccines that were based on misunderstandings about VAERS — and so have our fellow fact-checkers.”

“Here, we’ll explain how VAERS works and run through five misconceptions that anti-vaccination activists wield to mislead people about vaccines.
A Frontline System, Ripe for Distortion
As we’ve explained before, vaccines given to the public have already been tested in clinical trials, but those trials can only be so big and aren’t expected to be able to identify rare side effects. That’s where VAERS and other post-marketing safety surveillance systems come in.
VAERS, which began in 1990 and is co-run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, collects reports of health problems that occur after vaccination. Anyone can submit a report, regardless of whether it’s likely the vaccine caused the event.
The CDC and FDA then review the reports in a variety of ways, and further investigate any possible safety concerns.
“VAERS is designed to detect unusual or unexpected patterns,” Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, told us in an interview. “It’s really about pattern recognition.”
Key strengths of VAERS are its large size and speed. Because VAERS reports draw from across the country, even a very rare event can be quickly identified as a possible side effect.
Most famously, VAERS was the first system to raise concerns about a link between intussusception, a type of intestinal blockage, and RotaShield, the first rotavirus vaccine. In June 1999, just nine months after approval, 10 reports of intussusception had been reported to VAERS in infants who had received the RotaShield vaccine. This triggered further study of the issue and led CDC to temporarily suspend the shot the following month. The manufacturer recalled the vaccine a few months later, after other studies confirmed the safety signal.
Susan S. Ellenberg, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, told us the RotaShield example is the “poster child” for how VAERS can work.”

““VAERS data must be interpreted with caution due to the inherent limitations of passive surveillance,” Shimabukuro and colleagues wrote in a 2015 article published in Vaccine, noting that VAERS is “primarily a safety signal detection and hypothesis generating system.”
“VAERS data interpreted alone or out of context can lead to erroneous conclusions about cause and effect as well as the risk of adverse events occurring following vaccination,” they added.
Claims involving VAERS have nevertheless figured prominently in anti-vaccine efforts to reduce the reach of a variety of vaccines, including the measles, mumps and rubella, and human papillomavirus vaccines.
With the COVID-19 vaccines, Ellenberg said the problem became “substantially worse.” Offit agreed that claims have “dramatically increased.” And anti-vaccine activists are using the tactics honed during the pandemic to apply them once again to other vaccines.”

Common Patterns of Deceptions

1) Inappropriately Assuming Causality (And Accuracy)

“Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding about VAERS is that the health issues described in the reports are not necessarily caused by the vaccine — and are often purely coincidental.
“Reports in VAERS simply represent something that happened after you got a vaccine. They don’t tell you the vaccine caused this,” Ellenberg said.”

2) Misunderstanding or Ignoring How VAERS Works with Other Systems

“People opposed to vaccines often focus onVAERS to the exclusion of other vaccine safety systems — ignoring the fact that some of those systems are used to determine whether a possible safety signal from VAERS is indeed a problem.
As Dr. David Gorski, an editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine who has been debunking claims about vaccines for more than a decade, observed on Twitter, the reason these activists “fetishize #VAERS as the ‘definitive’ be-all and end-all of vaccine safety databases is because it is so easily distorted and weaponized.”
“VAERS at its best is a hypothesis-generating system,” Offit said. It’s all about signal detection — it’s not meant to be the final word on vaccine safety. And it doesn’t work in a vacuum.”

…”The CDC and FDA use several quantitative methods to probe VAERS data for possible safety signals. This includes disproportionality analysis, which essentially checks to see whether the adverse events reported for one vaccine are significantly different from those reported for other vaccines, which could be indicative of a problem.
Ellenberg likens these approaches to looking for a needle in a haystack. “What these methods do is pull out clumps and then you look for needles in the clumps.” After further investigation, she said, most of them will turn out to be nothing.”

