124 Replies to “Safe and Effective ®”

  1. Did you catch the Iron Man montage toward the end, where Iron Man is the hero with the notoriously bad heart?

  2. Here’s a little more level-headed assessment of the results by the lead author Christian Mueller:

    https://www.unibas.ch/en/News-Events/News/Uni-Research/Temporary-mild-damage-to-heart-muscle-cells-after-Covid-19-booster-vaccination.html

    His assessment: Concerning, but it’s mild and temporary, and affects 3% of those getting the booster. He does not think vaccine recommendations should be changed. He seems to go out of his way to ask people not to overreact to these results.

    In particular, he says…

    mRNA vaccination technology is a fantastic development. This efficient protection provided by the Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech vaccines was a medical sensation – without this development, the damage caused by the pandemic would have been so much worse. The vaccines saved millions of lives.

    1. Here is a level-headed assessment – I have 0% chance of developing vaccine induced myocarditis, blood clots or a 1000 other potential afflictions on the warning label , and wake of every morning without even a glimmer of concern of developing one.

        1. Since they do not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the study, and medical professionals have admitted the “pseudo vaccine” does not prevent Covid at all, that this article is about presenting misinformation to obfuscate the issue. Surely, you would agree?

          Have you an article that explains the excess deaths after the vaccine roll out but not before? We’ll wait.

        2. I read your link…it was interesting in how many studies it did NOT cite. Having looked at personal opinions on all sides of this issue, I’ll just file it away with all the rest.

          1. It was an article intended for the general public. Such articles rarely have references.

            But it represents the position of one of the most well-respected medical institutions on the planet, and would be based on the best scientific evidence.

            But here’s a study of long-term cardiovascular effects of COVID:

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3

    2. Unfortunately for Christian there was no “efficient protection” since it did not protect you from the disease or from spreading the disease, something that was known but we only found out about after the fact. They claim it reduced the severity but you would have a hard time proving that. The damage caused by the pandemic ( with a fatality rate of a bad flu season ) was caused by government actions in closing down the economy, the schools, the hospitals and everyday life. Since they haven’t done a long term study on the people who showed adverse affects we don’t know if its temporary or not, that is a supposition. I think the medical system has lost the trust of a large group of the population, thats what he is trying to protect with his pleading not to react to these results.

      1. So… you’re willing to go into panic mode over results that Mueller himself reports, but you don’t belief his assessment of the effectiveness of COVID vaccines.

        1. “However, emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.”

          https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/5/991

          Keep struggling.

        2. Yes. Because presenting actual data and then lying your face off about what it means is a very basic propaganda technique.

          The scientists still clinging to the “safe and effective” mantra are no more credible at this point than the scientists who insist the Earth is getting warmer.

          As James Randi often said, the scientific method is designed to catch accidental error. It is not designed to catch deliberate mendacity.

          1. And your evidence that Christian Mueller is lying is what, precisely?

            And no, having opinions you don’t want to hear does not qualify.

    3. Let’s see here. There’s zero risk of any ill effects from covid but there are tons of potential side effects from the clot shot. Easy choice. To top it off the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, illness or death.

      1. Kinda makes you wonder what it would take for mRNA vaccine proponents to admit that the vaccines were not safe. A 3% cardiac injury rate is fine and dandy, apparently. How about 6%? 10%? 25%? Where is it too high. Where is the line? What are they comparing it to…the cardiac injury rate of a flu vaccine, polio vaccine, a measles vaccine?

      2. Anyone who thinks that there was no danger from COVID is so far out in space that ground control can do nothing for them.

        1. You didn’t answer the question: what is an acceptable cardiac injury rate for the mRNA vaccine ? What is the vaccine cardiac injury rate of other common vaccines?

          1. I don’t take requests. At any rate, Christian Mueller is in a far better position to answer that question, given he’s a heart expert. Why don’t you email him and ask?

            christian.mueller@usb.ch

          2. I want your opinion since you present yourself as the great defender of mRNA vaccines. Surely you have an opinion on this….or did I back you into a corner? Checkmate?

          3. “I prefer to keep my feet on the ground, with access to the best of scientific evidence.”

