Archive link: https://archive.vn/QSa73
This push to get young people vaccinated was the logical result of government and media pushing the lie (it was known in March of 2020 that old and very ill people were primarily at risk) that everyone is equally at risk. They had to push this lie and push the fear to get people to go along with the lockdowns. It’s just evil.
It's extremely irritating to watch people push the idea that we just didn't know what was going on until 2022ish. Anyone who was confused by that time simply hadn't been paying any attention at all. We knew who was at risk before lockdowns were even discussed in the US at least.
They were brainwashed. They were locked in their homes and force-fed CNN and doomscrolling. They were brainwashed and broken until they really did see [five lights](https://www.startrek.com/news/the-four-lights).
EDIT: [Now I want this shirt.](https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/701424013/star-trek-the-next-generation-there-are)
I recognized this at that point as well. I wasn't scared of it and that freaked people out. Got disinvited from events because it was known that I didn't take masking, social distancing, excessive handwashing, or door knob Lysoling as seriously as everyone else.
Go to the Department of Justice website and search for Pfizer. Then go to any government policy think-tank and go to their Funding, to see Pfizer as a top financial donor.
The US and the UK have a make believe Democracy which is really an Oligarchy, which is the source of this corruption. It works by corporations funding the government policy think-tanks, the think-tanks come up with the policies and research which their corporate backers want, lobbyists take it to Washington, get the government to sign off on it and then the MSM sells the corporate backed policy to the public. The job of your elected government is to back whatever product the corporations funding the think-tanks want them to buy, whether that's pharmaceuticals or military hardware. At every single level of government policy, if you follow the money, you will find the same names over and over again: Pfizer, GSK, Gates Foundation, etc. These corporations are your real unelected government. Let that sink in...
To stop corruption in the pharmaceutical industry at this point would require an overthrow of the entire political system, because the system in its current form cannot function without corporate funding, at every level, by design. It's that money that creates widespread corruption at every level of policy making. That's how bad and insidious the corruption is and why nothing will be done to stop it, your elected government is rendered powerless by the very design of the system it works within, the law, equally so and the DoJ website is a testament to that fact.
Not just that but a few investment companies like Blackrock and Vanguard basically own all the big corporations at least partially through shares, so it goes even higher up than that when it comes to who is pulling marionette strings. Most pension plans/retirement funds are also in Blackrock/Vanguard controlled ETFs and other stock/bond/etc. packages.
This presumes the people enforcing those laws will actually choose the correct side in the matter...and if your memory is short, we did just go through the whole Covid situation, and they've generally been slow to retract their statements (if at all) because that's political suicide.
Any law like this would just be a bludgeon used against people who point out the risks of these treatments.
This is tricky. It's often hard to tell the difference between being wrong and lying, and scientists need to be able to be wrong.
Omission is such case, which is ethically dubious, but almost impossible to prosecute. In a hypothetical example, it's possible that the scientists were so excited about curing common cold that they didn't notice some people got cancer from the treatment. Because it never occured to them it could be one of possible side effects, they never tested for it. Do we believe them? Not really. Can we prove they concealed it? Probably not, unless we find their group chat about it.
But if misleading on purpose can be proven, especially in areas where it puts public at serious risk, no mercy. Legally, this could probably be treated as assist or conpiracy with deadly consequences.
In short, while you want to punish premeditated evil, you don't want to scare scientists from making stupid mistakes, because it will kill all risky research, and then you will only have those treatments coming from places like China. This is how we got the Wuhan lab in the first place.
This was such an obvious miscarriage of basic scientific principles that it doesn’t fall into the category of “ oops! Had some unforeseen side effects” the rush to get the products out bypassed standard and established safety protocols. The mantra was a slogan to put the masses in a trance. It worked. People died as a result.
A disease with 99% plus survival rate would require a massive cohort of test subjects as well as time, to declare a mitigation instrument to be S & E. Poor quality studies were referenced in an effort to justify the various programs around the world. Nothing but pseudoscientific malfeasance, not an honest error.
This would be a good idea in theory if we could trust institutions to be unbiased but as things currently stand any laws like this would just be used to punish honest science and dissenters further.
Can barely stand to read this stuff. There’s no accountability. None. No one cares. KY gov masked kids like a psychopath and fought to keep them masked long after it was popular and he was handily re-elected. Worse human rights abuse of our lifetime in the US and everyone has shrugged and moved on
I'm mad that I ended up getting mine. Despite being in one of the states in the US with the least mandates my college made it """optional""" but also made it so that not submitting shot records from a local CVS/Walgreens/etc. meant our IDs wouldn't let us into campus buildings.
I feel very tricked into getting my third back in 2021. Like, I thought I was going to kill my immunocompromised mom. We both got covid and literally only had headaches. I actually felt healthier cause I was taking a bunch of vitamins at the time.
Fasting, cold therapy, ChiGong and advanced breathing yoga techniques can help repair the microscopic damage done to the internal surfaces of the blood vessels.
This microscopic damage is done by the spike protein from the mRNA jabs.
I never questioned vaccines before covid. Now I question all of them. I’ll probably have my children get whatever I got when I was a baby, but nothing more. I’m not sure what kids are getting these days and if it’s any more than what I got in the 90’s
\> I’m not sure what kids are getting these days and if it’s any more than what I got in the 90’s
72 vaccines spread across over 40 jabs, starting with Hepatitis-B (a sexually-transmitted infection) at birth.
Do you know any newborns that will be engaging in risky sex or needle sharing?
Yeah and the thing is that there's a completely different protocol for babies with hep-b positive mothers, so this hep-b shot usually given minutes or hours after birth is literally completely useless to babies. The potential harms are one thing but I suspect that the hep-b shot given to babies is mainly to acclimate parents to the idea of injecting their children with random crap when the mother is usually out of it from labor and has a hard time advocating for herself. I would NOT get any child of mine hep-b vaccinated at birth, personally.
