Posted on 02/10/2021 1:30:23 AM PST by RandFan
A Wisconsin doctor who was 14 weeks pregnant claims she suffered a miscarriage within days of receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.
(Excerpt) Read more at banned.video ...
(google: thalidomide babies)
but on the off chance you're not that stupid... some info to chew on from doctors dealing with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g8qfGMQVDg
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZxL1i5NJAE6N/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cBRDR1sCrf4y/
How pathetic - making definitive statements when there’s a lot of actual scientists who have no idea of how safe/unsafe the vaccines are - because this is the first time they have ever been approved for human use in this arena and have zero track record.
They aren’t even true vaccines by the legal/medical terminology as they supposedly mitigate symptoms rather than actually stop the virus and they don’t keep vaccinated folks from “potentially” harboring the virus and passing it on.
The major data gathering is underway now as they plunger the concoction into millions of arms.
They may turn out to be a good thing, but nobody here has the knowledge or authority to declare how dang safe they are.
Well said.
Source? Because the people who were in the clinical trials that began 10 months ago surely have been exposed, and they aren't dying, so...
"And the resultant sterility of women is just a bonus ... I guess"
Source? Because plenty of women who were in the clinical trials became pregnant during the trials, which is the only data we have so far on the vaccines' safety during pregnancy. But if they're sterile, it must be a miracle that they've become pregnant.
Risk of miscarriage at 13 weeks is 2-4% (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/177/11/1271/97504)
Risk of miscarriage at 14-20 weeks is roughly 1% (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/177/11/1271/97504)
Except for the 10 months of rigorous clinical trials performed in the US and the UK with over 100,000 participants.
"They aren’t even true vaccines by the legal/medical terminology as they supposedly mitigate symptoms rather than actually stop the virus and they don’t keep vaccinated folks from “potentially” harboring the virus and passing it on."
This is not correct. Sterilizing immunity is generally a function of the presence of neutralizing antibodies. Since these vaccines produce a lot of neutralizing antibodies (several times higher than a COVID-19 infection normally does), they almost certainly DO provide sterilizing immunity. However, studies to date have not been performed to confirm this since the initial question answered by the studies was "are these safe and are they effective at preventing serious disease and death?" (spoiler alert: the studies confirmed they're 95% effective, just like the smallpox vaccine, and safe)
"The major data gathering is underway now as they plunger the concoction into millions of arms."
Always is with any new drug or vaccine. You can conduct trials, but you always learn more later on. That's the entire purpose of VAERS.
So, what’s your area of expertise?
You quote a lot of internet stories but it seems pretty much to be an opinion - sorry to say that the 10 months of “rigorous clinical trials” you cite is hogwash because they were still paying with trying to develop something 10 months ago...and even if 10 months was correct, it is nowhere near enough to call anything a track record - especially since some actual scientists think there may be problems arising some months down the road and let’s not forget, this is the first time this type “vaccine” has been authorized for human testing/experimenting. How long did it take to start tying some old-time vaccines to possible problems in a section of those (and their babies) getting them?
Please don’t tell me you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night and that’s where you got your definitive statements.
Please don’t tell me you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night and that’s where you got your definitive statements.
==
😂😂
That is incorrect. In fact, they had a working prototype on February 7th; over a year ago. And the first participant in the Phase 1 clinical trials got their first dose March 16th. More information is here.
"some actual scientists think there may be problems arising some months down the road"
We're nearly a year down the road from the first trial participants receiving their doses. When are we going to see these problems again? "Two weeks!"?
"How long did it take to start tying some old-time vaccines to possible problems in a section of those (and their babies) getting them?"
Keep in mind, these are third generation vaccines. The second generation vaccines (subunit, recombinant, polysaccharide, and conjugate vaccines) like what's used for whooping cough, pneumonia, and shingles had far fewer issues than early first generation vaccines. The new technologies get safer; not less safe. Each stage has built on the knowledge and experience from the previous steps. We understand more now than ever before about what creates problems in human beings relating to vaccines and those problems get avoided later on. For example, when you give inactivated virus to people (e.g. some polio vaccines), there's a risk of it reverting to active virus and causing an infection. That no longer exists with gen 2 or gen 3 vaccines.