            Sounds like you can’t think for yourself to me, KM. Maybe try ChatGTP…

          4. If you asked Mueller and he replied, he would almost certainly tell you that the question — as put — can not be answered. For one, it would greatly depend on the extent of the injury. Very mild and temporary injuries from the COVID vaccines are tolerable, especially as the vaccines protect against injury by COVID itself.

          5. “Sounds like you can’t think for yourself to me, KM.”

            So you believe that your beliefs on COVID and vaccines are more credible than those of medical researchers who have spent a lifetime studying viral diseases.

            Your choice, but it’s asinine.

          6. Of course KM did not answer it.
            My wife caved to the doomsday folks like KM.

            After the 2nd jab ( calling this a vaccine is an insult ), she developed heart problems.
            Not wuhan….nor did she have it prior to the jab.
            We work outdoors, we are healthy & up until the jab, on zero meds.

            After almost 2yrs, she is able to reduce the meds.
            We still do not know how much damage has been done.

            Space to ground control? Indeed. KM do you want to place a bet if my wifes doctor reported this adverse reaction?
            I can only imagine how many were swept under the pile of needles. What booster are they on now….6,7,8?

        2. From space you can see more clearly because there is less steam rising from the manure.

          1. I prefer to keep my feet on the ground, with access to the best of scientific evidence.

            And that evidence says James’ is cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

          2. “I prefer to keep my feet on the ground, with access to the best of scientific evidence” that aligns with my pre-conceived biases.

            Fixed that for you.

        3. It’s two very simple, clear questions, KM.

          what is an acceptable cardiac injury rate for the mRNA vaccine ? What is the vaccine cardiac injury rate of other common vaccines?

          Your reluctance to provide your opinion is a big tell, as they’d say in poker. You know that a 3% cardiac injury rate is too high. Much higher than other common vaccines. Your default to insults weakens your argument.

          1. And Christian Mueller still supports vaccines. Why does he do that, do you suppose?

          2. That is not an answer, KM. It’s a deflection. Want to try again?

            what is an acceptable cardiac injury rate for the mRNA vaccine ? What is the vaccine cardiac injury rate of other common vaccines?

          3. I don’t answer that question because (1) it would depend on the extent of the damage, and (2) I haven’t the expertise (and neither do you).

            But I have a question for you. Why don’t you email Christian Mueller — who truly is an expert — and ask him? Your refusal to do that is a giant tell.

          4. I’ll take your non-response as an admission of your defeat.

            I’ve been shooting gophers since I was 10…first time I’ve bagged a marmot.

          5. I’ll take your refusal to email Mueller is an admission that you don’t really give a damn about the question, but are simply tyring to score juvenile debating points.

          7. Bennett: What rate of cardial injury do you think is acceptable?
            Marmot: I haven’t the expertise to answer that question, but it would certainly depend on the degree of injury.
            Bennett: You’re avoiding the question! I win!

            Stupidity on the hoof.

        4. “However, emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.”

          https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/5/991

          Keep struggling.

          1. Just because KM and the doctor he likes to post thinks the vaccine is OK.
            Yet their are other doctors who disagree.
            Frankly, we have zero long term studies to back up if this shot is good or bad.

            The fact that my wife who (was) a ER nurse and after getting her second shot. She caught CV two years ago and still has not fully recovered.
            I’m not impressed with KM thinking this is safe.

        5. The IFR of COVID is VERY small.

          From Stanford’s John Ioanidis

          “For 29 countries (24 high-income, 5 others), publicly available age-stratified COVID-19 death data and age-stratified seroprevalence information were available and were included in the primary analysis. The IFRs had a median of 0.035% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.013 – 0.056%) for the 0-59 years old population, and 0.095% (IQR 0.036 – 0.125%,) for the 0-69 years old.

          The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025-0.032% for 0-59 years and 0.063-0.082% for 0-69 years. Meta-regression analyses also suggested global IFR of 0.03% and 0.07%, respectively in these age groups.”

        6. 80% of the deaths from COVID in Ontario happened among resident of long-term care homes. Three years on, death rates among that cohort during that period are statistically indistinguishable from the years prior, implying that the people who died from COVID were highly likely to have died from something during that time period in any event.

          COVID was no more and no less dangerous than a bad flu year.

