"NO healthy person under 50 should take either of these vaccine based on heart risks alone." About 6-8 months back, I had an M.D., a woman with decades of experience in drug trials, the CFA, and FDA procedure, make a *very* similar statement to me. Many, if not most folks in our shared group--composed of skeptics and disbelievers--thought she was being overly dramatic. I thought she was likely correct, but I understood the wisdom of not being painted with the broad brushstroke of "vaccine denier," despite the evidence mounting even back then. Now, she seems like she was the only one among us who had a freaking clue! And here we are, with this crap being not only used, by mandated! The mind reels. The heart bleeds. Wow. Just wow...
Beautifully summarized yet heart-wrenching analysis. My employer is requiring me to upload documentation that I have taken these pharmaceutical products or face termination - I'd love to send this article in its place.
One: Will the French let the 30 and under into shops and restaurants?
Two: Someone in my neighborhood face planted FACE PLANTED on the sport court the day they got their third shot of poison. The person felt compelled to because they have a vulnerable spouse that wanted him to get it. He is older but in amazing health. Better than most 30 YO. Not fat, no high BP, no cancer, No diabetes. Face planted, taken to the hospital with a heart problem. He had NO HEART PROBLEM. He has to get a physical for work where they check his heart. No smoke. No drink. Keeled right over. I know these details because my husband talked to him before his booster. I am so mad.
What is it going to take to get an article as detailed as yours explaining the dangers in no uncertain terms in a crap paper like the WSJ? Even the WSJ is utterly pathetic in this regard right now.
Amen, gato. It’s absolutely criminal what we are doing to healthy young people. Especially healthy young men.
I worry about my moderna’d brothers but they are slightly over 30 and not terrible athletic and probably never going to get married or have children anyway
They still only recognize 2 adverse events. Once you factor in all of the other adverse events, initial risk of the virus itself from the vaccine, the potential impact to future viral immune response (ie. weakened NI), limited time benefits (6 months), AE's from future boosters, and on and on and on... no one should be taking this vaccine.
It's kind of late in the game to say "oops, perhaps we shouldn't be vaccinating people under 30"
when 75% of people age 18-30 have already been vaccinated.
I am finding the unwavering conviction in these vaccines puzzling. For example, Sweden's Tegnell said in the UnHerd interview (in September):
"I think the big change, since we talked last time, is really the vaccinations. There, we really found the tool that’s going to make the difference. And all the other things we have tried are not going to be very important anymore, because reaching and achieving a high vaccination level is the one way we can get out of this pandemic. There does not seem to be any other way, really."
"it’s shameful these were ever cleared for use and it ought to be criminal to mandate them." Could you possibly have been more clear??? Hello, world!
It would help to not assume your audience has familiarity with the statistics terms you use. e.g., I don't know what 'steel man' or Simpson's Paradox is...
"the french are correct to stop using moderna on anyone under 30."
I agree. But France has been wrong about a lot of other things, the largest being the vax passports needed to go to cafes. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
If both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are ever pulled in any "larger" country at the same time it would cast incredible doubt on the entire vaccine program. By suspending only one it allows an element of "save face" - i.e., that it's only the Moderna product that's problematic and not the others. This allows the program to continue basically uninterrupted.
If these kinds of decisions were simply data-driven the vaccine program would be discontinued nearly everywhere. The issue is that the same entities making the decisions to suspend these vaccines are also the ones who lobbied hard for individuals to take them. For any health entity to do an about face right now would be incredibly damaging to their credibility and would cause the individuals employed at those agencies to likely be suspended and/or fired - and perhaps most damaging to Big Pharma - for investigations to answer questions surrounding the whole affair from those involved. Once the gato is out of the bag the other dominos would begin to fall, and those in power are going to do everything in their power to prevent that from happening.
Let's add one more bug to the system because it isn't complicated enough. (from Tucker Goodrich's twitter feed)
Who is motivated to undercut trust in #science ?
"...an investigation had revealed “deliberate attempts to subvert the trust-based editorial process and manipulate the publication record”. They added that they did not yet know who was responsible...
Remember when we had mainstream journos who loved to bust this stuff wide open? Those were the days.