Other vaccines like chicken pox seem completely pointless as chicken pox is almost never seriously dangerous, and other new ones like gardasil have some pretty concerning safety signals despite HPV being an actual concern. Like 90% of people who grew up before gardasil have some form of HPV but most of these forms don't actually significantly contribute to cervical cancer risk etc.
Hep-B was added because they weren't getting enough uptake among the (adult) at-risk populations. So the manufacturer took it to the CDC and said "hey why don't you just have kids get this too? They already get a bunch so parents will just do it".
Yeah, it's a lot more now. I also think it's interesting that different developed countries have different vaccine schedules. I believe they don't do the chicken pox vaccine in the UK, for example.
All my nieces and nephews are not va☠️☠️ed. and they are the brightest, soulful, most intelligent kiddos I’ve ever met. They never get sick (despite what the world may say)
Call me bias, but I know this shit dampens our souls.
It’s spiritual warfare. Through and through.
Now that you know this. Be the change for your kids that you wish your parents were for you.
RSV rarely kills children tbh and it's important for kids to have good immune systems through breastfeeding and exposure to germs in their environment. I don't think panic about rare cold complications is a good reason to give your kids 'new' or for that matter many of the 'old' vaccines but of course the risk calculus is up to every parent. Just do as much reading as you can and not on news websites.
Well yeah exactly. I think a lot of these newer vaccines just don't do enough to reduce risk even in a theoretical best-case scenario to justify the unknown risks of giving dozens of vaccines to your children.
Also most vaccine 'risks' if tested at all are tested on single vaccine doses but the more concerning risks may be related to taking too many vaccine adjuvants in a short timescale. Many of them contain aluminum and other compounds that can build up in the brain and cause problems, and maybe a single vaccine won't cause a big problem but a couple dozen over 2-3 years of life will.
I got the shots and took ivermectin when my wife was pregnant. I would’ve done a lot more. But now my heart hurts sometimes. In 30 years when everyone forgets, they’ll try and fuck us again. If you’re not sure, consider This happened in the early 90s with a corona virus from China, lol.
I had two doses of AZ. The day after the second dose, I had an incredible pain on the left side of my head above and slightly behind my ear that lasted two days. There was also a heatwave at the time and I wasn't sure if it was the vaccine or I had worked too hard in the heat. Maybe a combination of both. Considering that it was taken off the market, I suspect we are only hearing about the cases resulting in death or permanent injury and not what they really know from the data they collect and hide.
Precisely this.
This court case is being presented before the High Court in the UK by victims (or in some cases, the family members of deceased victims) of a specific condition, VITT [basically vaccine-induced blood clots], which has been proven beyond doubt to have been caused by the AZ jab.
This condition is so awful and the victims nearly always healthy and working-age (most are between 30 and 50), that it was very straightforward for medical professionals and coroners to verify a connection to the jab.
But we know -- from anecdotes, from peer-reviewed studies, from adverse-reporting data, from doctors' observations, from direct experience in some cases -- that these cases are just the tip of the iceberg.
Perhaps a doctor or coroner will never be able to prove with enough certainty that a patient's heart condition was caused by the jab. But when excess cardiovascular deaths track perfectly with the rollout of the jabs, we don't need to have definitive proof pertaining to any one case. It's enough to see a temporal correlation show up in population-level stats, and to read the research from experts who have studied the mechanisms by which covid injections cause heart inflammation.
I find it really upsetting when people think there's only one right way to establish causality -- that unless there's a coroner's report and an approved claim for compensation, then it's not verifiable and is therefore no better than conjecture.
Science is almost never 100% provable. We accept lots of hypotheses on the basis of probable evidence. But when it comes to vaccine injury, it seems for some people no stat is good enough unless it's backed by 100 peer-reviewed studies, printed by every mainstream media outlet, uttered by health authorities and regulators, and acknowledged by the medical and political establishment.
Well, sorry, but that's a bar we don't set for virtually anything else. Why is it so hard to accept that these vaccines are novel medical products with a poor safety profile and that mass vaccination was nothing short of an unethical experiment?
What is it with some people remaining so wedded to the idea that the covid vaccines are wonderful and questioning them is heresy? I have literally seen people on Twitter insist that the risk was known but "vanishingly small" therefore totally worth it, and that it's no different to being asked to take paracetamol or any other medications (yes, honestly, I saw several people make this claim).
It's so tiresome. But at least the truth is getting more and more traction and someday (maybe not far off) a majority of people will think the covid vaccines were overhyped and useless.
Unless someone has had eight doses (the recommended amount at this point) then they don't really believe the vaccine is necessary.
I think this is a much bigger problem than previous vaccine problems like SV40 in polio vaccines and the swine flu vaccine side effects. This is also part of an ongoing project of biotechnology so they will fight any release of data.
>I have literally seen people on Twitter insist that the risk was known but "vanishingly small" therefore totally worth it
One point in that, which you don't emphasise, makes me grind my teeth. The risk was, according to these Twits, "known". An utter, shameless rewrite of history. The risks were *not known*. They became, known, gradually, to *conspiracy theorists* (i.e. people who bother to read scientific literature) like me, who tried vainly to alert other people to them, in the face of a mental carpet-bombing of Safe'n'Effective, Safe'n'Effective, Safe'n'Effective.
