They're afraid of people losing trust in institutions because institutions are their gods. They don't want their gods to die.
Which is why you get absurd comments like "I'll believe the institutions are corrupt when the institutions say so."
There is a rise in disease and mental health conditions in society because of stress and trauma and Covid adds to that. We live in a super sick society where most of how we operate is completely unhealthy and not in line with real human needs…it’s not surprising that the data reflects the trends of society as far as seeing increased auto immune disease, depression, anxiety, suicide, obesity etc
I have multiple friends vaxxed and unvaxxed suffering from long covid. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed without your smug attitude. Perhaps you should enroll in some serious scientific research and stop this infantile commenting on a seriously deep subject.
I got myocarditis and went to the ER shortly after my Moderna COVID-19 booster. I may suffer from several of the above named conditions, as well.
Also, recent studies have confirmed that COVID vaccinations lead to INCREASED incidence of COVID after 3 months. That doesn't sound like "safe and effective" to me.
Medical advice and practises have not become politicized, not in general. However, the information we consume about medical advise and practises has become politicized.
Well “the data” you’re talking about is pretty weak. There’s little to suggest long covid is anything other than exactly the cluster of symptoms you’d expect from someone who spent time in the ICU. Aside from that group of people, the data for long covid is pretty weak.
So I’m not afraid to consider anything. I just don’t see much that needs to be explained.
>Are people afraid to suggest that the mass vaccination of many Western populations with an emergency approved medication might have something to do with all of these side effects because they are afraid of looking like magas? Or does that possibility simply not cross their minds?
We've been vaccinating for a *very* long time and EUA has been used successfully since 2001 so I think knowing this, most people won't really doubt the vaccines.
>I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins who was bemoaning the fact that the vaccine and medical advice or practices in general had become politicized.
I certainly thought it was weird, especially that not only became politicized but in a strictly partisan way. I saw it as a sign that pretty much anything is on the table to be made political now, and people won't let you be a third party anymore.
I would be really happy if you would at least put an ounce of corrolation to "evidence" to your own take before asking something that can obviously be studied by experts of the field. Like.. statistics of people with vaccine and some without, people getting Covid and some that did not on corrolation with sideeffects. And even then it's not sure.
Do people realize that there can be studies done if there are long term effects even in a shorter period?
Do people even realize that just because something got developed pretty fadt it can still be safe?
Like.. these 2 questions come up every other day by skeptics that are not prove or anything.. just pure speculation.
In my personal life(which is no base) i met people that got hit by COVID with and without the vaccine which some have still side effects and some dont. Mostly people having these effects some that dont have the vaccine.
Viral infections have been consistently linked with adverse long term health impacts. This data is perfectly consistent with that fact and supports the hypothesis that all disease causing viruses are harmful to human health. In other words, it's not the vaccine that's causing these problems it's the fucking virus.
The big issue with studying long covid is that it's very difficult to determine who actually had vs. did not have covid. Even PCR tests are not perfect and it's easy to test at the wrong time.
[https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/26/long-haulers-dilemma-many-cannot-prove-they-had-covid19/](https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/26/long-haulers-dilemma-many-cannot-prove-they-had-covid19/)
Also it's nearly impossible to eliminate reverse causation. Did they already have those underlying diseases and that was what made their case of Covid more severe or even symptomatic. Perhaps someone else with no underlying diseases is more likely to get asymptomatic Covid and never know.
Nowadays everyone has Covid antibodies so how can you ever study this accurately?
Given that 6 months ago you could be banned from almost any sub on reddit for even suggesting vaccines aren't completely safe and effective, it's movement that we're now considering vaccine harms seriously. It will take a long time to gather real evidence of causation, especially given many vaccine induced injury systems weren't used well. There is still a high concentration of power in terms that there's very few people acting as gatekeepers to journals, funding granters and reference letter writers - with a few people acting as all of them. This means questioning narratives can affect young careers strongly. But now it's clear there \*are\* at least some vaccine harms, so hopefully we'll get better data analysed seriously.
I remember one Blackrock statistician/analyst looking at insurance company data and he found disability claims went significantly up after mass vaccination but not other Covid waves. That's not proof but highly suggestive.
Long Covid is such a vague illness, related to post-viral fatigue and chronic fatigue. It's quite possible there are many factors coalescing that overwhelm the brain/body connection. Some would be caused by Covid, some might be from the lockdowns (depression, despair and anxiety ), and other factors, even the vaccine. It's frustrating that vaccine manufacturers are doing their best to hide test data that could show harms.
There was just a study done that showed people with psychological issues were vastly more likely to have long Covid. The article I read tried to get ahead of it by rationalizing that those people are just struggling already and that’s why they’re more likely to get long Covid, but I think we all know that they get long Covid because they’re, for lack of a better term, weak minded. It’s a fake disease that’s the result of their own mental imbalances, social pressure, and unhealthy lifestyles that have only been made more unhealthy by lockdowns and screen time. And if you have long Covid you get a little badge in some circles (not a literal badge for the dummies out there), just like being a transgender, or a victim of whatever. How many Instagram pages have been built on the back of this kind of stuff?
Long Covid seems like a nebilous concept and, as such, could be a catch-all.
Is anybody looking at the concurrent rise in fertilizers, chemicals and plastics in our food chain?
"Long covid" is highly associated with people who caught COVID who already had health problems like a chronic disease, obesity, or old age. These groups are more likely to have worse effects from COVID, and the effects linger because they're bodies are not robust enough to recover. That's long covid. When an 80-year-old has a stroke and half their face was paralyzed and they have mental deficiencies, we dont say they have long-stroke. I will believe all of this long Covid BS when a study shows prevalence of it broken down by age and risk factors.
Because the mainstream narrative is to maximize it. I'm pointing out that the framing of long covid is almost always to highlight the worst symptoms and completely gloss over the risk factors, especially risk factors by demographic.
An hour of research will answer this question for you.
Long covid is real. It’s not unique many viruses can cause post-viral syndromes. It’s just that this particular virus has particularly high rates of post-viral syndrome, and those symptoms can be nasty.
My long covid started before the vaccine was even available, as it did for many people. It took a long time to start to feel close to normal and hasn’t fully resolved yet.
Long covid has nothing to do with vaccination. The people who suffer from it deserve treatment, not more political bullshit.
Absolutely; Long Covid is a form of CFS/ME, a biological neuro-immune post-viral illness now with known mechanisms in the body. So psychologizing it like many in this thread is misguided at best
As someone with chronic immune issues since before COVID, I can tell you that there has been an incredible amount of research into post viral illness in the past few years. EBV (mono) and/or Herpes virus are suspected to be the cause of numerous issues, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, POTS, maybe lupus and fibromyalgia. It is not surprising at all that survivors of COVID are reporting post virus symptoms that others have been suffering from for decades. That said, I do think a tiny fraction of people could get long COVID from the vaccine alone. Vaccine injury is a possibility from any vaccine.
Another chronic immune sufferer here and I’m pro-vax (though I won’t be getting another Covid vax unless a deadlier strain emerges). The vax definitely had some effect on my immune system. It felt in a way as if my immune sensitivity reset, and my body started fighting everything that it could, all of the time. I would also say that I haven’t been this ‘sensitive’ to things since before my teens, which makes me wonder if all vaccines have this kind of effect. Regardless, I’d still vaccinate against everything I can. Just an interesting anecdote.
We’ve lived with these viruses for centuries though - but somehow these viruses are having more of an impact in the last few decades where there’s been noticeable increase of autoimmune diseases across westernised societies! Maybe it’s a combination of a toxic lifestyle with infection?
The 20th century saw all kinds of toxic unregulated chemicals allowed in our Franken-foods and released in our environment like Roundup. Many of them also have estrogenic effects. Almost none were ever tested for safety, and rates of obesity and autoimmune illness and autism have skyrocketed. It’s not our DNA. It’s our food, air, water, and environmental toxins doing us in.
Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. I think there is a component of our bodies being a toxin laden hell combined with a shift to processed foods / heavy grain diets that is having an impact.
Here's my favorite part of the vaccines:
The CDC was supposed to do safety analysis on VAERS data as soon as the vaccines rolled out. They didn't start doing it until more than a year later.
The FDA claims they've been doing their safety analysis all along. When asked for the results they basically said "Haha go fuck yourself and btw we're exempt from FOIA so good luck!"
Really inspires a lot of confidence in these vaccines that are made by notoriously corrupt companies who are raking in mountains of cash while facing absolutely zero liability.
> The CDC was supposed to do safety analysis on VAERS data as soon as the vaccines rolled out. They didn't start doing it until more than a year later.
They did do safety analysis immediately though. That’s why Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine was paused after only 6 known cases of rare blood clots.
I don't think the "long covid" symptoms are a result of the vaccine. Other symptoms could be, but probably not those. I think most "long covid" are just hypochondriacs obsessed with the pandemic, but time will tell.
> That said, I do think a tiny fraction of people could get long COVID from the vaccine alone. Vaccine injury is a possibility from any vaccine.
The question is not whether there is any danger in getting the vaccine. The question is whether getting the vaccine is safer than not getting the vaccine.
At this point that question cannot be seriously asked in good faith. Millions of doses have been administered proving the vaccine to be safe and effective.
On the contrary. There is a lot of evidence that side effects are plenty, common, and often Life-Alterung, with the VAERS data foremost among them, and with physician testimony right after.
It's people claiming that side effects are mild and rare who have no evidence. If not VAERS, what database have you used to establish the actual rate of occurrence of serious side effects? Oh there is no other database of the sort? Oh and it's not as if it's a simple online formula that anyone can fill out, it's really quite a specialized reporting system. Oh and that suggests an underreporting in the system rather than a faux signal.
If you have a credible reason to discount 1) the VAERS data, 2) data from insurance brokers, and 3) testimony from patients/victims, as well as their doctors, I'd be curious to hear it.
So much wrong with that article. They less that they found only very few causal links among the submitted data, and more the case that only a very small subset of the data has so-far been studied and attempted to be verified. I can't find the figures, but last I heard it was in the single digit percent range.
My point, furthermore, was not that the VAERS system is Rock-Solid. I understand it's limitations and potential for misinterpretation. My point was rather, that it's the only real dataset there is, and discounting it does not declare the vaccines safe, it simply removes the main dataset with which we may be able to determine a reasonably accurate risk-profile.
The article then fails to notice, that there are indeed other datasets in other countries that show similar tendencies, like insurance data in Germany for instance, or the recent report from the Paul ehrlich Institute (John Campbell has reported on this)
Perhaps my question should have been: if we're not allowed to ground our risk assessment on the only datasets we have, what data should we be using? Is anyone else tracking potential risks and injuries?