        7. Three years living in a major metropolis in Canada; Never been jabbed, never got Covid. A brief bout with a stomach flu (confirmed by my doctor) in April was the only illness I have experienced throughout the entire period.
          Admittedly anecdotal to be sure, but I’ll bet my life based on my own personal experience than rely on the so-called “experts” that have been PROVEN to be corrupt LIARS!
          Yes, I have the receipts, but I can’t post the references. I will only suggest you look into NCI testimonials.

        8. KM, let me clarify what you are saying so that others can properly understand it “I am an expert at defending the vaccine until your question exposes a logical inconsistency, then I insist that you ask Dr. Mueller himself, but from time to time I’ll tell you what,in my expert opinion, would be his response “.

          1. Bingo. It was my version of a Turing Test on KM. Can KM think and reason like a human or like an automaton? The ability to take in information and form an independent opinion. Regurgitation or true thoughts and opinions. I think the results speak for themselves.

            People here are arguing with an automaton, be it human or machine.

        9. The vast majority of people have had covid now genius and they know it’s a mild cold.

          1. A mild cold that killed roughly 15 million people world wide.

            The symptoms of COVID varied widely. Sometimes there were no symptoms. Sometimes mild. Sometimes it put people in the hospital, and even on a ventilator. And sometimes it killed them.

            Seriously, go talk to a doctor or nurse who has cared for COVID patients.

    4. Just insane. “the vaccines saved millions of lives”. Only the most elderly and seriously sick were threatened. There is no proof that the vaccines saved any lives at all.

      1. “There is no proof that the vaccines saved any lives at all”.

        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(23)00015-2/fulltext

        To quote: “Vaccine effectiveness at baseline was 92% (88–94) for hospitalisations and 91% (85–95) for mortality, and reduced to 79% (65–87) at 224–251 days for hospitalisations and 86% (73–93) at 168–195 days for mortality.”

        For younger people there’s this study:

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203209

        We have this weird situation where tons of people claim the vaccines are ineffective. Meanwhile there are countless scientific studies that found the precise opposite.

        2. Sorry no. They are ignoring the natural evolution of a virus and clsimingnit was the vax. No. No. No. It is completely based on speculation.

  3. and JUST LIKE THAT, LIEberal TROLL FARM retorts to diminish the results.

    Figures.

    Amazing isn’t it, how fast the Troll Farm responds. Like its monitoring this site………………

    1. Someone has to make the opposite case. You guys will accept any evidence — no matter how shoddy — provided it aligns with what you want to be true.

      And in this case, the lead author is no where near as panicked over the results as Campbell is.

      1. Making an opposite case simply to be what exactly? People derive opinions from experience, anecdotal observations, journals, studies, media, and reflection. To hold an opinion is to reflect back what they have been exposed to. If someone cannot support their argument with reason and logic as opposed to simply cutting and pasting some random study, then there is little there to believe it well founded. Campbell, whom I consider a bit slow on the uptake, has finally surrendered his subservient allegiance to his supposed science buddies and realized that looking behind curtain reveals more than we’ve been told. You’re reasoning and logic are betraying an ideology, not an unbiased observation.

        1. My beliefs reflect the preponderance of the scientific evidence. My personal observations are of little worth on this subject, as are yours. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but there’s a reason why anecdotal evidence has such a poor reputation.

          1. Consensus science like Galileo’s associates? Preponderance of data told Pasteur he was imagining things. Critics said the Wright Brothers were crazy. Leeching was good, then bad, then good for some other things. Thalidomide was good then really bad, but now has use in other areas.

            What you are clinging to, is a static mindset from some point in your life where you believed there was absolute, final reasoning. What you are breaking to me, is that you have a hard time engaging with that which conflicts with your developed opinion.

            You’re not special, nor alone in your faculties, but understand you’re a follower of dogma and peer beliefs. You’re no more a trailblazer than a four lane highway. If you ever truly went off road and into the scientific wild, you would recoil at the contradictions that abound.

          2. Here’s some unasked for advice for you, Indian Jane.

            Don’t ask “What is the narrative?” or “What is the counter narrative” or “What opinion is expected of me?” Instead ask “What is the evidence?” It has primacy.

            So where do we find the best evidence concerning COVID vaccines? In the scientific studies, particularly those that are large-scale, randomized, controlled, and double blind. And especially those studies that prove repeatable by other researchers.