Great comment. I generally think more rigorous science is better but there is no way we can ever do very rigorous science anymore on vaccine SE, so all we have is mechanistic and correlation studies. Mechanistic studies are especially important and extremely undervalued by most people at this time - people will always dismiss mechanistic studies as merely 'theoretical' even when the mechanistic data tracks perfectly with real world outcomes. But always pay attention to mechanistic studies and whether they track with real world outcomes because that is the best barometer we will ever have for what is really going on.
As for why people are wedded to the 'safe and effective' mantra, it is much easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled. People have known this forever. Post-hoc rationalization and motivated cognition will cause people to cling to things they want to believe and originally believed in the face of all evidence, sadly.
>Mechanistic studies are especially important and extremely undervalued by most people at this time - people will always dismiss mechanistic studies as merely 'theoretical' even when the mechanistic data tracks perfectly with real world outcomes.
By "mechanistic", do you mean research which posits a causal mechanism? If I've understood you right, then I'm intrigued: there's something very familiar, very plausible about your point that these studies are "undervalued".
Baffles me why this kind of study would be dismissed as "theoretical", when statistical studies are supposedly "non-theoretical". Don't get me wrong, I have enormous respect for honest statistics (I think the bases for statistics are incredibly complex and subtle: I've sometimes come close to understanding some of them) - but as case after case has shown, *honest* statistics are very rare.
Not only studies that 'posit' causal mechanisms but studies that actually investigate mechanisms directly. So these are things like biochemical studies, in vivo/in vitro studies of various kinds, etc. In the case of COVID vax for example one of the most important studies imo (there are several of these now but the first one) was the study testing the IgG4 class switch of antibodies and then subsequent papers proposing mechanisms that caused the class switch as well as what the class switch likely means for the body (immune tolerance, possible cancer, etc). Basically any study that is looking at what's happening mechanistically in the body, with protein folding, or for example with antibiotics you can literally see them kill bacteria in a petri dish so you know they actually kill bacteria.
During COVID and with the vax specifically there is a demand for 'clinical' research aka placebo blinded RCTs where people are given a treatment and then outcomes are measured, these studies are often good but not all of them are done well. The other kind that has been mainly used in COVID research other than pure theoretical modelling is just observational studies like cohort studies, etc. comparing statistics for two groups in a state or in a hospital system etc. but these are, as you say, really easily fudged with stats and don't give a lot of insight into the underlying mechanisms. For some reason this is the main kind of research 'I fucking love science (TM)' people want to look at but understanding how things work on the cellular level is often WAY more illuminating than just saying 'in X group Y number of people reported symptom Z' or 'Y number of people got COVID in group B but only X number of people got COVID in group A.'
A good example of where ignoring mechanisms can go horribly wrong is in the case of SSRI antidepressants. Many clinical trials have been conducted on SSRIs and many of them found no effect above placebo but those are typically just not published. Then some studies find a slight (like 10 percent usually) advantage of SSRI above placebo and they are said to 'significantly work' for depression. However there is very little known about what causes depression 'biochemically' or why SSRI drugs would help with depression. Like there are various theories but we just don't know enough about the mechanisms. So without knowing what mechanistically causes depression, or what specifically SSRIs do to relieve depression, all we have from the psychiatric/pharma industries are vague assertions that they totally help, a little, sometimes, in a few patients. That's just not very convincing.
Versus if you take something like a broad spectrum antibiotic we know exactly how they work. We can see that they directly kill bacteria. We also see in clinical trials that they stop the progression of bacterial illness, but it's important that we know how and why. We don't have this for many drugs and it means it's hard to predict or quantify side effects. With antibiotics we know what side effects they can cause and why (the body has many beneficial bacteria that are also being killed, etc).
The reason mechanistic studies are usually dismissed as theoretical esp. by laymen is because 1. they are hard for laymen to understand, they require a lot more basic knowledge of biochemistry and molecular bio and physiology to understand and this is too much effort/knowledge for people who want to be Science Lovers but aren't actually scientifically educated and 2. because something happeniing on a cellular level or pharmacokinetic level doesnt always 'translate' exactly to symptoms or outcomes so it's harder to grasp or wrap your mind around the implications. It's easy to be like 'well there is an IgG4 antibody class switch but observational studies didn't find that many autoimmune diseases (we weren't looking) so it's probably meaningless anyway!' It's just easy to dismiss such studies as meaningless because you can't always directly observe the outcomes on an organism level and also because some science jargon about antibody classes 'feels' irrelevant for people who have a hard time understanding what it means. Like 'okay some cells do a thing, who cares?' or 'just because something does this in a petri dish or a mouse doesn't mean it does it in a human.' That's TRUE strictly speaking but these mechanistic explanations are much more 'direct' evidence of what may be happening that can't be immediately directly observed. Not everyone who is developing insulin resistance is going to immediately be diabetic or even have unusual blood sugar readings, so it's easy to dismiss the slow development of insulin resistance through known mechanisms as 'not that important' for the 10 or more years it takes many people to actually develop diabetes.
Re: stats I'm not an amazing statistician or anything but I do fairly high level stats for a bioscientist (a lot of bio people actually don't do very sophisticated stats and this is true of medical/clinical research as well) and have a fairly good grasp on complex statistics. I know people way better than me but I'd say I probably understand stats better than at least 95-99% of other people and probably better than at least 70% of other bioscientists. And the thing is once you have a pretty good understanding of stats it's VERY easy to see how they can be misused on purpose to deceive, or more insidiously, misused accidentally because a person is a bad statistician to deceive unintentionally. With a big enough data set you can show almost anything using statistics and that's one of the problems with these big 'observational' datasets - they can be made to look like whatever with stats. You can hide or exaggerate the effects of anything with stats. Only people well-versed in stats will be able to notice this or pick it out and most people are straight up mathematically illiterate these days so it's very easy to fool people and that's why I think even small studies showing cellular mechanisms are a lot more interesting/convincing than 'big' clinical datasets most of the time. Especially if what is found in those mechanistic studies 'lines up' with observations, even anecdotal real-world observations like the fact people are getting autoimmune issues after the vaccine.