"NO healthy person under 50 should take either of these vaccine based on heart risks alone." About 6-8 months back, I had an M.D., a woman with decades of experience in drug trials, the CFA, and FDA procedure, make a *very* similar statement to me. Many, if not most folks in our shared group--composed of skeptics and disbelievers--thought she was being overly dramatic. I thought she was likely correct, but I understood the wisdom of not being painted with the broad brushstroke of "vaccine denier," despite the evidence mounting even back then. Now, she seems like she was the only one among us who had a freaking clue! And here we are, with this crap being not only used, by mandated! The mind reels. The heart bleeds. Wow. Just wow...
Beautifully summarized yet heart-wrenching analysis. My employer is requiring me to upload documentation that I have taken these pharmaceutical products or face termination - I'd love to send this article in its place.
One: Will the French let the 30 and under into shops and restaurants?
Two: Someone in my neighborhood face planted FACE PLANTED on the sport court the day they got their third shot of poison. The person felt compelled to because they have a vulnerable spouse that wanted him to get it. He is older but in amazing health. Better than most 30 YO. Not fat, no high BP, no cancer, No diabetes. Face planted, taken to the hospital with a heart problem. He had NO HEART PROBLEM. He has to get a physical for work where they check his heart. No smoke. No drink. Keeled right over. I know these details because my husband talked to him before his booster. I am so mad.
What is it going to take to get an article as detailed as yours explaining the dangers in no uncertain terms in a crap paper like the WSJ? Even the WSJ is utterly pathetic in this regard right now.
this is an atrocity.
Amen, gato. It’s absolutely criminal what we are doing to healthy young people. Especially healthy young men.
I worry about my moderna’d brothers but they are slightly over 30 and not terrible athletic and probably never going to get married or have children anyway
They still only recognize 2 adverse events. Once you factor in all of the other adverse events, initial risk of the virus itself from the vaccine, the potential impact to future viral immune response (ie. weakened NI), limited time benefits (6 months), AE's from future boosters, and on and on and on... no one should be taking this vaccine.
The Germans have just anounced, that they will not give Moderna to all under 30
It's kind of late in the game to say "oops, perhaps we shouldn't be vaccinating people under 30"
when 75% of people age 18-30 have already been vaccinated.
I am finding the unwavering conviction in these vaccines puzzling. For example, Sweden's Tegnell said in the UnHerd interview (in September):
"I think the big change, since we talked last time, is really the vaccinations. There, we really found the tool that’s going to make the difference. And all the other things we have tried are not going to be very important anymore, because reaching and achieving a high vaccination level is the one way we can get out of this pandemic. There does not seem to be any other way, really."
What does he know and sees in the data?
"it’s shameful these were ever cleared for use and it ought to be criminal to mandate them." Could you possibly have been more clear??? Hello, world!
It would help to not assume your audience has familiarity with the statistics terms you use. e.g., I don't know what 'steel man' or Simpson's Paradox is...
Great article thankyou, praying to god that this information makes MSM, surely has too soon.
They knew they couldn’t get us on boxcars …
"the french are correct to stop using moderna on anyone under 30."
I agree. But France has been wrong about a lot of other things, the largest being the vax passports needed to go to cafes. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
If both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are ever pulled in any "larger" country at the same time it would cast incredible doubt on the entire vaccine program. By suspending only one it allows an element of "save face" - i.e., that it's only the Moderna product that's problematic and not the others. This allows the program to continue basically uninterrupted.
If these kinds of decisions were simply data-driven the vaccine program would be discontinued nearly everywhere. The issue is that the same entities making the decisions to suspend these vaccines are also the ones who lobbied hard for individuals to take them. For any health entity to do an about face right now would be incredibly damaging to their credibility and would cause the individuals employed at those agencies to likely be suspended and/or fired - and perhaps most damaging to Big Pharma - for investigations to answer questions surrounding the whole affair from those involved. Once the gato is out of the bag the other dominos would begin to fall, and those in power are going to do everything in their power to prevent that from happening.
The data does not capture injuries outside the short study period. Even the Pfizer vaccine safety trial still has 1 1/2 years to go.
Let's add one more bug to the system because it isn't complicated enough. (from Tucker Goodrich's twitter feed)
Who is motivated to undercut trust in #science ?
"...an investigation had revealed “deliberate attempts to subvert the trust-based editorial process and manipulate the publication record”. They added that they did not yet know who was responsible...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03035-y