            Now if you have a more credible source of evidence, do share it. But be prepared to explain why it’s more credible.

          3. You mean your beliefs reflect the preponderance of scientific evidence you are prepared to look at.

          4. Art, you are perfectly free to provide links to whatever papers you wish, and we can argue the evidence.

            But the fact is that my detractors rarely do so.

          5. I stand by, and will double-down on my “anecdotal evidence” based on my own PERSONAL experience any time. I trust no one in government to tell me the truth, after being lied to so many times in the past.

          6. fc:

            No one’s asking you to believe the government. But I do advise you trust the preponderance of the scientific evidence, particularly when numerous independent studies reach the same general conclusions.

            It’s not perfect — it’s sometimes outright wrong — but it’s the best we got.

      2. I wonder why the relative better health of critical thinkers matter to you so much? Does it shake your sheep world?

        Why do you protest so much? What/Who are you trying to protect? Are people who ask questions of a less than studied, tested and verified product, bad people and should be locked up? Lined up at the wall? Denied food shopping privileges? Denied banking services?

        Sorry, but your continued defense and conviction of THE NARRATIVE, is highly suspect, in its arrogance and disdain for anything divergent from THE NARRATIVE

        1. You guys responded to my original post, not the other way around. Why does my opinion mean so much to you?

          At any rate, I don’t provide links to THE NARRATIVE to support my arguments. I provide links to scientific papers and reports.,

          1. “At any rate, I don’t provide links to THE NARRATIVE to support my arguments. I provide links to scientific papers and reports” *that supports my pre-conceived biases*

            The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous, rather than cowardly.
            George Carlin

          2. Don’t flatter yourself. You’re not thinking for yourself. You’re just going along with all your buddies on this site because you think it’s the proper conservative take on the matter.

          3. Sorry, no, Mr Narrative.
            I reached my decisions on how to proceed, slowly and carefully over time, from many, diverse sources. Not because Kenji, LB, or anyone else said so. Discussions with these fellow critical thinkers was after the fact. And then, again, over time, re-evaluated, assessed and analyzed as Covid evolved, to ensure current assessments required adaptation to new conditions.
            This is what critical thinkers DO. Hint, engineers do this all the time, along with statistical analysis, with regression assessments to reach the best strategy and conclusions.
            Data analytics turns up bullshit to THE NARRATIVE, and Covid was no different, as BULLSHIT was used by health authorities across the world, to nudge and convince the easy marks/herd to do what they demanded. Along with over the top FEAR propaganda, it worked on most.
            The Milgram Experiments detail this phenomena.
            No, I was highly disturbed by the highly co-ordinated, NPC sheep herd actions of the media, over anything that was not part of THE NARRATIVE.
            These many items have been discussed many times. You are just MrDenial, always pointing to THE NARRATIVE and the Usual Suspects, while ignoring ANYTHING that even questions THE NARRATIVE.
            You call yourself KM, but it might as well be Anthony Fauci. There’s no difference.
            You’ve been challenged by questions, but you deflect, obfuscate, change subject, etc. Just so typical of someone that knows they are just arguing to argue.

            https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

          4. Captain Obvious, you appear obsessed with THE NARRATIVE.

            But THE NARRATIVE doesn’t matter. It’s usually right but sometimes wrong. It’s not a sound guide in either direction. A person who automatically rejects THE NARRATIVE is as foolish as someone who automatically believes it.

            What matters is evidence. That’s the star you should be navigating by.

          5. You mean… like “Nature,” and “the Lancet?” Two of the most highly credible science and medical publications that had chosen to decimate and destroy their own reputations so as to protect the narrative? Those studies?
            Like the infamous Lancet article citing a study claiming that HQC was not only ineffective against Covid, but actually harmful?
            That study?
            Do I need to cite that? Because it’s now common knowledge, but I would expect you to refute any evidence that’s right in front of your face if it doesn’t fit YOUR understanding of “science,” INCLUDING evidence that’s sitting right in front of your face.
            I never thought I would actually be having a convo with someone who chooses not to believe his lying eyes.