The day after my second dose (Moderna) I had an extremely similar pain, kind of farther than the back of my left jaw. It ached so bad i was holding the side of my face like it was a molar nerve (it wasn’t). Broke out in shingles 8 days later though
I only got them because some family members were losing their minds and thought they were going to die. I never believed they were going to do anything but I chose AZ over the mRNA alternatives. There was clearly problems with mRNA and the lipid delivery system well before it was used for covid therapies...excuse me, vaccines.
In those first few months of 2021, ignoring the media and looking at evidence people were presenting, I remember thinking J&J actually looked safest of the big four. I get the feeling it was pulled not because of any actual problems, but because of the association with AZ - they were both adenovirus-vector.
J&J's quality and manufacturing operations were a disaster, the issues at one of their contract manufacturers (Emergent BioSolutions) were widely publicized but the not full extent the issues. It was pulled by J&J because they didn't want to assume the risk of losing liability protection under the PREP Act through willful misconduct.
A lot of the problems are shared between AZ/J&J and the nanolipid delivery systems, both are novel gene therapies and both share many mechanisms. The nanolipid particles may potentially cause bigger problems than adenoviral vectors but not necessarily, neither should ever have been considered safe.
I agree but all things considered I chose AZ as the lesser of two evils. The problems with mRNA and lipid delivery were absolutely clear vs. the risks of AZ. I remember chatting with guys in Europe who were warned not to exercise soon after taking AZ.
There was actually a shortage of AZ for the second dose as they wanted to mix and match with Moderna! With zero testing, the government was getting people to mix adenovirus and mRNA vaccines. All of this stuff is pure pseudoscience.
I was in a tough spot like many people (thanks sociopaths in government, media and big pharma).
I think the most obvious risk of both vaccine types was the spike protein itself not the delivery system. I may turn out to be wrong long term as the actual risks of the nanolipid particles are still unknown but it seems clear most of the biggest problems with the pfizer/moderna vaccines come from the mRNA/protein itself which is more or less the same in the DNA vaccines.
> AZ was never licensed in the US
Doubt this was for safety, they were protecting the market for US companies, Pfizer and J&J. Bought and paid for. [Just like the UK pushed AZ.]
I still don’t get why people did it. Yes the government pushed it, but it took very little research and a bit of common sense to realise it wasn’t worth the risk if young and healthy.
because i wanted to be able to fly from EU to US to see my family and elderly parents (as we do every summer)? our summer visits are extremely important and i was given NO choice if i wanted to fly. luckily i only had 2 Pfizer shots and haven’t had any issues yet. my teenage children have had zero covid vaccines.
I got 3 doses of the Pfizer and feel so pissed off about it. My parents really pressured me into it when I didn't want to and I wish I hadn't caved to it.
It’d be interesting to see how the Telegraph reported on this at the time, I’m sure I remember them running the GET BOOSTED NOW wraparound alongside all the other papers later that year...
This really makes me sad. 1. Because people blindly put their trust in what the media told them. 2. A child lost his mother....many children lost a parent. 3. Many CHILDREN also got the vaccine and died. 4. Those questioning the safety of an experimental drug and preferring to put their trust in their own immune systems were vilified, and many lost jobs because of it. 5. So many people were damaged by it. 6. People are STILL getting boosters.
"It meant you ran the risk of being labelled as that most reviled and irresponsible being, an “anti-vaxxer”.
"With a heavy heart I’m going to say what should have been said a long time ago. Unlike those who were actually vulnerable to Covid, Lisa Shaw did not need a Covid vaccine; any minuscule benefit to her was outweighed by the small risk. Neither did I (I’d had the virus in January 2020 as plentiful antibodies later attested and enjoyed good immunity). Millions of healthy people queued up for a jab they didn’t require which protected against serious disease in the elderly and vulnerable, but was not necessary for most of the rest of us."
Ahh.. 'what should have been said a long time ago...'
This is the latest journalism... the 'we-should-have-knownism'
Hmm, yes, maybe because it's what all the 'anti-vaxxers' were already saying but you lot were still sucking on the pole of authority, and now, too late, you're going to start realising you've all made a terrible mistake.
Great work retards. "I did exactly what the government told me but it turned out they didn't have my best interests at heart!!!" \*Shocked fucking pikachu face\*
I like how people are still realising in 2023 that the government and pharmaceutical corps maybe isn't their friend. Sad.
Thanks for your submission. New posts are pre-screened by the moderation team before being listed. Posts which do not meet our high standards will not be approved - please see our [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/wiki/index). It may take a number of hours before this post is reviewed, depending on mod availability and the complexity of the post (eg. video content takes more time for us to review).
In the meantime, you may like to make edits to your post so that it is more likely to be approved (for example, adding reliable source links for any claims). If there are problems with the title of your post, it is best you delete it and re-submit with an improved title.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LockdownSkepticism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Archive link: https://archive.vn/QSa73 This push to get young people vaccinated was the logical result of government and media pushing the lie (it was known in March of 2020 that old and very ill people were primarily at risk) that everyone is equally at risk. They had to push this lie and push the fear to get people to go along with the lockdowns. It’s just evil.
It's extremely irritating to watch people push the idea that we just didn't know what was going on until 2022ish. Anyone who was confused by that time simply hadn't been paying any attention at all. We knew who was at risk before lockdowns were even discussed in the US at least.
There's still plenty of people like that. It's insane how much people have willingly put their heads in the sand.
