mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Saved: Peer-Reviewed Study

[BrokerB]

Just remembered I was at a 50th bdaybparty about 2 years ago. Probably over half were " republican " voters but most there got the clotshot either because their work gave them ..a get paycheck and clorshot from us or get fired..the others were "i got it so I could travel "..

There was atleast a handful of us who were pureblood. One was a 60ish senior long time physician with Kaiser. He said he has been playing the game to avoid getting the experimental shot...he called it the IQ test on who was going yo get it or not. It took quite a bit of smarts to keep his job and not get clotted up.

[bigbossman]

.....One was a 60ish senior long time physician with Kaiser. He said he has been playing the game to avoid getting the experimental shot...he called it the IQ test on who was going yo get it or not. It took quite a bit of smarts to keep his job and not get clotted up.

He's a smarter man than me - I got booted from Kaiser for refusing.

[sbo80]

Trump launched operation warp speed on this vaccine, Biden has nothing to do with it.

Accelerating research toward finding a vaccine was absolutely a prudent thing to do. Of course that should have been done. Kicking people out of the military for refusing to take it, even after that "research" was weak and full of holes, and deliberately misleading the public about it, is a whole other level.

[bohoki]

wait did they die of the "shot" or die of "covid"?

my lying eyes showed me vaccinated people were still getting covid so i figured the vaccine was ineffective

there is no way any death certificate says complications from vaccine so i say misleading subject title once again

[stonefly-2]

14 to 1 kill ratio. Impressive by any standards. IIRC USAF highest scoring ace in Korean War was 15.

Clearly only two possibles:

1)They had no clue WTF would happen. This was their first "stab in the dark" (there is some term in science for the very first "no one has ever done this, we got a wild theory, lets see if this might be worth looking at" but I forgot). However, even if "They" didn't know, They sure as hell knew it COULD be dangerous. Messing with injecting Mad Cow type diseases isn't like minor adjustments in carb intake for some teenage ball players.

2)They had a pretty good idea (from the prior 30yrs of nRNA Vacc animal test horror stories) all they would do is kill a lot of people (but still a small enough % and spread out over a few years that society wouldn't fall apart all at once), but mostly create a wide spectrum of new medical problems for Big Pharma to service for fun and profit.

At some point, which IMO we are way past, you gotta stop saying "Fauci and Pfizer need to go to prison, or at least face criminal charges in a new Nuremberg Court" and start blaming all our officials who aren't doing that, and are instead only "Driving the getaway car".

Every doctor and "Health Official" who ever recommended Vaxx or did any Vaxx Passport orders should never be allowed to make any health decisions and their Licenses need to be degraded to some 3rd class very basic status where they can be closely supervised. Writing 'script for simple High BP meds as glorified DMV clerk type of stuff where "the science is settled".

I'm thinking that maybe there's a third.

https://vimeo.com/865168459

Maybe time to play "how are these things alike" but I can only do it from here now a days.

[ibanezfoo]

If only someone would have said something... anyone... just some kind of warning or something...

Well there was this one guy. Not very smart or anything. He just invented the technology so its probably better that he was ignored anyway. What would he know?

[LBDamned]

Well there was this one guy. Not very smart or anything. He just invented the technology so its probably better that he was ignored anyway. What would he know?

Only a science denying domestic terrorist would ignore CDC's expert guidance and consider the rhetoric of a guy that created the technology.

I mean it doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to know government agencies know way more than 'inventors'...

Jab, jab - poke, poke... covid pin cusion - YaY

[bigbossman]

Only a science denying domestic terrorist would ignore CDC's expert guidance and consider the rhetoric of a guy that created the technology.

I mean it doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to know government agencies know way more than 'inventors'...

Jab, jab - poke, poke... covid pin cusion - YaY

What you did there...... I see it.

[SanDiego619]

What you did there...... I see it.

Easily managed!

[Dave Hill]

Someone didn?t follow science here.

They followed their science,, Thinning the dumbed down Tv watchers genetics from society.

[ProfChaos]

COVIDICY should be a new term. A "follow the science" person who does not question anything.

[BrokerB]

BigBoss.. he is a highly intelligent man. He said he used religious exemption. He is heavy into studies. On his recreational time he studies coding for medical device hardware/software and is researching covid vaccines and female reproductive issues for a hobby. He is very near retirement so having a FU attitude and the ability to use legal system is very compelling . He operated major VA hospitals in his decades before going with Kaiser so he was well versed in FAFO hr folks.

[bigbossman]

BigBoss.. he is a highly intelligent man. He said he used religious exemption.

Good for him! I worked alongside several KP employees that wrote intelligent justifications for a religious exemption, and were denied.

I was just a contractor, so I got tossed out after refusing, and the company work for placed me on another account that wasn't so Nazi-ish about it. I never really liked working at/for KP, but I must admit they did put a lot of food on my table.....

Still - I don't miss that account in the least.

[Number Six]

tagged

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data. The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits...

Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah...

Of course, we simply didn't understand and didn't parse things correctly... or so we were repeatedly lectured. We just needed to follow the thread.

The problem was that "we" were making assumptions because that's all we had, but "they" were also making assumptions which violated the established process (not to mention, in some cases, actual logic). Just because the process had been working for over a century... Well...

Of course, "our perception," since we're not professionals, is oversimplified and misguided.

Okay. But, the point was that these so-called 'vaccines' weren't actually design intended as vaccines, but as 'treatments.' The intent was to mitigate the disease, not prevent it (i.e., provide immunity). But, this was why there were many, qualified individuals who warned about deploying these so-called 'vaccines' without sufficient safety guarantees. As I said at the time, where is that tipping point between HOPING for the best and KNOWING the relative safety within acceptable tolerance levels? It's the very reason it used to take years, not weeks or months, to deploy true vaccines. There was simply no way to mitigate the unknown except through time and results study.

This is where the breakdown occurred. These were promoted as 'vaccines' and even the definition for 'vaccine' was changed to accommodate that. Instead, at best, they were 'treatments' to stave off the severe effects. Yet, even there, they were 'experimental' and not as well researched as was being claimed, at least not by traditional standards. As was stated earlier...

Accelerating research toward finding a vaccine was absolutely a prudent thing to do. Of course that should have been done. Kicking people out of the military for refusing to take it, even after that "research" was weak and full of holes, and deliberately misleading the public about it, is a whole other level.

As I stated in 2021, the issue isn't whether there are 'failures' with 'vaccines.' Everyone knows there are and that such a potential exists... up to a point. The issue is how extensively the scientific community was aware of them and the magnitude prior to deployment. While it can be argued that many of the headlines exaggerate the impacts and while study protocols define things to a gnat's posterior (or are supposed to), the issue has far broader implications than just the chemistry at the lab counter or the results of the (arguably limited) trials and how those results are hopefully projected to the general population. A scientific definition of failure is limited, particularly when the purpose of the design is not clear, even after deployment.

The mRNA technology took a decade (maybe a little more) to develop. However, as applied to potentially successful vaccines, it's still a relatively recent innovation. During development of the technology, the focus was on therapeutics (which these 'vaccines' arguably are), not vaccines. The uncertainty thus created is a major part of what was and continues feeding the 'hesitancy' and that's without even going down the rabbit hole of the other, negative effects which, while comparatively small in number, fit exactly what I have pointed out is (or was) the attitude... "It sucks to be you if you're on the wrong side of immune tolerance and/or sensitive to the side-effects, but rest assured you are part of the minority."

Ultimately, these so-called 'vaccines' do not provide a protective, immune response. They provide, at best, mitigation of the disease, not prevention of infection or illness. The degree of mitigation is dependent upon the individual, just as the actual effects of the virus on the unvaccinated have been dependent upon the individual. The difference is the likelihood of severe disease between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, not 'immunity.' That would appear to be the essential reason the CDC altered the definition of vaccine and vaccination. Mitigation is more consistent with the medical definition of treatment than it was with the CDC's previous definition of vaccine.

Whether all of this resulted from partitioned thinking, nefarious machinations, or 'the road to Hell being paved with good intentions,' we'll probably never know with absolute certainty. In part, because I suspect it involved all three and assigning blame based on the cause du jour doesn't really help clarify where and with whom the fault lies. Remember, some were looking at things through blinders. Others were looking at things through various agendas. Many others were either convinced that it could help or were willing to try 'anything' in order to help.

The reality is, at the time and in retrospect, while there was no 'proof' one way or the other, it should have been sufficient, at a minimum, to reevaluate the scientific confidence in the conclusions drawn from the data and that reevaluation should have been sufficient to 'slow the deployment' (even if temporarily). Of course, as we've known, this was never solely about strict Science.

As was noted a couple of years ago, time was on the side of those who were, at best, dubious and/or cautious. Well, at least for the hesitant. When it comes to those who were vaccinated, 'time' may not be on their side. Unfortunately, there's no predictive way to know with any certainty. Even at that, time may be necessary to even properly establish whether the risk is greater in getting vaccinated or not.

What is important to remember is it's not so much about what comes out, but what is done with it. It's the one question which should be on everyone's mind. For example...

Trump started it, but he never had a chance to finish it. Biden took over and ran with it. Trump never forced it on anyone. Biden did, through his agencies. This is on Biden.

Is it truly "on Biden" or were both Biden and Trump unfortunate pawns in a grander scheme given that neither one is a 'medical professional?' Was the difference found in the premises each operated from or was it a factor as to who they had to answer to or both? If Trump had been granted more time, is it possible that he might have gone a similar direction to what Biden did? Remember, both were depending on people like Fauci and while Trump was increasingly irritated by the likes of Fauci, was it due to 'scientific differences' or was it due to limitations of their respective roles or was it due to other things? I mean, early on, Trump, whether begrudgingly or not, deferred to Fauci on a number of things, even when some of us disagreed.

At this point, as more comes to light, I think it will become even more imperative to remember it's not so much about what comes out, but what is done with it. Assigning blame and making fun of those who went 'one way' has a purpose, up to a point. However, the greater use is in the lessons learned and, I believe, there are lessons to go around.

Not everyone who got the shot has died or suffered (that we know of) predicted or inconceivable ill effects from it. What we do know is that the vaccines are not as 'safe' as they were originally touted and we now have 'evidence' to substantiate many of the things which were said as criticisms of the 'full steam ahead' approach that Biden, Fauci, etc. adopted. Likewise, the 'lessons learned' which some individuals and some institutions have pushed aren't, exactly, on point.

Saying that "masks worked" is really only valid when speaking about proper masking. Lockdowns have their place, but not necessarily in the way they were used or implemented. Even if the mRNA technology 'works' (at whatever level), there are still many, unanswered questions which should be seen as reasons for continued hesitancy rather than a rationale for reliance, particularly given the very real hazards which are now being given 'credible evidence.' As the last lines of the OP linked study indicates...

...Given the well-documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.

But, that is one of the lessons we should be drawing. Much of what we see is CYA and/or vindication seeking rather than appropriate in preparing for the future. I think, perhaps, the most important lesson learned or one which should have been learned is that humility is not only a good, but a necessary thing. Try getting real humility out of politicians and bureaucrats. Now, THAT, would be a true 'miracle.'