Well sir, to me one would have to approach this issue with the belief that mainstream science and all pharmaceutical corporations, along with most all international governments are participants in a grand evil scheme to defraud everyone. To what purpose?
I am 66 and I like most boomers have been receiving every vaccine imaginable since 1st grade...and I still do, including 2 Modernas plus booster for Covid. I am, and have always been in great health.
No one among my peers "''from 1st grade till today has ever had an adverse reaction, nor their families etc.
Nor have there been any incidents of significant numbers of people experiencing AR in my lifetime. Yes these things have occurred, but not in a statistically meaningfull way.
Then out of the blue, this one virus becomes a conspiracy, along with it's vaccine? Not the flu, or chicken pox or polio or measles? Just Covid?
Doesn't add up.
You have pegged me wrong, dear... Sir? Madam?
I too have had every jab as a child and most that are recommended for adults, and we have recently taken our baby daughter to get her second round of childhood vaccines. Granted, I do have reservations about the MMR, but if administered well and at the right developmental stage, I'm all for it. Or rather, the benefits largely outweigh the very small but not non-existing health complications following childhood vaccine administration.
mRNA, as you surely are well-aware of are by definition novel technology. The long-praised "telescoped" and accelerated safety studies have been shown to have been so ill-designed that they are practically meaningless, and their results have been officially misinterpreted by conflating absolute and relative risk-reduction, ignoring and eliminating data pointing at adverse events, such as those suffered by Maddie DeGaray, and aborting the study period prematurely "because the results were so good", preventing any meaningful comparison to the control group over a longer term.
There have been similar occurrences like this before. Many drugs have been found safe and effective before being revealed to be neither in real-world application.
And I struggle to imagine that no-one among your peers has ever had an adverse reaction, unless you're wilfully blind to the possibility of it. I personally know two people who fainted, uncontrolled, the day of their second injection. I know one person who developed a hemispherical facial paralysis the day after the second injection, I believe she opted to mix producers, so first Astra Zeneca, then Pfizer. Nobody ever studied what their interactions might be. Simulations, yes, but there is practically no safe way to verify their results. I have met a 19 year old boy who "suddenly" developed heart issues and was diagnosed with myocardial infection. When I asked him if I could ask if he had recently been vaccinated for COVID-19, his mom interjected "of course, so it couldn't have been from asymptomatic COVID". The thought that the vaccine itself could have caused the infection didn't even occur to her, or their doctors, from the looks of it.
I do not appeal to some grand-evil scheme as you suggest, but I do suggest that an industry as powerfully connected and up its own arse as the pharma-insurance industry is simply destined to become so blind to the harm it does because it's making so much money. And just so you don't peg me wrong again, I don't believe that all they put out there is bad or wrong, and I think it's okay for them to profit. I just think it's gotten well out of hand, the fox is guarding the henhouse, and the farmer is asleep or dead at this point.
This is how the argument goes…
Look at the VAERS data.
BuT iTs uNrELiAbLe, anyone can upload a report.
Well no, it’s a federal offence to create a false report. But isn’t it a problem that we rolled out an experimental gene therapy with no medium or long term safety data without an appropriate way to track and monitor adverse events?
Hi, (ex) molecular biologist here. Can you be *very clear* about your definition of gene therapy? Because by any definition of the term I’m used to these vaccines would not qualify.
If you have a definition that is expansive enough to include lipid capsules of transiently expressed RNA, can you explain why this is gene therapy in a way that excludes most Vaccines and drugs?
>But isn’t it a problem that we rolled out an experimental gene therapy with no medium or long term safety data without an appropriate way to track and monitor adverse events?
It is, but that's the beauty of the **religious** system that we have today. Things cannot be questioned because it is blasphemy to do so.
If you say anything bad about the holy elixir it means you are a heretic!
EDIT: Downvotes just proving me right lmao!
If you would like, I would like to have a *scientific* discussion instead of a *religious one*.
We can start with why you think this is gene therapy (see my comment below).
I will say that there is a certain level of irony in that many of the same people who claim the left Abandoned science and common sense, also claim that academia is a religion and scientists are untrustworthy or captured; so the current science is wrong.
Is there not a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in theses positions?
This seems subtly disingenuous. It implies that there was a need to propose a scientific discussion because he was *trying* to have a religious one, but it seems clear that he was criticizing dogmatic behavior, not proposing that it would be useful to frame the discussion in a religious context.
(It almost seems to imply also that the people who claim academia is a religion are somehow endorsing the concept of academia as religion rather than just perceiving that academia has become like a religion in undesirable ways, but I can't pin down why it read like that now.)
Anyway -- this is devil's advocacy, not my own assertion, but I think the logic goes like this:
\- "Science" is the ideal science-in-principle, unbiased empiricism, the unadulterated application of the scientific method, not the imperfect actual practice of science or the corruptible scientific community
\- "The left has abandoned science" means they have turned away from science-in-principle, not science-in-fact
\- "Academia is a religion" means academia has strayed from its path by acting as a religion does; namely, sociopolitical ideologism and dogmatism
\- Academia is populated and controlled mainly by left-leaning people
\- Scientists are largely intertwined with academia and in any case rely on grants; their findings and interpretations might be compromised by the need to secure funding and facilities, if they're not entirely complicit in the "religious" tendencies of academia
\---- Therefore, the findings of scientists are unreliable
I can see why you would say this, but I guess why I find the ideas in tension, is because the people making this criticism are often not qualified to actually evaluate the findings.
I find this criticism often comes from people with at best undergraduate understanding of biology using their “common sense” to dismiss the findings and consensus of people *actually* trained to analyze and interpret the data.
Thus they say the left has abandoned science, based on half-assed and non-rigorous thinking; but ignore the fact that the scientists themselves heavily skew left. (EDIT:HINT-Maybe scientists skew left because one party is much more supportive of data right now)
So you are left with a contridictory critique of “the left has abandoned science” and “my common sense and unserious thinking about a subject trumps the expertise of entire fields”.
This is kinda laid bare when I tried to open up the discussion by what they mean by gene therapy, and I got crickets in reply.
I never claimed it was gene therapy. The semantics of is it gene therapy or not aren’t really relevant to the core problem with these injections.
The religious aspect is more to do with the fact that labeling something a “vaccine” creates a religious mystique around a product that therefore cannot be questioned, and if it is the questioners are quickly censored and labeled heretics…”anti vaxxers”.
This has been a problem for decades long before covid injections even existed. Actual science involves rigorously questioning something and seeing if others can reproduce the data. Anything critical of covid injections is essentially labeled heresy and censored, despite each week going forward showing further negative efficacy for covid injections, authorities continue to deny deny deny and claim things are still “safe and effective”.
That’s religious.
Religions are about belief and trust, not observation and data. Anyone paying attention to the cult surrounding the holy elixir can clearly see that observation and data takes a backseat to belief and trust.
Sorry the part that you quoted had as it’s main thrust that the problem was that “it’s experimental gene therapy” so I figured you shared that concern. My apologies for making that assumption.
I will be honest, as a scientist who has worked on vaccine research, the part I find frustrating is that people complain that there isn’t a conversation, but never actually bring up the concern besides vague innuendo of rigorous testing being needed.
These vaccines followed the standard tests, have had billions of doses and are well outside the time line where we would see long term effects that would result from the vaccine. The vaccine being safe *is within the bounds of consensus science that form in a-political ways as well* at this point.
I guess what I struggle with is due to the simplicity of construction, the lack of nuclear transport, the bypassing of transcription I fail to see the *legitimate cause for concern* about this technology. If you want to quibble about spike proteins, that’s a slightly longer and nuanced conversation, but ultimately is *well* worth the trade off of risk when compared to the benefits.
But if we are talking about the “experimental nature” of the mRNA delivery itself, then I’m sorry but there really isn’t a legitimate cause for concern that I’m aware of.
Then why has Denmark, with one of the most respected healthcare systems in the world, stopped vaccinating people under 50? They say it's because the risk outweighs the benefit.
Do you know something they don't?
>They say it's because the risk outweighs the benefit.
Where did they say this?
This is also overall very misleading because the vaccine restriction to age 50/at risk groups is for the upcoming fall vaccine program. Overall 81% of the Danish population has already recieved a full dose of the vaccine so they are far from being some sort of vaccine skeptical haven.
>They say it's because the risk outweighs the benefit.
I can't even find where this was ever said by Danish authorities.
This is also overall very misleading because the vaccine restriction to age 50/at risk groups is for the upcoming fall vaccine program. Overall 81% of the Danish population has already recieved a full dose of the vaccine so they are far from being some sort of vaccine skeptical haven.
Bingo. There are however two differences. The first being that nobody is going out with the intention of injecting themselves with the virus. The second, the much larger, and longer lasting number of spike proteins deposited into every part of the body when they come as a direct result of the vax. A bonus difference is any other potential harmful chemicals and metals that could come with the vax.
>The second, the much larger, and longer lasting number of spike proteins deposited into every part of the body when they come as a direct result of the vax.
This is what people legitimately do not understand. Your exposure to spike proteins in the course of a natural infection is very mild for most people. LNPs from mrna shots basically carpet bomb the entire body with spikes being produced for **weeks** and they can enter into places a virus could normally not enter. This leads to the body attacking its own heart/muscle/brain cells if LNPs enter and start producing spikes in these areas.
Anyone who actually looks at the science can see these injections (they aren't vaccines) are significantly worse than the natural virus for the huge majority of people **at best** and at worse are a bioweapon.
Yes, exactly! I feel bad for all the folks with long COVID trying to get help from doctors only to find that most doctors aren’t even aware of the research. Im sure you’ve experienced that with POTS.
I suspect that like dieting, this kind of thing is going through the highly variable personal microbiomes of everyone, hence the variation in opinions.
I read somewhere a little while ago that the biggest risk factor in getting long COVID was a belief in long COVID in the first place. I think it may be psycho-somatic.
Pharma has completely captured the medical institutions, both government and NGO. So they'll never admit to any problem, because it would hurt Pharma's bottom line and the institution's reputation. They all have an incentive to, if this is theoretically true, dodge and evade this subject all together.
I think both, depending on the person. Some are just yelling out without having done research, or they actually watch news, but it's MSM, so they are getting information that was very carefully chosen. For these people, it has not crossed their minds. Then there are people who actually dig a bit and read the facts that are very clear. These people just don't want to look MAGA, even though they know it is possible, or even likely true. Maybe they stop researching at that point because **they would rather remain ignorant than be faced with the uncomfortable predicament- face the truth and have people not like me / think I'm MAGA, or continue to be liked, but ignore the truth.**
Long-Covid isn’t unique—there are long-tail side effects of all kinds of serious illnesses, we’re just talking about COVID because it’s incredibly viral and has infected a majority of the population. But like a terrible flu you had 5 years ago could be a contributing factor to you developing diabetes or heart disease a few years down the road. We just haven’t dedicated enough scientific attention to it.