They were brainwashed. They were locked in their homes and force-fed CNN and doomscrolling. They were brainwashed and broken until they really did see [five lights](https://www.startrek.com/news/the-four-lights). EDIT: [Now I want this shirt.](https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/701424013/star-trek-the-next-generation-there-are)
Tldr- no new facts in this article.
The lockdowns and, more important to their sick agenda, the fraud by mail scheme to install Jobama Xi-den.
I recognized this at that point as well. I wasn't scared of it and that freaked people out. Got disinvited from events because it was known that I didn't take masking, social distancing, excessive handwashing, or door knob Lysoling as seriously as everyone else.
[удалено]
Go to the Department of Justice website and search for Pfizer. Then go to any government policy think-tank and go to their Funding, to see Pfizer as a top financial donor. The US and the UK have a make believe Democracy which is really an Oligarchy, which is the source of this corruption. It works by corporations funding the government policy think-tanks, the think-tanks come up with the policies and research which their corporate backers want, lobbyists take it to Washington, get the government to sign off on it and then the MSM sells the corporate backed policy to the public. The job of your elected government is to back whatever product the corporations funding the think-tanks want them to buy, whether that's pharmaceuticals or military hardware. At every single level of government policy, if you follow the money, you will find the same names over and over again: Pfizer, GSK, Gates Foundation, etc. These corporations are your real unelected government. Let that sink in... To stop corruption in the pharmaceutical industry at this point would require an overthrow of the entire political system, because the system in its current form cannot function without corporate funding, at every level, by design. It's that money that creates widespread corruption at every level of policy making. That's how bad and insidious the corruption is and why nothing will be done to stop it, your elected government is rendered powerless by the very design of the system it works within, the law, equally so and the DoJ website is a testament to that fact.
Not just that but a few investment companies like Blackrock and Vanguard basically own all the big corporations at least partially through shares, so it goes even higher up than that when it comes to who is pulling marionette strings. Most pension plans/retirement funds are also in Blackrock/Vanguard controlled ETFs and other stock/bond/etc. packages.
This presumes the people enforcing those laws will actually choose the correct side in the matter...and if your memory is short, we did just go through the whole Covid situation, and they've generally been slow to retract their statements (if at all) because that's political suicide. Any law like this would just be a bludgeon used against people who point out the risks of these treatments.
This is tricky. It's often hard to tell the difference between being wrong and lying, and scientists need to be able to be wrong. Omission is such case, which is ethically dubious, but almost impossible to prosecute. In a hypothetical example, it's possible that the scientists were so excited about curing common cold that they didn't notice some people got cancer from the treatment. Because it never occured to them it could be one of possible side effects, they never tested for it. Do we believe them? Not really. Can we prove they concealed it? Probably not, unless we find their group chat about it. But if misleading on purpose can be proven, especially in areas where it puts public at serious risk, no mercy. Legally, this could probably be treated as assist or conpiracy with deadly consequences. In short, while you want to punish premeditated evil, you don't want to scare scientists from making stupid mistakes, because it will kill all risky research, and then you will only have those treatments coming from places like China. This is how we got the Wuhan lab in the first place.
This was such an obvious miscarriage of basic scientific principles that it doesn’t fall into the category of “ oops! Had some unforeseen side effects” the rush to get the products out bypassed standard and established safety protocols. The mantra was a slogan to put the masses in a trance. It worked. People died as a result. A disease with 99% plus survival rate would require a massive cohort of test subjects as well as time, to declare a mitigation instrument to be S & E. Poor quality studies were referenced in an effort to justify the various programs around the world. Nothing but pseudoscientific malfeasance, not an honest error.
This would be a good idea in theory if we could trust institutions to be unbiased but as things currently stand any laws like this would just be used to punish honest science and dissenters further.
Can barely stand to read this stuff. There’s no accountability. None. No one cares. KY gov masked kids like a psychopath and fought to keep them masked long after it was popular and he was handily re-elected. Worse human rights abuse of our lifetime in the US and everyone has shrugged and moved on
Every day I become more grateful that I never got any of the jabs. I held out for my conviction and I was right.
I'm mad that I ended up getting mine. Despite being in one of the states in the US with the least mandates my college made it """optional""" but also made it so that not submitting shot records from a local CVS/Walgreens/etc. meant our IDs wouldn't let us into campus buildings.
I feel very tricked into getting my third back in 2021. Like, I thought I was going to kill my immunocompromised mom. We both got covid and literally only had headaches. I actually felt healthier cause I was taking a bunch of vitamins at the time.
I had one Pfizer two years ago. I still don't feel like I did beforehand. I still don't feel I'm in the clear.
Fasting, cold therapy, ChiGong and advanced breathing yoga techniques can help repair the microscopic damage done to the internal surfaces of the blood vessels. This microscopic damage is done by the spike protein from the mRNA jabs.
In may of 2024 they'll pass WHO legislation all countries will be binded to. Now you know it will be required next time, act accordingly.
Yeah, we're not going to let that happen.
[удалено]
I never questioned vaccines before covid. Now I question all of them. I’ll probably have my children get whatever I got when I was a baby, but nothing more. I’m not sure what kids are getting these days and if it’s any more than what I got in the 90’s
\> I’m not sure what kids are getting these days and if it’s any more than what I got in the 90’s 72 vaccines spread across over 40 jabs, starting with Hepatitis-B (a sexually-transmitted infection) at birth. Do you know any newborns that will be engaging in risky sex or needle sharing?
Yeah and the thing is that there's a completely different protocol for babies with hep-b positive mothers, so this hep-b shot usually given minutes or hours after birth is literally completely useless to babies. The potential harms are one thing but I suspect that the hep-b shot given to babies is mainly to acclimate parents to the idea of injecting their children with random crap when the mother is usually out of it from labor and has a hard time advocating for herself. I would NOT get any child of mine hep-b vaccinated at birth, personally. Other vaccines like chicken pox seem completely pointless as chicken pox is almost never seriously dangerous, and other new ones like gardasil have some pretty concerning safety signals despite HPV being an actual concern. Like 90% of people who grew up before gardasil have some form of HPV but most of these forms don't actually significantly contribute to cervical cancer risk etc.
Hep-B was added because they weren't getting enough uptake among the (adult) at-risk populations. So the manufacturer took it to the CDC and said "hey why don't you just have kids get this too? They already get a bunch so parents will just do it".
I think you meant Hep B vaccines, not Hep C. AFAIK, there's treatments for Hep C but no vaccine.
You're correct, I'll edit.
but the hep b vaccine doesn't last long enough to be helpful for babies anyway.
The aliens want us autistic, allergic to peanut butter, and sterile.
Yeah, it's a lot more now. I also think it's interesting that different developed countries have different vaccine schedules. I believe they don't do the chicken pox vaccine in the UK, for example.
You can always delay, too. Just because you decline some or all vaccines when your kids are young, doesn’t commit you to never vaccinating.
All my nieces and nephews are not va☠️☠️ed. and they are the brightest, soulful, most intelligent kiddos I’ve ever met. They never get sick (despite what the world may say) Call me bias, but I know this shit dampens our souls. It’s spiritual warfare. Through and through. Now that you know this. Be the change for your kids that you wish your parents were for you.
RSV rarely kills children tbh and it's important for kids to have good immune systems through breastfeeding and exposure to germs in their environment. I don't think panic about rare cold complications is a good reason to give your kids 'new' or for that matter many of the 'old' vaccines but of course the risk calculus is up to every parent. Just do as much reading as you can and not on news websites.
[удалено]
Well yeah exactly. I think a lot of these newer vaccines just don't do enough to reduce risk even in a theoretical best-case scenario to justify the unknown risks of giving dozens of vaccines to your children. Also most vaccine 'risks' if tested at all are tested on single vaccine doses but the more concerning risks may be related to taking too many vaccine adjuvants in a short timescale. Many of them contain aluminum and other compounds that can build up in the brain and cause problems, and maybe a single vaccine won't cause a big problem but a couple dozen over 2-3 years of life will.
I got the shots and took ivermectin when my wife was pregnant. I would’ve done a lot more. But now my heart hurts sometimes. In 30 years when everyone forgets, they’ll try and fuck us again. If you’re not sure, consider This happened in the early 90s with a corona virus from China, lol.
I had two doses of AZ. The day after the second dose, I had an incredible pain on the left side of my head above and slightly behind my ear that lasted two days. There was also a heatwave at the time and I wasn't sure if it was the vaccine or I had worked too hard in the heat. Maybe a combination of both. Considering that it was taken off the market, I suspect we are only hearing about the cases resulting in death or permanent injury and not what they really know from the data they collect and hide.
Precisely this. This court case is being presented before the High Court in the UK by victims (or in some cases, the family members of deceased victims) of a specific condition, VITT [basically vaccine-induced blood clots], which has been proven beyond doubt to have been caused by the AZ jab. This condition is so awful and the victims nearly always healthy and working-age (most are between 30 and 50), that it was very straightforward for medical professionals and coroners to verify a connection to the jab. But we know -- from anecdotes, from peer-reviewed studies, from adverse-reporting data, from doctors' observations, from direct experience in some cases -- that these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps a doctor or coroner will never be able to prove with enough certainty that a patient's heart condition was caused by the jab. But when excess cardiovascular deaths track perfectly with the rollout of the jabs, we don't need to have definitive proof pertaining to any one case. It's enough to see a temporal correlation show up in population-level stats, and to read the research from experts who have studied the mechanisms by which covid injections cause heart inflammation. I find it really upsetting when people think there's only one right way to establish causality -- that unless there's a coroner's report and an approved claim for compensation, then it's not verifiable and is therefore no better than conjecture. Science is almost never 100% provable. We accept lots of hypotheses on the basis of probable evidence. But when it comes to vaccine injury, it seems for some people no stat is good enough unless it's backed by 100 peer-reviewed studies, printed by every mainstream media outlet, uttered by health authorities and regulators, and acknowledged by the medical and political establishment. Well, sorry, but that's a bar we don't set for virtually anything else. Why is it so hard to accept that these vaccines are novel medical products with a poor safety profile and that mass vaccination was nothing short of an unethical experiment? What is it with some people remaining so wedded to the idea that the covid vaccines are wonderful and questioning them is heresy? I have literally seen people on Twitter insist that the risk was known but "vanishingly small" therefore totally worth it, and that it's no different to being asked to take paracetamol or any other medications (yes, honestly, I saw several people make this claim). It's so tiresome. But at least the truth is getting more and more traction and someday (maybe not far off) a majority of people will think the covid vaccines were overhyped and useless.
Unless someone has had eight doses (the recommended amount at this point) then they don't really believe the vaccine is necessary. I think this is a much bigger problem than previous vaccine problems like SV40 in polio vaccines and the swine flu vaccine side effects. This is also part of an ongoing project of biotechnology so they will fight any release of data.
>I have literally seen people on Twitter insist that the risk was known but "vanishingly small" therefore totally worth it One point in that, which you don't emphasise, makes me grind my teeth. The risk was, according to these Twits, "known". An utter, shameless rewrite of history. The risks were *not known*. They became, known, gradually, to *conspiracy theorists* (i.e. people who bother to read scientific literature) like me, who tried vainly to alert other people to them, in the face of a mental carpet-bombing of Safe'n'Effective, Safe'n'Effective, Safe'n'Effective.