3) Improperly Comparing Vaccines
“Much of the misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines using VAERS has focused on improper comparisons between vaccines. Claim after claim alleges thatbecause so many more VAERS reports have been filed for the COVID-19 vaccines than for other vaccines, it must mean that they are dangerous.
This line of argument, however, is faulty. As we’ve previously written, there are several reasons why reporting to VAERS increased for the COVID-19 vaccines — and it doesn’t mean that the vaccines aren’t safe.
To start, a large number of COVID-19 vaccines were given out in a relatively short period of time, with more doses and priority given to older and more medically vulnerable people. The VAERS reporting requirements are also higher for the COVID-19 vaccines. Health care providers, for example, are required by law to report any vaccine administration error, any serious adverse event following vaccination, and any COVID-19 case that results in hospitalization or death. With other vaccines, providers are only required to report select adverse events. And the incredible amount of publicity and scrutiny of the new vaccines is arguably unprecedented in modern history.
“You really can’t compare what happened during COVID to what’s happened with other vaccines in the past,” Shimabukuro said.
The closest example, he said, is the rollout of an influenza vaccine during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. With that vaccine, he added, there was also a large increase in the number of reports to VAERS, and public awareness “was nowhere near what it is for COVID-19.””
xemptyz4) Exaggerating the Issue of Underreporting
xemptyz“Another common anti-vaccine talking point is that because people voluntarily report to VAERS, it invariably is an undercount of vaccine “harms.” Vaccine opponents often try to calculate how much underreporting exists and multiply the number of reports by certain factors to arrive at the “real” number of vaccine side effects.
But this approach is flawed. It’s true that by design, VAERS can’t capture every side effect that is due to a vaccine. But it’s also the case that many of the health problems in VAERS aren’t caused by a vaccine.
“There’s underreporting and there’s overreporting,” Ellenberg said, referring to both scenarios.
“The suspected adverse events are underreported. I think that’s probably true. But the keyword there is suspected — they’re not necessarily true, truly caused by vaccines,” Offit said, adding that that’s expected with a passive system. That’s precisely why other, active vaccine safety systems are also used to monitor vaccines.
And there’s no simple way of determining how much underreporting exists. Anti-vaccine groups commonly cite a 2010 report from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care that stated “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.””
5) Incorrectly Assuming All Reports Are Serious
“Finally, another misconception is the incorrect notion that all reports in VAERS are serious. Again, part of this hinges on the use of technical language. “Adverse event” sounds serious to many people, but it includes minor incidents, such as a sore arm.
Less than 10% to 15% of U.S. reports in VAERS are considered “serious” — a regulatory term that means the event was life-threatening or involved hospitalization, prolonged hospitalization if someone was already hospitalized, persistent disability, a birth defect, death, or required medical attention to prevent one of these outcomes.
The CDC requests follow-up information for all serious reports, which, like their non-serious counterparts, may be entirely coincidental. As the CDC explains, while serious events happen after vaccination, “they are rarely caused by the vaccine.”
The non-serious and serious classification isn’t perfect. “Some degree of misclassification is inherent,” a 2004 review by government scientists explains, noting that injection site reactions typically are “not of great clinical significance but may be classified as serious if they result in a brief hospitalization.” On the other hand, something like Bell’s palsy, a usually temporary facial paralysis, is medically important, but may not be classified as serious because it involves outpatient care.
Still, it’s clear that many of the health issues reported to VAERS — which again, are not necessarily caused by vaccines — are relatively minor, and people who like to highlight the sheer number of reports to suggest vaccines are dangerous are not being fully transparent.”
“Imperfect, But Still Necessary
For all of its limitations and susceptibility to distortion, experts generally told us they thought VAERS served an important role.
Ellenberg, for example, said she thought VAERS could be the fastest way to identify a vaccine safety problem.
Offit, however, was less sure of its utility.
“I would argue that because it’s so massively misused and massively misunderstood,” which has caused “a lot of people to choose not to get a vaccine,” he said, “I think it has done far more harm than good.”
Still, he doesn’t think VAERS should go away. Rather, he thinks VAERS should not be made publicly available. That would limit the misinformation, but still allow the system to do its job.
Putting the genie back in the bottle, though, may be impossible. And for now, the CDC doesn’t agree.
“We understand that there is the potential for misuse and misrepresentation of VAERS data,” Shimabukuro said. “However, we think the benefits of being transparent and providing these data as a public service outweigh the potential harms.””

Why would they lie to you do you think and what does your therapist think?

I wasn't complicit in the preventable deaths of 300k Americans. You were. Ouch, baby.

Wish her well.

Shame she didn't get any more boosters - they would have worked better than IVM against future infections.

I understand foregoing boosters due to adverse events in limited cases, but prescribing IVM make me think this doc is just a total quack and I doubt his judgement on the boosters. Sad situation -- this is why people lose faith in the medical system (not beacuse they saw a youtube video on Fauci).