          6. fc:

            I presume the paper you are referring to is “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis.” The problem here is that journals have difficulty detecting when data has been made up by the authors. There’s no good general way to do that. But to it’s credit, The Lancet retracted the paper once some of the authors approached them with their doubts. The Lancet took reponsibility for its mistake, which is better than many institutions these days.

            The Lancet and Nature publish thousands of papers per year. Not all of those papers will be perfect, but most of them are of very high quality. The fact that there have been a few duds doesn’t prove much.

          7. No one’s asking you to believe the government. But I do advise you trust the preponderance of the scientific evidence,
            ****************************
            Like say, get the shot and you won’t get CV or even better. Get the shot and you will not spread CV.

            YES our Government did say that.

      3. “Someone has to make the opposite case>”
        Why?
        I’ve been known to play Devil’s Advocate on occasion, but I try to warn folks of my intent.

        1. Because the evidence against COVID vaccines is piss poor, but you would never know it from Francisco’s articles. Most of the readers are so keen to see COVID vaccines denounced that they don’t ask questions or kick the tires. It usually takes only a little digging to discover that the evidence Francisco presents is dodgy.

          On a more philosphical note, there’s a reason why criminal trials have both a prosecution and a defense. Hearing both sides of the argument is essential to have a reasonable chance of finding the truth.

          1. I just have not seen that the vaccines have done anyone any good. Given the risk of dying from Covid (somewhere around 1% if you are over 75 ), there was absolutely no justification for this massive vaccine rollout. Vaccinating young people and kids was completely misguided. You, on the other hand seem to have no problem with the excessive number of vaccine injuries. In the case of the vaccines, the benefit does not seem to justify the cost — in both dollars and health terms.

          2. LindaL:

            The medical studies say otherwise. They showed the vaccines did work (albeit imperfectly) and did save many lives. I don’t usually resort to anecdotal evidence, but a well-known radiologists in Ontario reported that the most severe cases of COVID were inevitably unvaccinated.

    2. I am NOT going to get trapped into pulling up links refuting EVERYTHING Killer Marmot is suggesting. Life’s too short…especially if one made the mistake of getting the clot shot.
      I will however say that the high risk of developing Myocarditis is only one of literally hundreds of serious side effects of the jab.
      The 40% increase in normal death rate, post vaccine is indisputable; and the truth has been acknowledged, by the CDC, in the vastly inflated reported deaths due to Covid itself.

  4. You must get informed consent………………………………..Campbell, we’ve been telling you this for years now. They never gave us the information that they had. They applied to hide the data for 75 years. They made the government force everyone with threats of persecution, job loss, social stigma, and reduced travel. They silenced all the real medical voices and replaced it with politicians, and media acolytes. I can tell by the look in Campbell’s eyes, how ashamed he is for promoting this crap.

  5. Carl Sagan on being scammed.
    If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle,” Carl Sagan wrote.

    “We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozie has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

    I have watched Campbell for about 3 yrs. He is now going thru this exact pain. Good on him he has true grit let’s hope it’s highly contagious!

    Seb

    1. What I find from Campbell is sincerity.
      He truly wanted to believe in THE NARRATIVE as Covid rolled along, but soon, he was disturbed, clearly, by the young victims of Myocarditis after being jabbed. Still, he carried on with defence of the jabs for some months, but, his confidence had been shaken. You could tell from one day to the next, as he wavered, leaning pro-jab to hmmmmmmmm the next, as YT censorship seemed to disallow anything questioning THE NARRATIVE.
      He finally broke with the release and admission by Pfizer (reluctantly) of less than stellar effectiveness, and resultant harm from the jabs.
      He’s been stoic throughout, has seethed with restrained anger since, but maintained his stature. I don’t doubt his sincerity, unlike all the other “authorities” who have and still practice every political strategy to avoid answering any uncomfortable questions, including name calling, credentializing and character assassination. This also includes not taking any questions not from state approved media.
      Clear signs of hiding, when being less than honest and forthright.

    2. And he’s trying to do it in such a way (notice his very carefully chosen wording) as to not get cancelled. A bit of a tightrope.
      Kudos to him. He’s developed quite a following.

      1. Campbell has been soundly criticized in the past for misrepresenting the science, and if he appears to be careful about his wording it’s because he probably wants to avoid that.