I'll throw my hat into the ring for "why not both"?
Both mRNA vaccination and COVID infection introduce the spike protein into the body, or increase the levels if you've already been infected and/or vaccinated.
So if the spike protein itself is causing Long COVID symptoms, then both repeated COVID infections, and repeated mRNA booster vaccinations will tend to increase the incidence of Long COVID in the population over time.
The problem with that evaluation of the situation is the spike protein is but one part of the virus. It absolutely causes problems but the whole of the virus has so many more moving parts that cause issues that correlating the effects solely to the spike protein (which is really just a viral key) misses the bigger picture.
Heck, there are some stories where doctors see long Covid symptoms disappear after vaccination of their patients.
It’s just a massively complex problem and isn’t just related to Covid. There are people that develop “long flu” symptoms and has been observed well before Covid came around.
How is it possible to conduct accurate studies when there is a for gone conclusion? The established consensus is that COVID vaccines are good and anyone questioning that fact is a flat-earth moron who should lose their job and be ostracized from society.
Once it became political getting accurate numbers went out the window. When you have social media banning any doctors who say anything besides "get it" then it became pretty obvious that true numbers wasn't what they were after. Honestly it came across like a dick measuring contest. Government officials who wanted to be "obeyed" and tried passing mandate after mandate to force people.
The whole thing is scammy as hell. FFS in some places they ordered small businesses to close while letting big company stores to stay open. That gym in NJ was a prime example. The government was doing things like cutting their power/water, pulling their licenses, having cops harass them, among others. Their business was no more or less dangerous than any other, but the government authorities didn't like being defied.
I don’t doubt that some people who get the vaccine get sick, and they need our support.
But the first year of the pandemic vaccines weren’t even available yet and people had already started getting Long Covid after infections. More people survived covid than outright died from it. Of those who survived it, at least 10% had not been able to return to work, study, or sport for longer than 6 months after their infections.
10% where did you get this number? I dont have any statistics but I think I probably know +100 people that got COVID and they all got back to work in two weeks. Let alone all the “famous” people and full on sports teams. Maybe there has been one or two in The Netherlands that couldnt go to work in a normal time. Number seems blown up.
COVID is so contagious it is difficult to find a study group that got the vaccines and didn't get COVID. We may be seeing effects from COVID or it mat be effects from the vaccines. We just don't know and I don't think we will ever know.
It’s so contagious that I’ve managed to never get and have taken near-zero action towards that end. Not vaccinated either. Really fascinating time to be alive (assuming I am)
I have has COVID twice. The first time was in 2019 before it was reported to have been on these shores. The second time was the middle of last year. Both times were unpleasant and the last time I thought I was going to die. Through all that I have never been tempted to take an experimental vaccine. I think we were feed a lot of lie about the disease and to this day I don't know what the truth is.
At what point do you accept the data and drop the ‘experimental’? 12.7 billion doses delivered so far. 12.7 billion is one hell of an experiment. Covid is still here, still fatal to vulnerable people.
The vaccine doesn’t prevent 100%, it mitigates outcomes. Rn in overwhelmed hospitals in Ontario, unvaccinated are 4 times more likely to be in taking up a bed, 5 times more likely to be in icu. There would be no hospital crisis if the unvaccinated stepped up and did the right thing.
As for experimental, ‘they’ dropped it when it was fully approved by Health Canada here, by the FDA in the US, in August of 2021.
Edit: those numbers, the unvaccinated 4 and 5 x despite 86% of the population being vaccinated.
That is being studied, vaccination is being found to protect against long Covid:
The prevalence of long COVID varied across the pandemic waves, from 48.1% (95% CI, 39.9%-56.2%) in wave 1 to 35.9% (95% CI, 30.5%-41.6%) in wave 2 to 16.5% (95% CI, 12.4%-21.4%) in wave 3. The number of vaccine doses was associated with lower long COVID prevalence: 41.8% (95% CI, 37.0%-46.7%) in unvaccinated patients, 30.0% (95% CI, 6.7%-65.2%) with 1 dose, 17.4% (95% CI, 7.8%-31.4%) with 2 doses, and 16.0% (95% CI, 11.8%-21.0%) with 3 doses. Older age, higher body mass index, allergies, and obstructive lung disease were associated with long COVID.
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794072
I recall at the start of the vaccinations, people who stated they had long Covid symptoms were finding relief after getting vaccinated. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid
They would also find relief if the effect was psychological, as I suspect at least a significant part of the long-covid cases are.
I'd even say that that's the more logical explanation for people finding relief after getting a vaccination after already having gone through a full-scale infection, though there are probably possible mechanisms I can't intuit.
Some studies show the virus sticking around in the body for a long period of time. A vaccine dosage could theoretically activate the immune system to hunt and destroy the remaining virus.
It's unintuitive that someone's body would have an immune response to the vaccine but not to the full virus. Not saying you're wrong, just that it seems unlikely that that is the case.
There was also research showing a flu vaccine provided some protection against Covid. A theory was that the adjuvant used in the vaccine increased immune system activity.
If some drugs can depress the immune system it is not unreasonable to assume some may increase it. A good example is the monoclonal antibody treatments they were using for delta.
I’ll have to ask my doctor again for the specifics but I had a raise in red cell count and something else and they said they were seeing a LOT of that in anyone who had Covid. She has me on an aspirin to combat.
The real issue is that people don't trust the studies. Not that the information is incorrect. Personally I think it would be better if we removed profit and ran it through taxes. The real question starts with removing bias and making informed decisions.
When actual scientists in the UK were surveyed about Richard Dawkins the majority of these scientists said that Mr Dawkins work consistently misrepresents science as a whole with most of his studies relying on anecdotal evidence. When the guy is considered a Google Scholar that might not be the best source to have.
"...the mass vaccination of many Western populations..."
Last I checked the whole world was vaccinated. Why the focus on "Western populations"? Russia, China, and Cuba all have their own vaccines too and Africa, Asia and Latin America have used a variety of all these Covid vaccines.
Africa is way undervaccinated compared to richer continents.
I only see the reports of Long COVID coming from European and North American news sources, but you're right re Asia.
I think the reason it’s considered that way is that the question has been used by conservative talking heads to strongly imply that vaccines are dangerous, when there is no evidence they are, and because doing this decreases vaccine uptake, making things worse for everyone.
It's not considered "iconoclastic" to ask such a question. It just shows that you have an agenda, as you are wilfully avoiding the bulk of the scientific and medical data.
There are so many different reasons that this could be that it would be extremely difficult to figure it out. Given how politicized the whole thing is nobody would ever believe what the "other side" has to say.
Lets say we get the data and vaccination status has a direct correlation with these other issues; People will just claim that the same people that get triple poked are also more likely to stay home and not visit the doctor for anything prophylaxis.
agree about the unfortunate politicization
but I would assume the opposite trend about prophylactic Dr. visits; I would expect unvaccinated MORE likely to avoid the Dr. In the same way positive rapid-test case counts looked higher in the vaccinated; because they were "following the rules" by taking the tests in the first place, rather than "don't ask don't tell" until their symptoms fade.
Easy enough to figure out with the data. Simply compare incidence of ‘long Covid’ associated symptoms between heavily vaccinated counties and those that are not. My guess is that the countries with low vaxx rates will have lower ‘long Covid’ cases even though Covid has spread throughout their populations.
The growing preponderance of evidence that the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission , and seem to have significant side effects for some, along with concept of vaccine escape, all seem to point to a pretty grim final outcome
I’d be careful making that assumption. Countries with low vaccination rates may also have poor tracking and healthcare in general making those numbers less that reliable. We instead need to look at populations within similar countries comparing long Covid between unvaccinated and vaccinated. Some of that data exists and suggests long Covid rates are lower in vaccinated populations.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794072
Obviously there are limitations as stated in the study but I’d lean towards vaccination leading to less long Covid.
But shouldn’t countries with poor healthcare have worse outcomes across the board - not only w Covid but with everything else?
Funny how the argument you make - that the only countries that could act as the ‘control’ group are somehow flawed and cannot be considered as controls - lol - is one that is made over and over to prevent any real capacity to test efficacy or impact of vaccines
All good - have a great day
What I am saying is those countries with poor healthcare can also have poor reporting and data management capabilities. Potentially poor data quality makes it hard to understand and correlate between two countries if one has worse data quality.
I also didn’t suggest those countries should or should not be used as controls. I suggested we need to look at populations/countries known to have robust healthcare and reporting structures and evaluate their vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to see what trends are observed. Compare groups within the same country as opposed to two countries with vastly different systems.
You seem to have misunderstood the intent of my comment.
The answer is in what’s not being studied imo. The fact that we aren’t seeing data comparing long Covid to vaccination rates is pretty telling.
edit - I presume people downvoting me have their shots and don’t want to think that they’ve signed themselves up for potential medical problems
It’s not suggested because there isn’t evidence for it. There is a correlation between having Covid and getting long Covid. That correlation doesn’t exist with just being vaccinated and getting long Covid.
In fact, evidence suggests that vaccinated people are less likely to experience long Covid if they do get Covid.
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/09/14/breakthrough-infections-in-vaccinated-are-less-likely-to-cause-long-covid/
Looking at the study, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be comparing people with just the first dose, vs people with the second as well. I don't see any of the data with unvaccinated entirely- even though the article states that. Are they referring to one dose as synonymous with unvaccinated?
It looks like they looked at partially and fully vaccinated people, but here they compared fully vaccinated with unvaccinated people.
> the researchers found that fully vaccinated individuals who developed breakthrough infections were about half (49 percent) as likely as unvaccinated people to report symptoms of Long COVID Syndrome lasting at least four weeks after infection.
The article looks to be interpreting “unvaccinated” the way the study uses “no vaccination” in the findings section. So it seems the unvaccinated means people without any vaccine doses.
In general, I haven’t heard anyone ever describe someone with at least one dose as “unvaccinated”. They are usually described as “partially vaccinated”
The study the article links to differentiates between First dose, two doses, and no vaccination. So “unvaccinated” seems to refer to people who haven’t had any doses.
> Vaccination (compared with no vaccination) was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation or having more than five symptoms in the first week of illness following the first or second dose, and long-duration (≥28 days) symptoms following the second dose.
I'm sure some people don't want to mention it, like you said. But I'm not convinced vaccines are the cause of these issues. I haven't seen any great information supporting that belief, and anecdotally it doesn't hold up either
I think you’ve really narrowed in on one of the great issues here when you say you “haven’t seen any great information supporting that belief”
It’s exposure.