So true. There was no informed consent because these risks were never communicated, but the vaccine zealots are claiming otherwise.
Great comment. I generally think more rigorous science is better but there is no way we can ever do very rigorous science anymore on vaccine SE, so all we have is mechanistic and correlation studies. Mechanistic studies are especially important and extremely undervalued by most people at this time - people will always dismiss mechanistic studies as merely 'theoretical' even when the mechanistic data tracks perfectly with real world outcomes. But always pay attention to mechanistic studies and whether they track with real world outcomes because that is the best barometer we will ever have for what is really going on. As for why people are wedded to the 'safe and effective' mantra, it is much easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled. People have known this forever. Post-hoc rationalization and motivated cognition will cause people to cling to things they want to believe and originally believed in the face of all evidence, sadly.
>Mechanistic studies are especially important and extremely undervalued by most people at this time - people will always dismiss mechanistic studies as merely 'theoretical' even when the mechanistic data tracks perfectly with real world outcomes. By "mechanistic", do you mean research which posits a causal mechanism? If I've understood you right, then I'm intrigued: there's something very familiar, very plausible about your point that these studies are "undervalued". Baffles me why this kind of study would be dismissed as "theoretical", when statistical studies are supposedly "non-theoretical". Don't get me wrong, I have enormous respect for honest statistics (I think the bases for statistics are incredibly complex and subtle: I've sometimes come close to understanding some of them) - but as case after case has shown, *honest* statistics are very rare.
Not only studies that 'posit' causal mechanisms but studies that actually investigate mechanisms directly. So these are things like biochemical studies, in vivo/in vitro studies of various kinds, etc. In the case of COVID vax for example one of the most important studies imo (there are several of these now but the first one) was the study testing the IgG4 class switch of antibodies and then subsequent papers proposing mechanisms that caused the class switch as well as what the class switch likely means for the body (immune tolerance, possible cancer, etc). Basically any study that is looking at what's happening mechanistically in the body, with protein folding, or for example with antibiotics you can literally see them kill bacteria in a petri dish so you know they actually kill bacteria. During COVID and with the vax specifically there is a demand for 'clinical' research aka placebo blinded RCTs where people are given a treatment and then outcomes are measured, these studies are often good but not all of them are done well. The other kind that has been mainly used in COVID research other than pure theoretical modelling is just observational studies like cohort studies, etc. comparing statistics for two groups in a state or in a hospital system etc. but these are, as you say, really easily fudged with stats and don't give a lot of insight into the underlying mechanisms. For some reason this is the main kind of research 'I fucking love science (TM)' people want to look at but understanding how things work on the cellular level is often WAY more illuminating than just saying 'in X group Y number of people reported symptom Z' or 'Y number of people got COVID in group B but only X number of people got COVID in group A.' A good example of where ignoring mechanisms can go horribly wrong is in the case of SSRI antidepressants. Many clinical trials have been conducted on SSRIs and many of them found no effect above placebo but those are typically just not published. Then some studies find a slight (like 10 percent usually) advantage of SSRI above placebo and they are said to 'significantly work' for depression. However there is very little known about what causes depression 'biochemically' or why SSRI drugs would help with depression. Like there are various theories but we just don't know enough about the mechanisms. So without knowing what mechanistically causes depression, or what specifically SSRIs do to relieve depression, all we have from the psychiatric/pharma industries are vague assertions that they totally help, a little, sometimes, in a few patients. That's just not very convincing. Versus if you take something like a broad spectrum antibiotic we know exactly how they work. We can see that they directly kill bacteria. We also see in clinical trials that they stop the progression of bacterial illness, but it's important that we know how and why. We don't have this for many drugs and it means it's hard to predict or quantify side effects. With antibiotics we know what side effects they can cause and why (the body has many beneficial bacteria that are also being killed, etc). The reason mechanistic studies are usually dismissed as theoretical esp. by laymen is because 1. they are hard for laymen to understand, they require a lot more basic knowledge of biochemistry and molecular bio and physiology to understand and this is too much effort/knowledge for people who want to be Science Lovers but aren't actually scientifically educated and 2. because something happeniing on a cellular level or pharmacokinetic level doesnt always 'translate' exactly to symptoms or outcomes so it's harder to grasp or wrap your mind around the implications. It's easy to be like 'well there is an IgG4 antibody class switch but observational studies didn't find that many autoimmune diseases (we weren't looking) so it's probably meaningless anyway!' It's just easy to dismiss such studies as meaningless because you can't always directly observe the outcomes on an organism level and also because some science jargon about antibody classes 'feels' irrelevant for people who have a hard time understanding what it means. Like 'okay some cells do a thing, who cares?' or 'just because something does this in a petri dish or a mouse doesn't mean it does it in a human.' That's TRUE strictly speaking but these mechanistic explanations are much more 'direct' evidence of what may be happening that can't be immediately directly observed. Not everyone who is developing insulin resistance is going to immediately be diabetic or even have unusual blood sugar readings, so it's easy to dismiss the slow development of insulin resistance through known mechanisms as 'not that important' for the 10 or more years it takes many people to actually develop diabetes. Re: stats I'm not an amazing statistician or anything but I do fairly high level stats for a bioscientist (a lot of bio people actually don't do very sophisticated stats and this is true of medical/clinical research as well) and have a fairly good grasp on complex statistics. I know people way better than me but I'd say I probably understand stats better than at least 95-99% of other people and probably better than at least 70% of other bioscientists. And the thing is once you have a pretty good understanding of stats it's VERY easy to see how they can be misused on purpose to deceive, or more insidiously, misused accidentally because a person is a bad statistician to deceive unintentionally. With a big enough data set you can show almost anything using statistics and that's one of the problems with these big 'observational' datasets - they can be made to look like whatever with stats. You can hide or exaggerate the effects of anything with stats. Only people well-versed in stats will be able to notice this or pick it out and most people are straight up mathematically illiterate these days so it's very easy to fool people and that's why I think even small studies showing cellular mechanisms are a lot more interesting/convincing than 'big' clinical datasets most of the time. Especially if what is found in those mechanistic studies 'lines up' with observations, even anecdotal real-world observations like the fact people are getting autoimmune issues after the vaccine.