        1. It is most unfortunate that the drug pushers were not soundly criticized all along.

          3. Dustoff:

            You expected John Campbell’s screw-ups to be listed in Scientific American, did you?

  6. After reading all the comments I come to one conclusion: the ever-decreasing percentage of the population who really want to get their 3rd, 4th, 5th or 17th booster should be encouraged to do so.

  7. Sure .. What’s 3% of 7 billion you mass murder you..

    The alarming part is the economy of scale.. 97% of climate scientists,, Err I mean people who have taken the shot are fine.. Well good for them.. The other 3% are suffering or dead..

    100 million is 3 million.. 1000 million is a billion and that’s 30 million.. X7 and that’s 210 million.. But don’t panic because 97% are doing fine.. So far..

    What they did was criminal.. We lose out shit over the holocaust but whistle past the grave yard for 200 million people.. Criminal.. No two ways about it..

  8. The Canadian government says that so far, 53,086 Canadians have died of Covid.

    The population of Canada through the pandemic has been around 39,000,000.

    Doing the math, we find that the death rate, for the three and a half years so far, has been 0.0136% of the population.

    That means that 99.863% of the people did NOT die of Covid.

    We were told, early on, that millions could die. Hm. Bit of an error there. Makes one wonder about what else isn’t right.

    Before the pandemic, the overall death number from all causes was 282,890 per year. If we divide that Covid death number by the 3-1/2 year period, we get 15,167 Covid deaths per year, on average. That’s 5.36% of the all-cause rate. One-twentieth of the normal death rate. It becomes rather obvious that cancer and heart disease, the two biggest killers, easily overshadowed Covid in terms of mortality.

    And since even the CDC (US) admits that the death numbers have been grossly inflated, the percentages are even milder.

    1. The UN estimates that around 15 million people died from COVID world wide. So millions did die.

      1. And, most of them over 80. Most also died ” with” rather than ” from” . And, the UN is not a credible source. What we experienced was deaths comparable to a middle level flu season.

      4. But not the millions of CANADIANS that were expected to die. I guess I should have been much more specific for people who cannot read between the lines. All the other numbers were for Canada, right?

    2. Thanks for the numbers. It is amazing that your numbers mirror the very first statistics that stated the virus had a 99.5% survival rate before the injections were introduced.

      1. 15 million / 7800 million = .1923%, or a 99.81% survival rate, although of course not all got COVID.

        No idea what you’re talking about.

  9. So we have gone from ….

    “it stays in the injection site of your arm…and is safe and effective!!”

    …to..

    “It can damage your heart, among other things…but only in 3% of those who took it..and is safe and effective”

    What other vaccine or medical product would ever pass if it gave almost 3% heart damage? I honestly dont know…but seems like none would?? Maybe im wrong?

    And the doc that wrote the article trying to downplay it?? Does he wonder why so many feel the medical community has lost credibility?

    1. The reason he’s downplaying it is seems to be because the effect is mild and temporary — literally a few days — and would seem to pale in comparison to the heart damage that COVID is capable of.

      1. From local to the arm, to heart damage, but only a wee tiny bit!!! Still, safe and effective!! Especially to those who were never really in danger from covid..ie everyone under 60 who is relatively healthy…at least until they damaged their heart with the safe and effective vaccine

        And sorry, but downplaying giving heart damage (and any associated issues related to that…ie death!) without consent should be a crime (if it isnt already!). And in Canada, 3% of vaccinated is roughly almost a million? So…damaging the hearts of almost a million…no big dealio.

        Youre on the wrong side KM. As is that doctor (do no harm eh?)..and most of the medical community who knew.

      2. Yes, but most did not get serious Covid, and the risk from vaccines is multiplied many times depending on the number if boosters,

  10. Your arguments here are all well and good and you could go on forever arguing the case for and against the injections and the supposed benefits/adverse effects however the data will eventually surface. At the moment there is enough data in public view that illustrates that the injections were not what they were professed to be. There were far more adverse reactions to the injections than anyone in authority cared to admit, those that did raise the alarm were censored and stifled, some did not submit to this tactic and have been vilified and condemned. The problem now for all of is that the data is now being amassed and studied and it does not look good. Here is the latest from Ed Dowd, data that is hard and fast and should be of concern to everyone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyujh-fNQjk

    1. Ed Dowd? God save us. You should take him at his word when he says he doesn’t know what’s going on.

      This is something I see all the time. Solid scientific studies are ignored, while guys with a blog and an attitude attract huge audiences.