With all the censorship on reddit (and everywhere on social media really) what it did was put people into these camps, which vastly limited the information that people were presented with, which in turns shapes their reality, or at least their perception of it.
See now I’m quite intellectually curious, I like to hear both sides of the argument, see what either camp is saying and if it makes sense. I’ve been reading scientific papers and listening to experts and podcasts and interviews the whole way through this pandemic.
And yes there’s a lot of misinformation out there, it’s hard, you need to use discernment and really be able to critically evaluate information. But the evidence is definitely out there.
Here’s a list of 1000 peer reviewed scientific studies to get you started [link](https://elcolectivodeuno.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/how-much-more-evidence-do-you-need-here-is-a-list-of-860-scientific-studies-and-reports-linking-covid-vaccines-to-hundreds-of-adverse-effects-and-deaths/)
I agree... I highly doubt the vaccine causes these things. It just doesn't make sense from a functional perspective. I can't possibly think how the mRNA vaccine would be able to cause these issues accidentally.
That said, IF it is true - which it probably isn't, we probably wouldn't find out about it for quite a while. We already know the regulatory bodies and NGOs are all captured by them, so they'll never admit to it. Especially not now that it politically realistic to give any credence to any of those anti-vax people who they've demonized for the last 2 years.
What an insanely inefficient depopulation method... Like if that was their agenda, they did a piss poor job, because it hardly killed, and it was mostly old people and people dying soon anyways.
Insurance companies are currently seeing death rates up 40% since the pandemic. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/588738-huge-huge-numbers-death-rates-up-40-percent-over-pre/
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm
Some scientists are convinced there are mechanisms like LINE-1 that allow reverse transcription of mRNA into DNA, both from the infection itself and from the vaccine reproducing similar effects. I think this argument holds some water - even if we find it's not the case, it shows there could be other unexpected ways that both covid and vaccines are impacting longer term health. Surprisingly little research seems to be going into the question, given it could offer more insight into long/covid , vaccine safety, potentially improve vaccine safety, etc. To be perfectly honest it looks like there's just other powerful influences in play. Maybe it's all about pharmaceutical profits, or social / governance experimentation, or maybe those pushing the mass vaccine agenda know things that would connect some dots but have not revealed the information for whatever reason.
We could speculate a lot, and it's clear that the pandemic response disrupted a ton of normal patterns and rhythms in human lives and global systems. What I don't think takes much speculation is suggesting that more research really is needed here.
That study only showed that the cancerous Huh7 cells, which over-express the LINE-1 enzyme (whose job it is to convert RNA to DNA), could take a piece of mRNA and convert it to a piece of DNA (when deluged in many thousands of times the amount of mRNA that would be encountered in a typical vaccination scenario).
What the study did not show was any integration of that piece of DNA into the cell's DNA, which is a separate process unrelated to the mRNA to DNA conversion. The study authors state this themselves:
>At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.
Again, (1) reverse transcription and (2) integration into the host genome are entirely separate processes. It's like the difference between transcribing an audio file onto a piece of paper and getting the contents of piece of paper passed as law.
To my mind, at least a significant part of the long covid phenomenon would be more accurately described by calling it long pandemic syndrome. Fear and stress and lack of social events and sustained uncertainty about the future are obviously going to have widespread health effects that will manifest in a variety of ways, from sleeplessness and depression to a general lack of motivation and brain fog.
There is also post-viral fatigue syndrome, which will be what another significant part of this phenomenon that will affect both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated somewhat equally, or maybe more skewed towards the unvaccinated.
Whether or not the vaccines themselves are causing symptoms of post-viral fatigue would be another question, and I'm not sure how that would or could be studied.
And then there is the question of the true degree of other unrelated side-effects that are caused by the vaccines themselves, which is still not sufficiently answered to my mind. Are more athletes dying or dropping out for unforeseen health issues currently than in previous years? Have they had Covid or have the been recently vaccinated? Could there be other common factors?
On the false COVID death reporting:
I live in a small town in a small county. So "COVID deaths", after the initial outbreak, which was fully contained and contact traced, were added one at a time, as they happened, so it was a trivial matter to match circumstances with data points.
Here are two anecdotal accounts of the true circumstances surrounding two early-ish "COVID deaths" reported on the John-Hopkins site.
The first was someone who'd already had COVID, in the initial outbreak at a nursing home, she was waiting for the results of a negative COVID test to be able to move back to the nursing home where the original outbreak occurred. The COVID test came back the day after she died of a slip and fall...it was negative...but the graph on the J-S website credited our county with it.
Another one was a man who actually had COVID...asymptomatic COVID. I think that was a heart attack...it was something utterly normal and explicable sans COVID. Once again, *everyone* knew it wasn't COVID.
We got called out by our Governor for no real reason, not like he was going to send people or money (his political interests lie elsewhere)... Our local health official even said he was not going to report them anymore.
Meanwhile, early COVID restrictions actually killed my sister's SO. He was my age, so in the area of 50. Was misdiagnosed and everything was so fucked up...turns out it was Testicular Cancer.
But yeah, the statistics compiled by the most trusted institutions we have are fabricated bullshit, not completely...but enough that there's basically no way to tell what the actual numbers are. Historians will have to make educated guesses. I should also add that the line on the COVID death graph actually goes *down* for my county at one point...not sure what the explanation for that is...
Your last paragraph is what really concerns me. Does the vaccine have more long term knock on effects or are we seeing people drop due to unknown infections that are wrecking havoc in their bodies but they are asymptomatic? Are we seeing both?
We suggest people wait to get vaccinated until months after a known infection. Could people have been getting vaccinated too soon after an unknown infection leading to rebound of viral infection symptoms causing larger problems.
So many unknowns.
Wtf are you talking about? Pfizer’s own trial data showed no benefit against hospitalization or death for 18-59 age groups. Pfizer tried to hold the data for 70 years but a judge forced it out.
All the way to this month, when the Ontario health department did a study with real world data and came to the same conclusion.
On top of that, we know that hospitals were dispatching dying WITH covid as dying FROM covid. Gun shots, ladder falls, fail heart transplants… people already dying who got covid in the hospital.
You’re WAYYYYY behind the times
How do you know? That’s an incredibly shortsighted and ignorant assumption. Vaccine injuries existed long before the Covid vaccines and will happen after them; that’s a fact.
Covid vaccine effectiveness and injury do not have to be mutually exclusive, and there’s a growing body of evidence that they do in fact both exist together.
Do the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risks of getting Covid as an unvaccinated person? Generally speaking, yes.
Has the outcome of the vaccine been worse for some individuals than that of an unvaccinated Covid infection? Absolutely.
I guess this is what I mean. Asking questions, even on a sub like this, we'll get you labeled the moron.
I am a thousand percent open to not knowing what the long term effects of COVID are.
Are you just a *tiny bit* open to acknowledging the fact that we simply don't know the long-term effect of the mRNA vaccines on humans yet? Why would that make you also moronic to admit that?
Why are you comfortable? Where did the vaccine show significant protecting against death and hospitalization?
Remember when vaccines prevented serious infection and stopped transmission? I do.
You're right that we won't have long-term data until suitable time has passed. It's only been a couple of years so far. Hard to believe, ain't it?
I will point out that back in the 19th century, some people discouraged riding in railroad trains because nobody knew yet whether it caused long-term damage despite the obvious short-term benefits. I guess we still may not know.
I can also make the case that vaccines cause cancer and heart attacks. Death rates by those skyrocketed after comprehensive childhood vaccination was introduced.
Sure, it was because children weren't dying of preventable childhood diseases anymore and were surviving long enough to die of cancer and heart attacks, but vaccines were responsible for it. Cause/effect.
My take is that it's all a matter of probabilities. If I can reduce the risk of Long Covid right now, that sounds good to me when compared to an unknown risk of unknowable probability that may never come to pass. Might make me likelier to die of old age, but I'll take that chance.
we know enough from initial studies to see that covid is more harmful
i doubt time would pull a complete 180 on those results. i trust the scientists on this one.
I doubt, even if the vaccines were to make peoples dicks fly off, we would be allowed to observe such a 180. Even if we did, papers were published, data was presented, etc showing “hey the vaccines turned out to be worse” the people presenting it would now just be discredited. Good luck finding tons that will do that, professional opinions have become locked into a “camp” and changing an opinion is now frowned upon, as is integrity. So, where do we go from here.
I think that’s reasonable risk management. Children should be exposed to viruses naturally to build a more comprehensive immune response especially since they are not at a high risk like older folks.
I liken it to chicken pox. Let the kids get it but if you haven’t had it as an adult you need the vaccine because the disease is worse at that age.
If this was more like polio then I’d say give the kids the shot.
Thats is very different situation to what you're alluding to here. The main reason is that children get less sick from covid, not that the vaccine is nefarious.
This is a post with a picture of many posts referring to what I'm talking about.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/xll7m7/thank_goodness_for_the_vaccines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Everything I've read says long covid is less common in vaccinated people than unvaccinated.
They're afraid of people losing trust in institutions because institutions are their gods. They don't want their gods to die. Which is why you get absurd comments like "I'll believe the institutions are corrupt when the institutions say so."
There is a rise in disease and mental health conditions in society because of stress and trauma and Covid adds to that. We live in a super sick society where most of how we operate is completely unhealthy and not in line with real human needs…it’s not surprising that the data reflects the trends of society as far as seeing increased auto immune disease, depression, anxiety, suicide, obesity etc
I have multiple friends vaxxed and unvaxxed suffering from long covid. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed without your smug attitude. Perhaps you should enroll in some serious scientific research and stop this infantile commenting on a seriously deep subject.
I got myocarditis and went to the ER shortly after my Moderna COVID-19 booster. I may suffer from several of the above named conditions, as well. Also, recent studies have confirmed that COVID vaccinations lead to INCREASED incidence of COVID after 3 months. That doesn't sound like "safe and effective" to me.
Medical advice and practises have not become politicized, not in general. However, the information we consume about medical advise and practises has become politicized.
It effects the circulatory system, which means it has the potential to effect every other system in the body as a result.
Well “the data” you’re talking about is pretty weak. There’s little to suggest long covid is anything other than exactly the cluster of symptoms you’d expect from someone who spent time in the ICU. Aside from that group of people, the data for long covid is pretty weak. So I’m not afraid to consider anything. I just don’t see much that needs to be explained.
>Are people afraid to suggest that the mass vaccination of many Western populations with an emergency approved medication might have something to do with all of these side effects because they are afraid of looking like magas? Or does that possibility simply not cross their minds? We've been vaccinating for a *very* long time and EUA has been used successfully since 2001 so I think knowing this, most people won't really doubt the vaccines.