Ping me if you ever get an answer to the specific area of expertise ;-)
So, we know so much more.
What ratio of actual symptomless cases is there?
Can those without symptoms transmit the virus?
Does 95% efficacy mean it stops one from getting the bug or just decreases the symptoms from the bug?
What happens 10 months down the road if one is exposed to the bug again after having been exposed and having one’s system “triggered”?
If we don’t have definitive answers to those and other questions, we can’t say how effective/safe the vaccines actually are.
I admit I don’t know and cannot definitively say one way or the other - it chaos my grits when a lot of self-made laymen think they can spout off definitively because of their opinions - and what they read on the internet..
I don’t think that will happen. Lot’s of folks do what folks do - search the internet for something that meshes with what they want to believe and use it s proof w/o giving credence to any data that conflicts with their own wishes.
And they talk a great game.
I met a lot of that type in used car lots.
I have no idea of the actual answers. That’s why I would like for the Johnson & Johnson vax to become available before a tipping point is reached.
Roughly 40% show no symptoms. Another 40% show mild to moderate symptoms (similar to a cold or allergies). 20% require medical assistance. 5% become hospitalized. 3% end up in the ICU. 0.65% die. Now those are numbers from this past summer. With some of the newer treatments (particularly monoclonal antibody therapy), the numbers for the ICU and deaths have probably dropped a bit, but I haven't seen updated numbers published anywhere.
"Can those without symptoms transmit the virus?"
The available evidence is that people who are about to develop symptoms - but haven't yet - are a big part of what's driving the spread along with those who do show symptoms. Those who never show symptoms do not seem to be major sources of transmission.
"Does 95% efficacy mean it stops one from getting the bug or just decreases the symptoms from the bug?"
The 95% efficacy number published is the reduction in risk for infection. In other words, if you stuck 1,000 people in a room with a sick person, 500 vaccinated, 500 unvaccinated, and let's say 450 unvaccinated people became infected, 23 or 24 from the vaccinated group would be expected to become infected. Further, of the 23 or 24 vaccinated persons who became infected, none would be expected to develop severe illness. We would expected about 23 of the unvaccinated people in that room to wind up in the hospital and 3 of them to die.
"What happens 10 months down the road if one is exposed to the bug again after having been exposed and having one’s system “triggered”?"
Based on what we've seen from the trial participants, the process continues to function as expected. The first trial participants are still tracked. Their levels of neutralizing antibodies are still tracked. What we know is those levels remain high - though not as high as they had been - enough to destroy any incoming infection. Further, they'll continue to have T-cells that can recognize the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen as well.
"If we don’t have definitive answers to those and other questions, we can’t say how effective/safe the vaccines actually are."
I understand where you're coming from, but the high risk period is in the first hours and days after receiving a new vaccine or drug. 90% of new drugs and vaccines fail in the Phase 3 clinical trials. Those trials catch pretty much everything that's going to be an issue. Things that happen after Phase 3 trials are typically rare problems that only occur under very specific circumstances and don't apply to the general public. 46 million doses have been given in the US. All evidence thus far demonstrates that the only risk is of allergic reaction immediately after you get the shot. Those reactions are typically treated on the spot with a shot of epinephrine to reverse it. Most of the people experiencing that were already known to be prone to severe allergic reactions (the same sorts of folks who carry EpiPens with them everywhere they go).
"I admit I don’t know and cannot definitively say one way or the other"
No one can say definitively for all personal medical situations, and that's why I always suggest that anyone who has any concerns talk with their doctor and make the decision that's best for their own personal health and wellbeing. I wouldn't expect anyone who is prone to severe allergic reactions to jump into these shots. There's a much higher risk for those people based on their medical situation. Children haven't been included in any of the testing. No children should be getting these yet until trials with children are conducted to demonstrate that it's safe for them.
And at the end of the day, anyone who does the research and feels uncomfortable shouldn't get the shots. Or should wait for another vaccine to be authorized that they are comfortable with. Or wait until they see enough friends, family, and neighbors get the shots first. Whether you get the shot today, tomorrow, next year, or never is 100% your decision and I support that. But those decisions should always be made on facts and not unduly influenced by fear (and that goes both ways - undue fear of COVID-19 with its low risk of death or undue fear of the vaccines).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