      1. Edward Dowd does statistical analysis and he is very good at it. All of the ” vaccine effectiveness” studies also come down to statistics. You are foolish to ignore the observations of Dowd. I am getting the impression that you do exactly what you accuse others of– ignoring studies that go against your point of view.

        1. Dowd does not publish studies — not scientific ones that can be thoroughly assessed and critiqued, anyway.

          He has published a book, but one directed at the general public. But Dowd himself says he is not sure what is behind the rise in excess deaths. Thus I don’t know what Antenor’s point is. Or yours.

          1. Dowd is confirming the shocking level of excess deaths, and urging that the reasons be investigated. Surely there is a way to confirm ( or dismiss) that the vax may be responsible for a certain percentage these. Governments need to investigate. Why are they not doing so?

  11. @Killer Marmot

    Why is the package insert of this wonderful fluid missing or blank. (If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Right?)

    Do 8 billion people have access to the Internet?

    What about informed consent? Does the Nuremberg Code ring a bell?

    1. And your last statement says it all. The package insert that Rizwan refers to is the statement that is legally required in all issued drug packages that inform the user of possible harmful side effects/ adverse conditions that taking said drug may produce. As was shown in the Congressional hearings the package insert with the injections was basically blank. The general public was not properly informed of all of the possible adverse effects, in other words the general public was totally ignorant of the adverse effects that the ‘experimental’ injection could produce.

      1. It is customary when making a point to provide details so people have a clue what you’re referring to.

        Which congressional hearings? There have been many. Which specific vaccine was this insert for? What time frame were these packages produced?

        I’m not a mind reader.

      2. And what “drug” are you referring to? Patients don’t buy COVID vaccines and self administer them, so they’re not likely to have access to the packaging. And what does “basically blank” mean?

  13. After reading everybody’s comments, I have a question for a very vocal poster, Killer Marmot.

    While you back up your arguments with heaps of links to studies, etc. (to help your self-esteem), have you actually taken the time to reflect on the aftermath of “the covid-19 pandemic” and simply use your EYES and EARS to assess the reality of the [not]vaccine effectiveness?

    I presume you have a pre-meditated response but the reality speaks for itself. The injections are NOT vaccines and they did NOTHING but HARM. If you keep getting injected, good luck to you.

    1. i>The injections are NOT vaccines and they did NOTHING but HARM. If you keep getting injected, good luck to you.

      And how do you know this? Seriously, how do you draw that conclusion?

      Because I am extraordinary skeptical that you could determine this by just “looking around.” It takes large-scale systematic studies to measure the effectiveness of a vaccine.

  14. The contrarian asshole has a point here. If all you read are ‘scientific peer reviewed’ studies, you too can believe the following,
    COVID causes heart damage.
    Vaccines saved millions.
    Myocarditis is minor and temporary.
    Actuarial insurance reports aren’t scientific therefore can not be assessed.

    1. Contrarian asshole? Actually you guys are the contrarians for taking positions diametrically opposed to the preponderance of the science. And if you call people assholes because you disagree with them then maybe you’re the asshole.

  15. KM,
    To what degree do YOU feel the paper publishing and peer review process has been corrupted?

    That is all this thread is about.

    1. I see little corruption of the peer review process. In fact, journals are improving their practices by, for example, keeping authors and reviewers unknown to each other (although it’s sometimes possible to guess).

        1. I don’t agree with Weinstein. In my experience, scientific publications would be far lower quality without peer review. It catches a lot of problems early on.

          When a reviewer pans a paper without good cause (and it happens fairly regularly) it’s up to the editor to tell the authors to ignore that particular review, and to advise other editors not to rely on that reviewer. There’s a reason why there’s at least three reviewers per submission.

          Can’t really blame the peer-review process when the editor drops the ball like that. Whatever system is in place, it’s going to rely on people doing their job well.

    2. The biggest corruption these days is the rise of parasitic journals, where almost any paper can get published without any editorial or peer review process.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation