Posted on 02/11/2023 8:33:45 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Even from the start of the mRNA vaccine rollout, a small number of physicians were sounding an alarm about the dangers of Operation Warp Speed and the safety protocols that the mRNA vaccine development bypassed. Near the end of year three of dealing with COVID-19, much more is known about the efficacy of the new mRNA vaccines and their safety profile. This post sums up the information and concerns that multiple physicians have offered, all leading to one conclusion: the vaccine program needs to be stopped due to both safety concerns and lack of efficacy.
As the experimental vaccines were rolled out in December 2020, Dr. Michael Yeadon and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg petitioned the EMA (the EU’s medicine regulator) to stop trials of mRNA vaccines due to potential concerns about the accuracy of COVID-19 PCR testing (proven inaccurate now), infertility concerns (still to be investigated), polyethylene glycol toxicity (minor and severe allergic reactions seen), and antibody-dependent enhancement (still being researched).
In May 2021, Dr. Peter McCullough led 57 scientists in a call for the vaccine program to stop due to safety signals that had arisen in the first six months of mRNA vaccine use. Some of their concerns were incomplete knowledge about a range of side effects, patients getting informed consent, certain low-risk age groups not requiring vaccination, and questions about whether patients understood the significance of the fact that the pharmaceutical companies were relieved from liability.
In June 2021, Dr. Tess Laurie sent a letter to MHRA (UK health organization) asking that the mRNA vaccine program be stopped. She asserted that side effects accumulating in the UK Yellow Card system revealed that the mRNA vaccines were no longer safe for humans.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Clinical trials and research that was never done with the mRNA shots.
Who is "you guys"? I have never "made up" anything regard shots and protocols.
Instead of jackassin', point to a post that I made where I said or suggested anything of the sort.
What I have posted is that people should make a data informed decision. If they believe the data to do that - fine. If they don't have the data to do that - fine.
Let's see the data from rigorous clinical trials and research. Then yes, I will gladly "admit" it works. Why wouldn't anyone.
And in typical style, you gloss right over what I posted multiple times and in this thread at least once again - if taking ivermectin is what a person wants to do - do it. Or don't. But know its limitations.
You’re such a flaming hypocrit. You weren’t insisting on ‘rigorous clinical trials and research’ on the ‘vaccines’ or Veklury or other treatments. Veklury failed it’s ebola trial because too many people were dying of organ failure. So they retrialed it simpler and less accurately, and slapped Remdesivir on it and voila! The CDC’s recommended treatment for Covid.
Vaccines trialed on 8 mice? You’re good with it.
But a drug with a fantastic safety profile prescribed for decades - OH NOOOOOOO!!!! Better for people to die untreated then to let them try Ivermectin. Better to force toxic mRNA ‘Vaccines’ on them which have failed all trials for the past 20 years and never made it past animal trials before, DON’T LET THEM TRY THE SAFEST OPTION! NOOOOOO!!!!
Hypocrit! You’re a shill, and an evil one at that.
You didn’t make up anything about the pretense that the mRNA shot was anything other than experimental?
That it was effective preventing the spread?
That it was effective preventing infection?
That it was better than much cheaper and more readily available therapeutics?
If you didn’t, I have no idea why you’re commenting in any capacity.
People SHOULD make a data-informed decision.
There isn’t any reproducible data that supports those mRNA shots. There were no studies. There was no clinical trial.
Ivermectin has studies and clinical trials.
Hydroxychloroquine has studies and clinical trials.
The thing you’ve supported? It doesn’t.
We’re just talking past each other.
I’ve posted that people need to make their own decisions regarding vaccinations.
I’ve also posted that mandated vaccines are wrong and even offered to bet at least two now banned FReepers that claimed that such a law would pass constitutional muster at the Federal level regarding OSHA mandating the vaccines for employers of a certain size. They wouldn’t take the bait (bet - LOL!)
As far as your comment about commenting (LOL again!), it sounds like you want an echo chamber. If so, you’re on the wrong website.
The vaccines have studies and clinical trials - were incomplete with control arms being stopped and the vaccines given to all that wanted. I said at the time and still believe that was a mistake.
And there is research that some people that get vaccinated can get sick - some very so.
And... that doesn’t detract from calling out fake news and dishonest posting about COVID-19, masks, treatments, etc.
You’re trying to tell me your only concern is veracity?
There’s never been proper studies demonstrating that masks ever worked.
https://reason.com/2023/02/07/masks-covid-dont-work-cochrane-library-review-mandate/
I’m sure you’re already aware that Ivermectin does work.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4130945/posts
I have lost the link to Hydroxychloroquine, or I’d provide that as well.
Referring back to the NIH statement on ivermectin:
"Although there have been many ivermectin studies, only a few trials have been adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted (emphasis added). More recent clinical trials address the limitations of earlier studies but fail to show clear evidence that ivermectin reduces time to recovery or prevents COVID-19 disease progression (emphasis added). For this reason, and because several medications now have demonstrated clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIIa). Additional adequately powered, well-designed, and well- conducted trials are needed to evaluate the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19. "
Re: masks - I posted early on that masks can have a good benefit - that being to train people to not bring their hands to their mouth or nose. That’s about it.
However, I believe that there is at least this topic you and I will be in perfect agreement upon:
The politicization of science within the US has ended the trust we have in science to tell us the truth about what we know, and the limits to what we know.
I’ve been on FreeRepublic for a couple of decades. I watched this politicization with Global Warming. That began even before NASA had satellites in orbit.
My introduction to politicized science began even earlier with “acid rain” in the 80s. I was part of a group that watched weather patterns. We had the “perfect storm” that pulled the worst of Ohio’s polluted industries into our region and we then titrated the water, not to find out IF there was acid rain, but how bad it was.
Personally, I was shocked when we began brainstorming why that rain came down with a perfect Ph of 7.0. Everyone was looking for an excuse for why we didn’t detect what was “obviously” happening all around us. As one of the last to speak offered up the obvious: “There’s no such thing as acid rain.”
Re: 84 - Wow.
Let’s be frank - your ignorant claims such as:
“Vaccines trialed on 8 mice? You’re good with it.”
etc, etc.
seem to be a response to you getting busted for making a claim about NIH and COVID-19 protocols that was patently false.
Do better.
Go pound sand, Fury. Make yourself useful! ;D
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.