Very timely report:

Fluvoxamine and IVM treatments during acute COVID infection do nothing for long COVID.

Metformin might, but the trial dealt with treatment during the viral replication phase, not metformin, fluvox., IVM as treatment for long COVID.

"Long Covid" = the "vaccines." More "boosters" could only make things worse, anyone who is still a vaxxer is evil, stupid, or an ignorant fool.

theflstandard.com

600,000 Americans Per Year Are Dying From COVID Shots Says Top Insurance Analyst

Former Bernstein senior analyst Josh Stirling draws a shocking conclusion from UK government health data.

Link:www.theflstandard.com/top-insurance-an...

Those vaccinated against COVID-19 have a 26 percent higher mortality rate on average compared to those who declined the jab – and the death toll is even more staggering for vaccinated people under 50 years old, where mortality is 49 percent higher than for those unvaccinated.

The shocking numbers are based on government data from the United Kingdom and were brought to Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) attention by Josh Stirling, one of the nation’s top insurance analysts and formerly Senior Research Analyst for U.S. nonlife insurance at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

Why would you listen to an insurance analyst to try and interpret?

igorchudov.substack.com

Disturbing Rise in Cognitive Problems in 2023

Igor Chudov

Do you Know Anyone Who Recently Declined Intellectually?

Link:igorchudov.substack.com/p/disturbing-r...

The RIVM survey, which reported 40% greater visits for cognitive and memory problems, is an alarming finding. It matches and confirms the pattern I have seen in my daily dealings.

The cause of these cognitive problems is not yet known. An unsettling scientific article from 2022 reports that the lab-made Sars-CoV-2 virus contains “prion-like domains,” which are amino acid sequences that could cause protein misfolding, which allegedly could cause dementia similar to mad cow disease.

All Covid vaccines also encode this spike protein (with the prion domains).

If so, perhaps, our conspiratorially minded readers can ask: was the prion functionality built intentionally into Sars-Cov-2, a lab-developed mystery virus of murky origin that spread worldwide? Is it a coincidence that Covid vaccines, forced on everyone, contained the same prion-like spike protein? It is a question we can (and should) ask. As always, all such possibilities must be considered skeptically but with an open mind.

I am not the first to notice the prion issue, and another friend of this blog, Walter Chesnut, has been discussing this possibility for a while:

wmcresearch.substack.com

A Prion Disease of the Body: The Spike Protein as Proteopathic Seed

Walter M Chesnut

The presence of vacuoles in tissue at autopsy is a most disturbing finding.

Link:wmcresearch.substack.com/p/a-prion-dis...

What is new in my post is that dementia and neurodegeneration were noticed in the pattern of Dutch doctor visits by a prestigious Dutch scientific institute. It confirms that we need to look closely at this issue.

If the progressing collective neurodegeneration continues, we may be running out of intellectual resources and time to handle this problem. The scientists, who need to use the full capacity of their intellect, may also be losing cognitive abilities along with their peers - potentially with frightening consequences for all of us if the above-mentioned cognitive problems deepen.

source: SH()TSTACK blog💩🚽

You got credible info in this thread from me, carmine, steve the addict, alex jones was right and others like us.

Look at what Zuckerberg finally admits.

Vax mob mafia vanquished.
**********
As an example, Zuckerberg said, "Just take some of the stuff around COVID earlier on in the pandemic, where there were real health implications, but there hadn’t been time to fully vet a bunch of the scientific assumptions, and, unfortunately, I think a lot of the establishment on that kind of waffled on a bunch of facts."

Zuckerberg noted the "establishment" encouraged him to enforce these shaky facts, saying they "asked for a bunch of things to be censored that, in retrospect, ended up being more debatable or true."

He admitted to Fridman that he believes the requests made to him by the scientific community hurt their credibility with the public. "It really undermines trust," he added.

foxnews.com

Zuckerberg says 'establishment' asked Facebook to censor COVID misinfo that ended up true: 'Undermines trust'

During a recent podcast, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that "misinformation" he was pushed by experts to censor on Facebook ended up being true.

Link:www.foxnews.com/media/zuckerberg-says-...

FoxNews is for entertainment purposes. They also twisted his quote

Not to brag or anything, but I've have a grand total of 44 vaccines in my 23 years on this planet. Proud to say I trust science.