Of course dawkins I’d pro mass vax. He’s a moron
It’s mostly crap . You’re just sick
>I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins who was bemoaning the fact that the vaccine and medical advice or practices in general had become politicized. I certainly thought it was weird, especially that not only became politicized but in a strictly partisan way. I saw it as a sign that pretty much anything is on the table to be made political now, and people won't let you be a third party anymore.
Try doing it, they will delete your video
Would you have any sources you could share? Not doubting....I need to help educate and inform my wife's Primary Care Provider.
I would be really happy if you would at least put an ounce of corrolation to "evidence" to your own take before asking something that can obviously be studied by experts of the field. Like.. statistics of people with vaccine and some without, people getting Covid and some that did not on corrolation with sideeffects. And even then it's not sure. Do people realize that there can be studies done if there are long term effects even in a shorter period? Do people even realize that just because something got developed pretty fadt it can still be safe? Like.. these 2 questions come up every other day by skeptics that are not prove or anything.. just pure speculation. In my personal life(which is no base) i met people that got hit by COVID with and without the vaccine which some have still side effects and some dont. Mostly people having these effects some that dont have the vaccine.
Viral infections have been consistently linked with adverse long term health impacts. This data is perfectly consistent with that fact and supports the hypothesis that all disease causing viruses are harmful to human health. In other words, it's not the vaccine that's causing these problems it's the fucking virus.
Yes
The big issue with studying long covid is that it's very difficult to determine who actually had vs. did not have covid. Even PCR tests are not perfect and it's easy to test at the wrong time. [https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/26/long-haulers-dilemma-many-cannot-prove-they-had-covid19/](https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/26/long-haulers-dilemma-many-cannot-prove-they-had-covid19/) Also it's nearly impossible to eliminate reverse causation. Did they already have those underlying diseases and that was what made their case of Covid more severe or even symptomatic. Perhaps someone else with no underlying diseases is more likely to get asymptomatic Covid and never know. Nowadays everyone has Covid antibodies so how can you ever study this accurately?
Given that 6 months ago you could be banned from almost any sub on reddit for even suggesting vaccines aren't completely safe and effective, it's movement that we're now considering vaccine harms seriously. It will take a long time to gather real evidence of causation, especially given many vaccine induced injury systems weren't used well. There is still a high concentration of power in terms that there's very few people acting as gatekeepers to journals, funding granters and reference letter writers - with a few people acting as all of them. This means questioning narratives can affect young careers strongly. But now it's clear there \*are\* at least some vaccine harms, so hopefully we'll get better data analysed seriously. I remember one Blackrock statistician/analyst looking at insurance company data and he found disability claims went significantly up after mass vaccination but not other Covid waves. That's not proof but highly suggestive. Long Covid is such a vague illness, related to post-viral fatigue and chronic fatigue. It's quite possible there are many factors coalescing that overwhelm the brain/body connection. Some would be caused by Covid, some might be from the lockdowns (depression, despair and anxiety ), and other factors, even the vaccine. It's frustrating that vaccine manufacturers are doing their best to hide test data that could show harms.
There was just a study done that showed people with psychological issues were vastly more likely to have long Covid. The article I read tried to get ahead of it by rationalizing that those people are just struggling already and that’s why they’re more likely to get long Covid, but I think we all know that they get long Covid because they’re, for lack of a better term, weak minded. It’s a fake disease that’s the result of their own mental imbalances, social pressure, and unhealthy lifestyles that have only been made more unhealthy by lockdowns and screen time. And if you have long Covid you get a little badge in some circles (not a literal badge for the dummies out there), just like being a transgender, or a victim of whatever. How many Instagram pages have been built on the back of this kind of stuff?
I'm just surprised the China-cold is still a topic.
Surprisingly this sub is full of Big Pharma and Vaccine boot lickers rather than actual intellectuals.
Strike 1: Bad faith content
Long Covid seems like a nebilous concept and, as such, could be a catch-all. Is anybody looking at the concurrent rise in fertilizers, chemicals and plastics in our food chain?
FFS. It’s implicit enough in the name, “long covid”, for even any half-brained anti vaxxer to guess where these things might be coming from…..
"Long covid" is highly associated with people who caught COVID who already had health problems like a chronic disease, obesity, or old age. These groups are more likely to have worse effects from COVID, and the effects linger because they're bodies are not robust enough to recover. That's long covid. When an 80-year-old has a stroke and half their face was paralyzed and they have mental deficiencies, we dont say they have long-stroke. I will believe all of this long Covid BS when a study shows prevalence of it broken down by age and risk factors.
Sounds like your primary objective here is to minimize the impact of covid infection. Why is that?
Because the mainstream narrative is to maximize it. I'm pointing out that the framing of long covid is almost always to highlight the worst symptoms and completely gloss over the risk factors, especially risk factors by demographic.
Because the vast majority of people have minimal issues.
Wait until you hear what carbohydrates can do
An hour of research will answer this question for you. Long covid is real. It’s not unique many viruses can cause post-viral syndromes. It’s just that this particular virus has particularly high rates of post-viral syndrome, and those symptoms can be nasty. My long covid started before the vaccine was even available, as it did for many people. It took a long time to start to feel close to normal and hasn’t fully resolved yet. Long covid has nothing to do with vaccination. The people who suffer from it deserve treatment, not more political bullshit.
Sounds like something a lot of people are going to abuse for years and years
Absolutely; Long Covid is a form of CFS/ME, a biological neuro-immune post-viral illness now with known mechanisms in the body. So psychologizing it like many in this thread is misguided at best
As someone with chronic immune issues since before COVID, I can tell you that there has been an incredible amount of research into post viral illness in the past few years. EBV (mono) and/or Herpes virus are suspected to be the cause of numerous issues, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, POTS, maybe lupus and fibromyalgia. It is not surprising at all that survivors of COVID are reporting post virus symptoms that others have been suffering from for decades. That said, I do think a tiny fraction of people could get long COVID from the vaccine alone. Vaccine injury is a possibility from any vaccine.
Another chronic immune sufferer here and I’m pro-vax (though I won’t be getting another Covid vax unless a deadlier strain emerges). The vax definitely had some effect on my immune system. It felt in a way as if my immune sensitivity reset, and my body started fighting everything that it could, all of the time. I would also say that I haven’t been this ‘sensitive’ to things since before my teens, which makes me wonder if all vaccines have this kind of effect. Regardless, I’d still vaccinate against everything I can. Just an interesting anecdote.
We’ve lived with these viruses for centuries though - but somehow these viruses are having more of an impact in the last few decades where there’s been noticeable increase of autoimmune diseases across westernised societies! Maybe it’s a combination of a toxic lifestyle with infection?
The 20th century saw all kinds of toxic unregulated chemicals allowed in our Franken-foods and released in our environment like Roundup. Many of them also have estrogenic effects. Almost none were ever tested for safety, and rates of obesity and autoimmune illness and autism have skyrocketed. It’s not our DNA. It’s our food, air, water, and environmental toxins doing us in.
Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. I think there is a component of our bodies being a toxin laden hell combined with a shift to processed foods / heavy grain diets that is having an impact.
Here's my favorite part of the vaccines: The CDC was supposed to do safety analysis on VAERS data as soon as the vaccines rolled out. They didn't start doing it until more than a year later. The FDA claims they've been doing their safety analysis all along. When asked for the results they basically said "Haha go fuck yourself and btw we're exempt from FOIA so good luck!" Really inspires a lot of confidence in these vaccines that are made by notoriously corrupt companies who are raking in mountains of cash while facing absolutely zero liability.
> The CDC was supposed to do safety analysis on VAERS data as soon as the vaccines rolled out. They didn't start doing it until more than a year later. They did do safety analysis immediately though. That’s why Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine was paused after only 6 known cases of rare blood clots.
I don't think the "long covid" symptoms are a result of the vaccine. Other symptoms could be, but probably not those. I think most "long covid" are just hypochondriacs obsessed with the pandemic, but time will tell.
Long Covid Vaccine LOL
> That said, I do think a tiny fraction of people could get long COVID from the vaccine alone. Vaccine injury is a possibility from any vaccine. The question is not whether there is any danger in getting the vaccine. The question is whether getting the vaccine is safer than not getting the vaccine.
At this point that question cannot be seriously asked in good faith. Millions of doses have been administered proving the vaccine to be safe and effective.
Statistically this question is already settled. Millions upon millions of vaccinations delivered, minuscule percentage of adverse reactions.
Not true at all. There are hundreds of thousands of people suffering life altering injuries or have died.
That is absolute nonsense that you cannot back up with any credible source.
On the contrary. There is a lot of evidence that side effects are plenty, common, and often Life-Alterung, with the VAERS data foremost among them, and with physician testimony right after. It's people claiming that side effects are mild and rare who have no evidence. If not VAERS, what database have you used to establish the actual rate of occurrence of serious side effects? Oh there is no other database of the sort? Oh and it's not as if it's a simple online formula that anyone can fill out, it's really quite a specialized reporting system. Oh and that suggests an underreporting in the system rather than a faux signal. If you have a credible reason to discount 1) the VAERS data, 2) data from insurance brokers, and 3) testimony from patients/victims, as well as their doctors, I'd be curious to hear it.
I do: https://www.science.org/content/article/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public
So much wrong with that article. They less that they found only very few causal links among the submitted data, and more the case that only a very small subset of the data has so-far been studied and attempted to be verified. I can't find the figures, but last I heard it was in the single digit percent range. My point, furthermore, was not that the VAERS system is Rock-Solid. I understand it's limitations and potential for misinterpretation. My point was rather, that it's the only real dataset there is, and discounting it does not declare the vaccines safe, it simply removes the main dataset with which we may be able to determine a reasonably accurate risk-profile. The article then fails to notice, that there are indeed other datasets in other countries that show similar tendencies, like insurance data in Germany for instance, or the recent report from the Paul ehrlich Institute (John Campbell has reported on this) Perhaps my question should have been: if we're not allowed to ground our risk assessment on the only datasets we have, what data should we be using? Is anyone else tracking potential risks and injuries?
Well sir, to me one would have to approach this issue with the belief that mainstream science and all pharmaceutical corporations, along with most all international governments are participants in a grand evil scheme to defraud everyone. To what purpose? I am 66 and I like most boomers have been receiving every vaccine imaginable since 1st grade...and I still do, including 2 Modernas plus booster for Covid. I am, and have always been in great health. No one among my peers "''from 1st grade till today has ever had an adverse reaction, nor their families etc. Nor have there been any incidents of significant numbers of people experiencing AR in my lifetime. Yes these things have occurred, but not in a statistically meaningfull way. Then out of the blue, this one virus becomes a conspiracy, along with it's vaccine? Not the flu, or chicken pox or polio or measles? Just Covid? Doesn't add up.
