Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

Thats precisely what it showed.

It proves the dangers of post covid infection when unvaccinated.

This is LITERALLY what the study shows. It is not a matter of 'feeling'.

You have resorted to word games and weasel words about 'feelings' because you know you cannot dispute what the study literally shows.

The study showing increased all risks mortality post covid infection also establishes the real dangers of long covid - something which many posters on this forum have tried to dismiss or downplay.

And you continue to blatantly ignore the cross referenced study showing reduction in such risks when vaccinated. So that is why - taken together - we speak of the dangers of being unvaccinated.

The people in the study were unvaccinated. Post covid infection they had significant increase in all risks mortality. So that is quite literally what the study proved and no amount of word games can alter that.

Nobody has said that specific study shows a difference. You are arguing against a strawman.

Because you continually and blatantly ignore the cross referenced study showing protective benefit of vaccines against long term symptons post covid infection.

Which is why it is valid and justified to cite the primary study as a piece of evidence on the risks of being unvaccinated.

Goes through a lot of already disproven stuff then facepalms himself by pushing Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin (not in this video, but he was mentioned as the source for the Aussie politician who was ranting abut vaccines in their parliament) and pushes into big pharma dogwhistling.

It's a pity because it comes over as "learned" and a lot of people will buy into it as it can seem true and reinforce their own opinions and there is good information there around how they're developing cancer treatments.

Dr. Campbell has fallen a long way.

Wikipedia, some ‘solid’ research you have done.

“An Australian immunologist says he has had “the worst 24 hours” of his life, after getting caught up in the Craig Kelly COVID-19 controversy.

Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly was condemned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison yesterday for his “dangerous and irresponsible” Facebook comments on COVID-19.

The outspoken MP was also calling for the use of unproven drugs to treat COVID-19, and sighted the work of University of Newcastle immunologist Professor Robert Clancy.

Professor Clancy, told 6PR’s Liam Bartlett he does not agree with all of Mr Kelly’s views, but said the use of on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin is highly effective.

“I have had the worst 24 hours of my life, I wanted to crawl under a rock,” he said.

“I have never met Craig Kelly, I don’t know Craig Kelly, and a lot of his views I don’t understand.

“The data is crystal clear … ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are of significant benefit when used early in the disease.”

He said the controversial treatments have been used to “save lives” in other countries, but shouldn’t be used instead of a vaccine – rather together.”

Very weak attempt to discredit a man with a very solid track record in his field.

Yeah, Wikipedia knows best. Lol.

It isnt 'wikipedia' it is an actual official statement from the University referenced on wikipedia. To try to deflect this as 'wikipedia'is really desperate stuff.

He discredited himself with ivermectin and other nonsense.

You latch onto these cranks and expect people to be impressed by their credentials while running away from the crucial point that the overwhelming weight of expertise and credentials and studies back the consensus on covid and vaccines.

So if you start an 'argument from authority' and then contrarians like Clancy are your champion - you have lost in a landslide.

If you dont think it is relevant why bother responding? So you disprove your own claim by your action.

Its obvious you feel you have to respond as the point stuck home buy you cannot debate the point itself below so have to resort to these kind of baiting remarks...

You latch onto these cranks and expect people to be impressed by their credentials while running away from the crucial point that the overwhelming weight of expertise and credentials and studies back the consensus on covid and vaccines.

So if you start an 'argument from authority' and then contrarians like Clancy are your champion - you have lost in a landslide.

He was never the Darling of the forum ! But he wasn't the promoter of rabid misinformation back then either . Must be lucrative for him somehow ...

That certainly is surreal .

Pericarditis resolves quicker than myocarditis and js the better one to get , if there is such a thing !

Take it very easy...until they tell you to get moving again .

I presume they will be checking an echo etc again for you ?

Still vanishingly rare even if more awareness of it now .

Yes.

Thanks , I guess .

Yes it is " vanishingly rare " , and yes , those studies would be taking that long , as they are, after all , post market studies , especially as the urgency appears to be over in the US, so research is no longer for' emergency use approval" .

Can't see why you are complaining about that .

I seem to remember similar posts griping about original vaccines and the subsequent dosing schedules, despite real world data which showed the safety overall with millions of doses worldwide , and in some cases the dangers, as with AstraZeneca which was swiftly restricted .

Others complaining that these boosters did not have sufficient testing on humans .

Now the complaint is the companies " are not producing data " quickly enough.

Make up your mind what you want ... data tested on humans , under normal 3 to 6 month time frame comparisons , or more quick studies on engineered lab mice .

And if you have any real proof ....not opinion or conjecture or anecdote ...that Covid vaccines, boosters or anything else , are causing a marked and significant increase in myocarditis and pericarditis or deaths in young people , please do post it , because up to now , you haven't .

All I have seen and heard thus far is hearsay and misinformation.

Here is the situation in the UK up to November last , and even then people here were claiming otherwise ...

" As of 23 November 2022, the overall reporting rate across all age groups for myocarditis following vaccination with the monovalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was 10 reports per million doses; for pericarditis, it was 6 reports per million doses. For monovalent Moderna vaccine, the overall reporting rate for myocarditis was 14 reports per million doses; for pericarditis, it was 8 reports per million doses.

In those aged under 18 years, the reported rate for heart inflammation (myocarditis and pericarditis) was 13 per million first doses and 8 per million second doses of the monovalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine; these are lower than the reporting rates seen in young adults. There is currently insufficient data to calculate the reporting rate for third/booster doses" .

Nobody denies that vaccination carries a risk, especially to younger adult males, of developing myocarditis and pericarditis. The risks are clearly written on all the literature.

But It is just that , so far anyway , it is such a small risk compared with everyday risk of Covid infection causing the same problem but worse , as to be considered low enough to be worth the risk/ benefit ratio , even for that age group 18 to 29 year old males.

If as that poster claimed above , the doctor indeed had found it was becoming more common , there are immediate pathways of reporting what would be a severe adverse event of vaccination . And other doctors would be setting off that alarm as well , again, if that was truly the case . This triggers a review as with AstraZeneca and Janssen here and in other countries .

The British Heart Foundation don't seem to be unduly concerned!

One would think that they should be up in arms if the health of their nation were being put at risk daily .

Do you really think it would not be reported and boosters stopped , here and elsewhere even before the safety study data was out , if it was in fact causing such a severe response ?

Ok.. maybe YOU do . But that is going down a long , winding rabbit hole of CT , imo.

It is not a REASONABLE belief given our experiences thus far with our ultra cautious vaccine authority, NIAC , here in Ireland . Safety has always been uppermost on their minds .

So much so that at times , people have complained the rollout was too slow , why weren't they being given this and that vaccine like other countries, why wait for so long between doses ...you just have to look back over this thread to see those discussions and we were all impatient , myself included , at times .

Now some people are choosing whether they need a booster or not . That is their choice and we are in a better place to do that , with more immunity and a less virulent variant . But everybody needs to have facts to make their decisions . And not just sensationalist op eds from trashy news sites or poor science review fora .

Or maybe..

Let's wait for the post bivalent booster studies to complete and be published and in the absence of real data not be arguing over something that may just be another red herring . Like so many others before ..

And not to mention that the risk of myocarditis is substantially higher just after Covid

Is this a peer reviewed study?

First important thing to note is that nowhere does the study state vaccines were unsafe. It warns of a potential safety signal that is all.

So is pure anti vaxxer embellishment to make a statement of fact as to "vaccines were safe" is not true. It is your own invention, without foundation or merit. Of course an anti vaxxer shoots first and asks questions never. Only asks questions about the vaccines, never questions these studies. Your anti vax agenda here is obvious.

This seems to be just a rehash of the VAERS nonsense, with failure to take into account the context of the rollouts.

By that I suggest that when vaccines were initially rolled out, more VAERS reports were logged as this was a new medicine. This is a known effect.

Or, different batches were given to different age groups, with differing level of background medical events?

The study limitations noted:

in the present study, the SAE case history of prior COVID-19 was unknown, and specific SAE types (MedDRA system organ class etc.), demographics of SAE cases, relationships of SAEs with consecutive vaccine doses in individuals cases, temporal trends in the observed batch-dependency of SAEs, and batch-dependent effects on vaccine effectiveness, respectively, were not examined

The below article explains why this is a major limitation:

Hickey and Rancourt found (their Figure S6, [2]) that the age factor could explain all the batch differences in deaths, and that increased variability in deaths per dose was likewise consistent with increasing median age, in the USA (VAERS). It was incorrect for Schmeling et al. to conclude as they did knowing that they had excluded the age consideration.

https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=131&name=2023_07_01_does_the_analysis_of_schmeling_et_al_suggest_a_batch_dependent_safety_signal_for_the_bnt162b2_mrna_covid_19_vaccine