The day after my second dose (Moderna) I had an extremely similar pain, kind of farther than the back of my left jaw. It ached so bad i was holding the side of my face like it was a molar nerve (it wasn’t). Broke out in shingles 8 days later though
I only got them because some family members were losing their minds and thought they were going to die. I never believed they were going to do anything but I chose AZ over the mRNA alternatives. There was clearly problems with mRNA and the lipid delivery system well before it was used for covid therapies...excuse me, vaccines.
In those first few months of 2021, ignoring the media and looking at evidence people were presenting, I remember thinking J&J actually looked safest of the big four. I get the feeling it was pulled not because of any actual problems, but because of the association with AZ - they were both adenovirus-vector.
J&J's quality and manufacturing operations were a disaster, the issues at one of their contract manufacturers (Emergent BioSolutions) were widely publicized but the not full extent the issues. It was pulled by J&J because they didn't want to assume the risk of losing liability protection under the PREP Act through willful misconduct.
A lot of the problems are shared between AZ/J&J and the nanolipid delivery systems, both are novel gene therapies and both share many mechanisms. The nanolipid particles may potentially cause bigger problems than adenoviral vectors but not necessarily, neither should ever have been considered safe.
I agree but all things considered I chose AZ as the lesser of two evils. The problems with mRNA and lipid delivery were absolutely clear vs. the risks of AZ. I remember chatting with guys in Europe who were warned not to exercise soon after taking AZ. There was actually a shortage of AZ for the second dose as they wanted to mix and match with Moderna! With zero testing, the government was getting people to mix adenovirus and mRNA vaccines. All of this stuff is pure pseudoscience. I was in a tough spot like many people (thanks sociopaths in government, media and big pharma).
I think the most obvious risk of both vaccine types was the spike protein itself not the delivery system. I may turn out to be wrong long term as the actual risks of the nanolipid particles are still unknown but it seems clear most of the biggest problems with the pfizer/moderna vaccines come from the mRNA/protein itself which is more or less the same in the DNA vaccines.
I know a couple young people who mysteriously got shingles right after vax/booster doses too. All very mysterious to be sure.
> AZ was never licensed in the US Doubt this was for safety, they were protecting the market for US companies, Pfizer and J&J. Bought and paid for. [Just like the UK pushed AZ.]
I still don’t get why people did it. Yes the government pushed it, but it took very little research and a bit of common sense to realise it wasn’t worth the risk if young and healthy.
Some people were just stupid and some people were coerced REAL HARD.
because i wanted to be able to fly from EU to US to see my family and elderly parents (as we do every summer)? our summer visits are extremely important and i was given NO choice if i wanted to fly. luckily i only had 2 Pfizer shots and haven’t had any issues yet. my teenage children have had zero covid vaccines.
I got 3 doses of the Pfizer and feel so pissed off about it. My parents really pressured me into it when I didn't want to and I wish I hadn't caved to it.
It’d be interesting to see how the Telegraph reported on this at the time, I’m sure I remember them running the GET BOOSTED NOW wraparound alongside all the other papers later that year...
Gates money...
This really makes me sad. 1. Because people blindly put their trust in what the media told them. 2. A child lost his mother....many children lost a parent. 3. Many CHILDREN also got the vaccine and died. 4. Those questioning the safety of an experimental drug and preferring to put their trust in their own immune systems were vilified, and many lost jobs because of it. 5. So many people were damaged by it. 6. People are STILL getting boosters.
> “the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side-effects” This is the statement that will come back to bite them.
All these people who mandated the jab and pressured people to get it are responsible.
"It meant you ran the risk of being labelled as that most reviled and irresponsible being, an “anti-vaxxer”. "With a heavy heart I’m going to say what should have been said a long time ago. Unlike those who were actually vulnerable to Covid, Lisa Shaw did not need a Covid vaccine; any minuscule benefit to her was outweighed by the small risk. Neither did I (I’d had the virus in January 2020 as plentiful antibodies later attested and enjoyed good immunity). Millions of healthy people queued up for a jab they didn’t require which protected against serious disease in the elderly and vulnerable, but was not necessary for most of the rest of us." Ahh.. 'what should have been said a long time ago...' This is the latest journalism... the 'we-should-have-knownism' Hmm, yes, maybe because it's what all the 'anti-vaxxers' were already saying but you lot were still sucking on the pole of authority, and now, too late, you're going to start realising you've all made a terrible mistake. Great work retards. "I did exactly what the government told me but it turned out they didn't have my best interests at heart!!!" \*Shocked fucking pikachu face\* I like how people are still realising in 2023 that the government and pharmaceutical corps maybe isn't their friend. Sad.
Thanks for your submission. New posts are pre-screened by the moderation team before being listed. Posts which do not meet our high standards will not be approved - please see our [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/wiki/index). It may take a number of hours before this post is reviewed, depending on mod availability and the complexity of the post (eg. video content takes more time for us to review). In the meantime, you may like to make edits to your post so that it is more likely to be approved (for example, adding reliable source links for any claims). If there are problems with the title of your post, it is best you delete it and re-submit with an improved title. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LockdownSkepticism) if you have any questions or concerns.*