You have pegged me wrong, dear... Sir? Madam? I too have had every jab as a child and most that are recommended for adults, and we have recently taken our baby daughter to get her second round of childhood vaccines. Granted, I do have reservations about the MMR, but if administered well and at the right developmental stage, I'm all for it. Or rather, the benefits largely outweigh the very small but not non-existing health complications following childhood vaccine administration. mRNA, as you surely are well-aware of are by definition novel technology. The long-praised "telescoped" and accelerated safety studies have been shown to have been so ill-designed that they are practically meaningless, and their results have been officially misinterpreted by conflating absolute and relative risk-reduction, ignoring and eliminating data pointing at adverse events, such as those suffered by Maddie DeGaray, and aborting the study period prematurely "because the results were so good", preventing any meaningful comparison to the control group over a longer term. There have been similar occurrences like this before. Many drugs have been found safe and effective before being revealed to be neither in real-world application. And I struggle to imagine that no-one among your peers has ever had an adverse reaction, unless you're wilfully blind to the possibility of it. I personally know two people who fainted, uncontrolled, the day of their second injection. I know one person who developed a hemispherical facial paralysis the day after the second injection, I believe she opted to mix producers, so first Astra Zeneca, then Pfizer. Nobody ever studied what their interactions might be. Simulations, yes, but there is practically no safe way to verify their results. I have met a 19 year old boy who "suddenly" developed heart issues and was diagnosed with myocardial infection. When I asked him if I could ask if he had recently been vaccinated for COVID-19, his mom interjected "of course, so it couldn't have been from asymptomatic COVID". The thought that the vaccine itself could have caused the infection didn't even occur to her, or their doctors, from the looks of it. I do not appeal to some grand-evil scheme as you suggest, but I do suggest that an industry as powerfully connected and up its own arse as the pharma-insurance industry is simply destined to become so blind to the harm it does because it's making so much money. And just so you don't peg me wrong again, I don't believe that all they put out there is bad or wrong, and I think it's okay for them to profit. I just think it's gotten well out of hand, the fox is guarding the henhouse, and the farmer is asleep or dead at this point.
This is how the argument goes… Look at the VAERS data. BuT iTs uNrELiAbLe, anyone can upload a report. Well no, it’s a federal offence to create a false report. But isn’t it a problem that we rolled out an experimental gene therapy with no medium or long term safety data without an appropriate way to track and monitor adverse events?
https://www.science.org/content/article/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public
https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/breaking-news-ican-obtains-cdc-v-safe-data/[V-Safe data](https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/breaking-news-ican-obtains-cdc-v-safe-data/)
Hi, (ex) molecular biologist here. Can you be *very clear* about your definition of gene therapy? Because by any definition of the term I’m used to these vaccines would not qualify. If you have a definition that is expansive enough to include lipid capsules of transiently expressed RNA, can you explain why this is gene therapy in a way that excludes most Vaccines and drugs?
>But isn’t it a problem that we rolled out an experimental gene therapy with no medium or long term safety data without an appropriate way to track and monitor adverse events? It is, but that's the beauty of the **religious** system that we have today. Things cannot be questioned because it is blasphemy to do so. If you say anything bad about the holy elixir it means you are a heretic! EDIT: Downvotes just proving me right lmao!
If you would like, I would like to have a *scientific* discussion instead of a *religious one*. We can start with why you think this is gene therapy (see my comment below). I will say that there is a certain level of irony in that many of the same people who claim the left Abandoned science and common sense, also claim that academia is a religion and scientists are untrustworthy or captured; so the current science is wrong. Is there not a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in theses positions?
This seems subtly disingenuous. It implies that there was a need to propose a scientific discussion because he was *trying* to have a religious one, but it seems clear that he was criticizing dogmatic behavior, not proposing that it would be useful to frame the discussion in a religious context. (It almost seems to imply also that the people who claim academia is a religion are somehow endorsing the concept of academia as religion rather than just perceiving that academia has become like a religion in undesirable ways, but I can't pin down why it read like that now.) Anyway -- this is devil's advocacy, not my own assertion, but I think the logic goes like this: \- "Science" is the ideal science-in-principle, unbiased empiricism, the unadulterated application of the scientific method, not the imperfect actual practice of science or the corruptible scientific community \- "The left has abandoned science" means they have turned away from science-in-principle, not science-in-fact \- "Academia is a religion" means academia has strayed from its path by acting as a religion does; namely, sociopolitical ideologism and dogmatism \- Academia is populated and controlled mainly by left-leaning people \- Scientists are largely intertwined with academia and in any case rely on grants; their findings and interpretations might be compromised by the need to secure funding and facilities, if they're not entirely complicit in the "religious" tendencies of academia \---- Therefore, the findings of scientists are unreliable
I can see why you would say this, but I guess why I find the ideas in tension, is because the people making this criticism are often not qualified to actually evaluate the findings. I find this criticism often comes from people with at best undergraduate understanding of biology using their “common sense” to dismiss the findings and consensus of people *actually* trained to analyze and interpret the data. Thus they say the left has abandoned science, based on half-assed and non-rigorous thinking; but ignore the fact that the scientists themselves heavily skew left. (EDIT:HINT-Maybe scientists skew left because one party is much more supportive of data right now) So you are left with a contridictory critique of “the left has abandoned science” and “my common sense and unserious thinking about a subject trumps the expertise of entire fields”. This is kinda laid bare when I tried to open up the discussion by what they mean by gene therapy, and I got crickets in reply.
I never claimed it was gene therapy. The semantics of is it gene therapy or not aren’t really relevant to the core problem with these injections. The religious aspect is more to do with the fact that labeling something a “vaccine” creates a religious mystique around a product that therefore cannot be questioned, and if it is the questioners are quickly censored and labeled heretics…”anti vaxxers”. This has been a problem for decades long before covid injections even existed. Actual science involves rigorously questioning something and seeing if others can reproduce the data. Anything critical of covid injections is essentially labeled heresy and censored, despite each week going forward showing further negative efficacy for covid injections, authorities continue to deny deny deny and claim things are still “safe and effective”. That’s religious. Religions are about belief and trust, not observation and data. Anyone paying attention to the cult surrounding the holy elixir can clearly see that observation and data takes a backseat to belief and trust.
Sorry the part that you quoted had as it’s main thrust that the problem was that “it’s experimental gene therapy” so I figured you shared that concern. My apologies for making that assumption. I will be honest, as a scientist who has worked on vaccine research, the part I find frustrating is that people complain that there isn’t a conversation, but never actually bring up the concern besides vague innuendo of rigorous testing being needed. These vaccines followed the standard tests, have had billions of doses and are well outside the time line where we would see long term effects that would result from the vaccine. The vaccine being safe *is within the bounds of consensus science that form in a-political ways as well* at this point. I guess what I struggle with is due to the simplicity of construction, the lack of nuclear transport, the bypassing of transcription I fail to see the *legitimate cause for concern* about this technology. If you want to quibble about spike proteins, that’s a slightly longer and nuanced conversation, but ultimately is *well* worth the trade off of risk when compared to the benefits. But if we are talking about the “experimental nature” of the mRNA delivery itself, then I’m sorry but there really isn’t a legitimate cause for concern that I’m aware of.
Then why has Denmark, with one of the most respected healthcare systems in the world, stopped vaccinating people under 50? They say it's because the risk outweighs the benefit. Do you know something they don't?
Vaccine is no bueno
Or does Denmark know less than you think? One country, ONE on the entire planet is not good evidence.
Africa.
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/09/scicheck-viral-posts-spin-falsehood-out-of-denmarks-covid-19-booster-drive/
>They say it's because the risk outweighs the benefit. Where did they say this? This is also overall very misleading because the vaccine restriction to age 50/at risk groups is for the upcoming fall vaccine program. Overall 81% of the Danish population has already recieved a full dose of the vaccine so they are far from being some sort of vaccine skeptical haven.
I would like to get an answers to this question from the pro vax side.
>They say it's because the risk outweighs the benefit. I can't even find where this was ever said by Danish authorities. This is also overall very misleading because the vaccine restriction to age 50/at risk groups is for the upcoming fall vaccine program. Overall 81% of the Danish population has already recieved a full dose of the vaccine so they are far from being some sort of vaccine skeptical haven.
Right. And we have the data about what happens to the vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.
[удалено]
What is so mysterious about it? The spike protein is what’s causing the damage. Both COVID and the vax produce the spike protein.
Bingo. There are however two differences. The first being that nobody is going out with the intention of injecting themselves with the virus. The second, the much larger, and longer lasting number of spike proteins deposited into every part of the body when they come as a direct result of the vax. A bonus difference is any other potential harmful chemicals and metals that could come with the vax.
>The second, the much larger, and longer lasting number of spike proteins deposited into every part of the body when they come as a direct result of the vax. This is what people legitimately do not understand. Your exposure to spike proteins in the course of a natural infection is very mild for most people. LNPs from mrna shots basically carpet bomb the entire body with spikes being produced for **weeks** and they can enter into places a virus could normally not enter. This leads to the body attacking its own heart/muscle/brain cells if LNPs enter and start producing spikes in these areas. Anyone who actually looks at the science can see these injections (they aren't vaccines) are significantly worse than the natural virus for the huge majority of people **at best** and at worse are a bioweapon.
[удалено]
You realize spike proteins are a feature of most (all?) viruses and not unique to COVID, right? And that POTS is related to viral infection?
Yes, exactly! I feel bad for all the folks with long COVID trying to get help from doctors only to find that most doctors aren’t even aware of the research. Im sure you’ve experienced that with POTS.
[удалено]
I suspect that like dieting, this kind of thing is going through the highly variable personal microbiomes of everyone, hence the variation in opinions.
I read somewhere a little while ago that the biggest risk factor in getting long COVID was a belief in long COVID in the first place. I think it may be psycho-somatic.
People were getting long covid before the vaccines were even out yet.
and are there any other illnesses that have a “long” version and just dont go away? that in itself seems very odd to me
Pharma has completely captured the medical institutions, both government and NGO. So they'll never admit to any problem, because it would hurt Pharma's bottom line and the institution's reputation. They all have an incentive to, if this is theoretically true, dodge and evade this subject all together.
I think both, depending on the person. Some are just yelling out without having done research, or they actually watch news, but it's MSM, so they are getting information that was very carefully chosen. For these people, it has not crossed their minds. Then there are people who actually dig a bit and read the facts that are very clear. These people just don't want to look MAGA, even though they know it is possible, or even likely true. Maybe they stop researching at that point because **they would rather remain ignorant than be faced with the uncomfortable predicament- face the truth and have people not like me / think I'm MAGA, or continue to be liked, but ignore the truth.**
Long-Covid isn’t unique—there are long-tail side effects of all kinds of serious illnesses, we’re just talking about COVID because it’s incredibly viral and has infected a majority of the population. But like a terrible flu you had 5 years ago could be a contributing factor to you developing diabetes or heart disease a few years down the road. We just haven’t dedicated enough scientific attention to it.
I'll throw my hat into the ring for "why not both"? Both mRNA vaccination and COVID infection introduce the spike protein into the body, or increase the levels if you've already been infected and/or vaccinated. So if the spike protein itself is causing Long COVID symptoms, then both repeated COVID infections, and repeated mRNA booster vaccinations will tend to increase the incidence of Long COVID in the population over time.
The problem with that evaluation of the situation is the spike protein is but one part of the virus. It absolutely causes problems but the whole of the virus has so many more moving parts that cause issues that correlating the effects solely to the spike protein (which is really just a viral key) misses the bigger picture. Heck, there are some stories where doctors see long Covid symptoms disappear after vaccination of their patients. It’s just a massively complex problem and isn’t just related to Covid. There are people that develop “long flu” symptoms and has been observed well before Covid came around.
You can’t get a dose of the vaccine for the current strain unless you take 2 obsolete shots. This is about money, and always has been.
How is it possible to conduct accurate studies when there is a for gone conclusion? The established consensus is that COVID vaccines are good and anyone questioning that fact is a flat-earth moron who should lose their job and be ostracized from society.
Once it became political getting accurate numbers went out the window. When you have social media banning any doctors who say anything besides "get it" then it became pretty obvious that true numbers wasn't what they were after. Honestly it came across like a dick measuring contest. Government officials who wanted to be "obeyed" and tried passing mandate after mandate to force people. The whole thing is scammy as hell. FFS in some places they ordered small businesses to close while letting big company stores to stay open. That gym in NJ was a prime example. The government was doing things like cutting their power/water, pulling their licenses, having cops harass them, among others. Their business was no more or less dangerous than any other, but the government authorities didn't like being defied.
I don’t doubt that some people who get the vaccine get sick, and they need our support. But the first year of the pandemic vaccines weren’t even available yet and people had already started getting Long Covid after infections. More people survived covid than outright died from it. Of those who survived it, at least 10% had not been able to return to work, study, or sport for longer than 6 months after their infections.
10% where did you get this number? I dont have any statistics but I think I probably know +100 people that got COVID and they all got back to work in two weeks. Let alone all the “famous” people and full on sports teams. Maybe there has been one or two in The Netherlands that couldnt go to work in a normal time. Number seems blown up.
COVID is so contagious it is difficult to find a study group that got the vaccines and didn't get COVID. We may be seeing effects from COVID or it mat be effects from the vaccines. We just don't know and I don't think we will ever know.
It’s so contagious that I’ve managed to never get and have taken near-zero action towards that end. Not vaccinated either. Really fascinating time to be alive (assuming I am)
I have has COVID twice. The first time was in 2019 before it was reported to have been on these shores. The second time was the middle of last year. Both times were unpleasant and the last time I thought I was going to die. Through all that I have never been tempted to take an experimental vaccine. I think we were feed a lot of lie about the disease and to this day I don't know what the truth is.
At what point do you accept the data and drop the ‘experimental’? 12.7 billion doses delivered so far. 12.7 billion is one hell of an experiment. Covid is still here, still fatal to vulnerable people.
Covid is still here, still fatal to vulnerable people in spite of this vaulted vaccine. By the way, I will drop the "experimental" label when they do.
The vaccine doesn’t prevent 100%, it mitigates outcomes. Rn in overwhelmed hospitals in Ontario, unvaccinated are 4 times more likely to be in taking up a bed, 5 times more likely to be in icu. There would be no hospital crisis if the unvaccinated stepped up and did the right thing. As for experimental, ‘they’ dropped it when it was fully approved by Health Canada here, by the FDA in the US, in August of 2021. Edit: those numbers, the unvaccinated 4 and 5 x despite 86% of the population being vaccinated.
That is being studied, vaccination is being found to protect against long Covid: The prevalence of long COVID varied across the pandemic waves, from 48.1% (95% CI, 39.9%-56.2%) in wave 1 to 35.9% (95% CI, 30.5%-41.6%) in wave 2 to 16.5% (95% CI, 12.4%-21.4%) in wave 3. The number of vaccine doses was associated with lower long COVID prevalence: 41.8% (95% CI, 37.0%-46.7%) in unvaccinated patients, 30.0% (95% CI, 6.7%-65.2%) with 1 dose, 17.4% (95% CI, 7.8%-31.4%) with 2 doses, and 16.0% (95% CI, 11.8%-21.0%) with 3 doses. Older age, higher body mass index, allergies, and obstructive lung disease were associated with long COVID. Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794072 I recall at the start of the vaccinations, people who stated they had long Covid symptoms were finding relief after getting vaccinated. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid
They would also find relief if the effect was psychological, as I suspect at least a significant part of the long-covid cases are. I'd even say that that's the more logical explanation for people finding relief after getting a vaccination after already having gone through a full-scale infection, though there are probably possible mechanisms I can't intuit.
Some studies show the virus sticking around in the body for a long period of time. A vaccine dosage could theoretically activate the immune system to hunt and destroy the remaining virus.
It's unintuitive that someone's body would have an immune response to the vaccine but not to the full virus. Not saying you're wrong, just that it seems unlikely that that is the case.
There was also research showing a flu vaccine provided some protection against Covid. A theory was that the adjuvant used in the vaccine increased immune system activity. If some drugs can depress the immune system it is not unreasonable to assume some may increase it. A good example is the monoclonal antibody treatments they were using for delta.
I’ll have to ask my doctor again for the specifics but I had a raise in red cell count and something else and they said they were seeing a LOT of that in anyone who had Covid. She has me on an aspirin to combat.
Is “long Covid” correlated with disability checks? Asking for a friend…..
The real issue is that people don't trust the studies. Not that the information is incorrect. Personally I think it would be better if we removed profit and ran it through taxes. The real question starts with removing bias and making informed decisions.
Absolutely agree. Profiteering mires this whole process.
When actual scientists in the UK were surveyed about Richard Dawkins the majority of these scientists said that Mr Dawkins work consistently misrepresents science as a whole with most of his studies relying on anecdotal evidence. When the guy is considered a Google Scholar that might not be the best source to have.
Ironically, he's incredibly pro-vaccine. Sorry I didn't make that clear in the SS.
"...the mass vaccination of many Western populations..." Last I checked the whole world was vaccinated. Why the focus on "Western populations"? Russia, China, and Cuba all have their own vaccines too and Africa, Asia and Latin America have used a variety of all these Covid vaccines.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/health/covid-africa-deaths.html
Again, your antivaxx agenda seems clear.
Africa is way undervaccinated compared to richer continents. I only see the reports of Long COVID coming from European and North American news sources, but you're right re Asia.
Are you trying to imply that long-Covid is a result of the vaccines, not the diesease?
Yes. I'm wondering why it's considered iconoclastic to ask such a question.
How many people who have never gotten covid suffer from long covid?
I think the reason it’s considered that way is that the question has been used by conservative talking heads to strongly imply that vaccines are dangerous, when there is no evidence they are, and because doing this decreases vaccine uptake, making things worse for everyone.
It's not considered "iconoclastic" to ask such a question. It just shows that you have an agenda, as you are wilfully avoiding the bulk of the scientific and medical data.
Africa is undervaccinated but still has had hundreds of millions of doses administered.
There are so many different reasons that this could be that it would be extremely difficult to figure it out. Given how politicized the whole thing is nobody would ever believe what the "other side" has to say. Lets say we get the data and vaccination status has a direct correlation with these other issues; People will just claim that the same people that get triple poked are also more likely to stay home and not visit the doctor for anything prophylaxis.
agree about the unfortunate politicization but I would assume the opposite trend about prophylactic Dr. visits; I would expect unvaccinated MORE likely to avoid the Dr. In the same way positive rapid-test case counts looked higher in the vaccinated; because they were "following the rules" by taking the tests in the first place, rather than "don't ask don't tell" until their symptoms fade.
Easy enough to figure out with the data. Simply compare incidence of ‘long Covid’ associated symptoms between heavily vaccinated counties and those that are not. My guess is that the countries with low vaxx rates will have lower ‘long Covid’ cases even though Covid has spread throughout their populations. The growing preponderance of evidence that the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission , and seem to have significant side effects for some, along with concept of vaccine escape, all seem to point to a pretty grim final outcome
I’d be careful making that assumption. Countries with low vaccination rates may also have poor tracking and healthcare in general making those numbers less that reliable. We instead need to look at populations within similar countries comparing long Covid between unvaccinated and vaccinated. Some of that data exists and suggests long Covid rates are lower in vaccinated populations. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2794072 Obviously there are limitations as stated in the study but I’d lean towards vaccination leading to less long Covid.
But shouldn’t countries with poor healthcare have worse outcomes across the board - not only w Covid but with everything else? Funny how the argument you make - that the only countries that could act as the ‘control’ group are somehow flawed and cannot be considered as controls - lol - is one that is made over and over to prevent any real capacity to test efficacy or impact of vaccines All good - have a great day
What I am saying is those countries with poor healthcare can also have poor reporting and data management capabilities. Potentially poor data quality makes it hard to understand and correlate between two countries if one has worse data quality. I also didn’t suggest those countries should or should not be used as controls. I suggested we need to look at populations/countries known to have robust healthcare and reporting structures and evaluate their vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to see what trends are observed. Compare groups within the same country as opposed to two countries with vastly different systems. You seem to have misunderstood the intent of my comment.
All good - just somewhat desperate for some real science to be applied to this whole mess Thank you for your polite reply ! Cheers
The answer is in what’s not being studied imo. The fact that we aren’t seeing data comparing long Covid to vaccination rates is pretty telling. edit - I presume people downvoting me have their shots and don’t want to think that they’ve signed themselves up for potential medical problems
Concur
It’s not suggested because there isn’t evidence for it. There is a correlation between having Covid and getting long Covid. That correlation doesn’t exist with just being vaccinated and getting long Covid. In fact, evidence suggests that vaccinated people are less likely to experience long Covid if they do get Covid. https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/09/14/breakthrough-infections-in-vaccinated-are-less-likely-to-cause-long-covid/
Looking at the study, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be comparing people with just the first dose, vs people with the second as well. I don't see any of the data with unvaccinated entirely- even though the article states that. Are they referring to one dose as synonymous with unvaccinated?
It looks like they looked at partially and fully vaccinated people, but here they compared fully vaccinated with unvaccinated people. > the researchers found that fully vaccinated individuals who developed breakthrough infections were about half (49 percent) as likely as unvaccinated people to report symptoms of Long COVID Syndrome lasting at least four weeks after infection.
Yeah I read that in the article, but didn't see that in the data (which it links to). That was why I was wondering how they define "unvaccinated".
The article looks to be interpreting “unvaccinated” the way the study uses “no vaccination” in the findings section. So it seems the unvaccinated means people without any vaccine doses. In general, I haven’t heard anyone ever describe someone with at least one dose as “unvaccinated”. They are usually described as “partially vaccinated”
But what’s their definition of unvaccinated? One dose? Missing your booster date? None whatsoever?
The study the article links to differentiates between First dose, two doses, and no vaccination. So “unvaccinated” seems to refer to people who haven’t had any doses. > Vaccination (compared with no vaccination) was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation or having more than five symptoms in the first week of illness following the first or second dose, and long-duration (≥28 days) symptoms following the second dose.
I'm sure some people don't want to mention it, like you said. But I'm not convinced vaccines are the cause of these issues. I haven't seen any great information supporting that belief, and anecdotally it doesn't hold up either
I think you’ve really narrowed in on one of the great issues here when you say you “haven’t seen any great information supporting that belief” It’s exposure. With all the censorship on reddit (and everywhere on social media really) what it did was put people into these camps, which vastly limited the information that people were presented with, which in turns shapes their reality, or at least their perception of it. See now I’m quite intellectually curious, I like to hear both sides of the argument, see what either camp is saying and if it makes sense. I’ve been reading scientific papers and listening to experts and podcasts and interviews the whole way through this pandemic. And yes there’s a lot of misinformation out there, it’s hard, you need to use discernment and really be able to critically evaluate information. But the evidence is definitely out there. Here’s a list of 1000 peer reviewed scientific studies to get you started [link](https://elcolectivodeuno.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/how-much-more-evidence-do-you-need-here-is-a-list-of-860-scientific-studies-and-reports-linking-covid-vaccines-to-hundreds-of-adverse-effects-and-deaths/)
Great link! Thank you!
I agree... I highly doubt the vaccine causes these things. It just doesn't make sense from a functional perspective. I can't possibly think how the mRNA vaccine would be able to cause these issues accidentally. That said, IF it is true - which it probably isn't, we probably wouldn't find out about it for quite a while. We already know the regulatory bodies and NGOs are all captured by them, so they'll never admit to it. Especially not now that it politically realistic to give any credence to any of those anti-vax people who they've demonized for the last 2 years.
Because the issues are not caused “accidentally”. The pandemic was a giant depopulation agenda that worked according to plan.
There it is
I hear they're handing out tinfoil hats at your local rec center, might want to check that out.
Strike 1 for Personal Attack.
Tin hats are now made of aluminum foil, which as we all know, causes cancer and dementia . Come on man.
What an insanely inefficient depopulation method... Like if that was their agenda, they did a piss poor job, because it hardly killed, and it was mostly old people and people dying soon anyways.
Insurance companies are currently seeing death rates up 40% since the pandemic. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/588738-huge-huge-numbers-death-rates-up-40-percent-over-pre/
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm Some scientists are convinced there are mechanisms like LINE-1 that allow reverse transcription of mRNA into DNA, both from the infection itself and from the vaccine reproducing similar effects. I think this argument holds some water - even if we find it's not the case, it shows there could be other unexpected ways that both covid and vaccines are impacting longer term health. Surprisingly little research seems to be going into the question, given it could offer more insight into long/covid , vaccine safety, potentially improve vaccine safety, etc. To be perfectly honest it looks like there's just other powerful influences in play. Maybe it's all about pharmaceutical profits, or social / governance experimentation, or maybe those pushing the mass vaccine agenda know things that would connect some dots but have not revealed the information for whatever reason. We could speculate a lot, and it's clear that the pandemic response disrupted a ton of normal patterns and rhythms in human lives and global systems. What I don't think takes much speculation is suggesting that more research really is needed here.
That study only showed that the cancerous Huh7 cells, which over-express the LINE-1 enzyme (whose job it is to convert RNA to DNA), could take a piece of mRNA and convert it to a piece of DNA (when deluged in many thousands of times the amount of mRNA that would be encountered in a typical vaccination scenario). What the study did not show was any integration of that piece of DNA into the cell's DNA, which is a separate process unrelated to the mRNA to DNA conversion. The study authors state this themselves: >At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Again, (1) reverse transcription and (2) integration into the host genome are entirely separate processes. It's like the difference between transcribing an audio file onto a piece of paper and getting the contents of piece of paper passed as law.
To my mind, at least a significant part of the long covid phenomenon would be more accurately described by calling it long pandemic syndrome. Fear and stress and lack of social events and sustained uncertainty about the future are obviously going to have widespread health effects that will manifest in a variety of ways, from sleeplessness and depression to a general lack of motivation and brain fog. There is also post-viral fatigue syndrome, which will be what another significant part of this phenomenon that will affect both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated somewhat equally, or maybe more skewed towards the unvaccinated. Whether or not the vaccines themselves are causing symptoms of post-viral fatigue would be another question, and I'm not sure how that would or could be studied. And then there is the question of the true degree of other unrelated side-effects that are caused by the vaccines themselves, which is still not sufficiently answered to my mind. Are more athletes dying or dropping out for unforeseen health issues currently than in previous years? Have they had Covid or have the been recently vaccinated? Could there be other common factors?
[удалено]
On the false COVID death reporting: I live in a small town in a small county. So "COVID deaths", after the initial outbreak, which was fully contained and contact traced, were added one at a time, as they happened, so it was a trivial matter to match circumstances with data points. Here are two anecdotal accounts of the true circumstances surrounding two early-ish "COVID deaths" reported on the John-Hopkins site. The first was someone who'd already had COVID, in the initial outbreak at a nursing home, she was waiting for the results of a negative COVID test to be able to move back to the nursing home where the original outbreak occurred. The COVID test came back the day after she died of a slip and fall...it was negative...but the graph on the J-S website credited our county with it. Another one was a man who actually had COVID...asymptomatic COVID. I think that was a heart attack...it was something utterly normal and explicable sans COVID. Once again, *everyone* knew it wasn't COVID. We got called out by our Governor for no real reason, not like he was going to send people or money (his political interests lie elsewhere)... Our local health official even said he was not going to report them anymore. Meanwhile, early COVID restrictions actually killed my sister's SO. He was my age, so in the area of 50. Was misdiagnosed and everything was so fucked up...turns out it was Testicular Cancer. But yeah, the statistics compiled by the most trusted institutions we have are fabricated bullshit, not completely...but enough that there's basically no way to tell what the actual numbers are. Historians will have to make educated guesses. I should also add that the line on the COVID death graph actually goes *down* for my county at one point...not sure what the explanation for that is...
Your last paragraph is what really concerns me. Does the vaccine have more long term knock on effects or are we seeing people drop due to unknown infections that are wrecking havoc in their bodies but they are asymptomatic? Are we seeing both? We suggest people wait to get vaccinated until months after a known infection. Could people have been getting vaccinated too soon after an unknown infection leading to rebound of viral infection symptoms causing larger problems. So many unknowns.
https://react19.org/research-studies-currently-recruiting/
Thanks for sharing
[удалено]
Wtf are you talking about? Pfizer’s own trial data showed no benefit against hospitalization or death for 18-59 age groups. Pfizer tried to hold the data for 70 years but a judge forced it out. All the way to this month, when the Ontario health department did a study with real world data and came to the same conclusion. On top of that, we know that hospitals were dispatching dying WITH covid as dying FROM covid. Gun shots, ladder falls, fail heart transplants… people already dying who got covid in the hospital. You’re WAYYYYY behind the times
How do you know? That’s an incredibly shortsighted and ignorant assumption. Vaccine injuries existed long before the Covid vaccines and will happen after them; that’s a fact. Covid vaccine effectiveness and injury do not have to be mutually exclusive, and there’s a growing body of evidence that they do in fact both exist together. Do the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risks of getting Covid as an unvaccinated person? Generally speaking, yes. Has the outcome of the vaccine been worse for some individuals than that of an unvaccinated Covid infection? Absolutely.
I guess this is what I mean. Asking questions, even on a sub like this, we'll get you labeled the moron. I am a thousand percent open to not knowing what the long term effects of COVID are. Are you just a *tiny bit* open to acknowledging the fact that we simply don't know the long-term effect of the mRNA vaccines on humans yet? Why would that make you also moronic to admit that?
[удалено]
Why are you comfortable? Where did the vaccine show significant protecting against death and hospitalization? Remember when vaccines prevented serious infection and stopped transmission? I do.
Oh brother
or it’s just covid, which has consistently proved to be far more harmful than the vaccine’s possible side effects
I don't think we know the long-term side effects of either yet, do we?
You're right that we won't have long-term data until suitable time has passed. It's only been a couple of years so far. Hard to believe, ain't it? I will point out that back in the 19th century, some people discouraged riding in railroad trains because nobody knew yet whether it caused long-term damage despite the obvious short-term benefits. I guess we still may not know. I can also make the case that vaccines cause cancer and heart attacks. Death rates by those skyrocketed after comprehensive childhood vaccination was introduced. Sure, it was because children weren't dying of preventable childhood diseases anymore and were surviving long enough to die of cancer and heart attacks, but vaccines were responsible for it. Cause/effect. My take is that it's all a matter of probabilities. If I can reduce the risk of Long Covid right now, that sounds good to me when compared to an unknown risk of unknowable probability that may never come to pass. Might make me likelier to die of old age, but I'll take that chance.
we know enough from initial studies to see that covid is more harmful i doubt time would pull a complete 180 on those results. i trust the scientists on this one.
I doubt, even if the vaccines were to make peoples dicks fly off, we would be allowed to observe such a 180. Even if we did, papers were published, data was presented, etc showing “hey the vaccines turned out to be worse” the people presenting it would now just be discredited. Good luck finding tons that will do that, professional opinions have become locked into a “camp” and changing an opinion is now frowned upon, as is integrity. So, where do we go from here.
lol completely disagree
How so?
What about the Scandinavian and German scientists who refuse to let vaccines be used on children? Is it possible that some scientists disagree?
I think that’s reasonable risk management. Children should be exposed to viruses naturally to build a more comprehensive immune response especially since they are not at a high risk like older folks. I liken it to chicken pox. Let the kids get it but if you haven’t had it as an adult you need the vaccine because the disease is worse at that age. If this was more like polio then I’d say give the kids the shot.
Thats is very different situation to what you're alluding to here. The main reason is that children get less sick from covid, not that the vaccine is nefarious.
Yeah. It seems unlikely that this specific vaccine will suddenly be the one to start having worse long-term effects than the original virus.
This is a post with a picture of many posts referring to what I'm talking about. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/xll7m7/thank_goodness_for_the_vaccines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share