Long-term Lancet study, vaccines don’t prevent death

I think this deserves to be repeated since you blew it, your debunking was a massive fail!

Carlson is not the source, try again!


Look at the countries that did full quarentine where they are dropping like flies now that the quarentine is lifted.

Not to mention the collateral damage the vax causes!

You think you know! You dont know! You took the jabs because you are a believer and most likely were terrorized by fear perpetrated by the guv actors.

If you think you do know post all possible collateral damages people will be afflicted with! You cant.

You bought the wooden nickel without solid evidence, but you want 10 times peer reviewed evidence before you consider the possibility that you screwed up.

I hate to see anything happen to anyone but the data shows the new vaxer religion is worshiping a false gods.

Where there is smoke there is fire and I see red lights flashing.

How about database evidence?

Looks to me like you take several magnitudes higher risk with the VAX!

Look at all the Vaxers that died and all the antivaxers that survived!




Look at all the believers that are fertilizer today because your miracle vax didnt work!



Yeh so what?

I have friends that died from influenza.

That statement is completely meaningless and useless.


There is NO way for you to know that you would have had a "worse" result.

You took 3 jabs of a literally untested vax.

Better you than me.

....and the laughable part is that YOU CAUGHT COVID despite the vax!

You are promoting a health hazard time bomb!




Your certainly have underwater standards, people "survive" gunshot wounds too. If survival is the new vax measuring stick we are in deep **** trouble.

The fact is it is not a vaccine and does not 'immunize'.


It is now clear that the antibodies induced by the vaccines fade in as little
as 3 to 10 weeks after the second dose [7], such that people are being advised to seek booster shots at regular intervals [8].

It has also become apparent that rapidly emerging variants such as the Delta and now the Omicron strain are showing resistance to the antibodies induced by the vaccines, through mutations in the spike protein [9]. Furthermore, it has become clear that the vaccines do not prevent spread of the disease, but can only be claimed to reduce symptom severity [10].

A study comparing vaccination rates with COVID-19 infection rates across 68 countries and 294 counties in the United States in early September, 2021, found no correlation between the two, suggesting that these vaccines do not protect from spread of the disease [11].

Regarding symptom severity, even this aspect is beginning to be in doubt, as demonstrated by an outbreak in an Israeli hospital that led to the death of five fully vaccinated hospital patients [12]. Similarly, Brosh-2

Nissimov et.al. (2021) reported that 34/152 (22%) of fully vaccinated patients among 17 Israeli hospitals died of COVID-19 [13].

The increasing evidence that the vaccines do little to control disease spread and that their effectiveness wanes over time make it even more imperative to assess the degree to which the vaccines might cause harm.



These authors also identified disturbing changes in gene expression that would imply impaired ability to repair DNA. Up to 60% of the total transcriptional activity in growing cells involves the transcription of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) to produce ribosomal RNA (rRNA). The enzyme that transcribes ribosomal DNA into RNA is RNA polymerase I (Pol I). Pol I also monitors rDNA integrity and influences cell survival [144]. During transcription, RNA polymerases (RNAPs) actively scan DNA to find bulky lesions (double-strand breaks) and trigger their repair. In growing eukaryotic cells, most transcription involves synthesis of ribosomal RNA by Pol I. Thus, Pol I promotes survival following DNA damage [144]. Many of the downregulated genes identified by Liu et al. (2021) were linked to the cell cycle, telomere maintenance, and both promoter opening and transcription of POL I, indicative of impaired DNA repair processes [52]
https://www.researchgate.net/public...of_G-quadruplexes_exosomes_and_microRNAs#pf19


In this paper we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety profile of these vaccinations.

First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade.

This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.

Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations.

Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by
exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike mRNA to produce high levels of spike-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious inflammatory consequences.

Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.

Given the current rapidly expanding awareness of the multiple roles of G4s in regulation of mRNA translation and clearance through stress granules, the increase in pG4s due to enrichment of GC content as a consequence of codon optimization has unknown but likely far-reaching consequences.

Specific analytical evaluation of the safety of these constructs in vaccines is urgently needed, including mass spectrometry for identification of cryptic expression and immunoprecipitation studies to evaluate the potential for disturbance of or interference with the essential activities of RNA and DNA binding proteins.

Conclusions
It is imperative that worldwide administration of the mRNA vaccinations be stopped immediately until further studies are conducted to determine the extent of the potential pathological consequences outlined in this paper.

It is not possible for these vaccinations to be considered part of a public health campaign without a detailed analysis of the human impact of the potential collateral damage.

It is also imperative that VAERS and other monitoring system be optimized to detect signals related to the health consequences of mRNA vaccination we have outlined.

We believe the upgraded VAERS monitoring system described in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. study, but unfortunately not supported by the CDC, would be a valuable start in this regard [208].

In the end, we are not exaggerating to say that billions of lives are at stake. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly.

Until our public health institutions do what is right in this regard, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions.

Author Contributions: S.S., G.N and A.K. all contributed substantially to the writing of the original draft. P.M. participated in the process of editorial revisions.
Funding: This research was funded in part by Quanta Computers, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan, under the auspices of the Qmulus project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.




Over 200 references:

210. McLachlan, S.; Osman, M.; Dube, K.; Chiketero, P.; Choi, Y.; Fenton, N. Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) Database. 2021 . doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26987.26402.

The Vaxs over the course of the last 30 years have all used VAERS and covid vax is being compared to them using the same VAERS system, (the last image), sounds like apples to apples comparison to me and you are trying to dodge the issue!
This report is NOT debunked and stands unassailed!
Patricio, Unsupported opinions debunk nothing!
(worse your debunkers admission they are testing it on the public)

 

The paper that debunks is one of the first 'peer reviews' in the peer review process. So, right out of the park, you have hit a strike. Let's see what more peers have to say.

All you have are opinions. Until that paper is peer reviewed and withstands the process, it's not proof of squat. ANd even if it withstands peer review, it's still not proof of crap untl there are several studies that support the premise, but yours flies in the face of a number of existing studies that counter it.

Moreover, the peer review I supplied gives DETAILED explanations, point by point, the flaws in your so-called study. So, counter the points raised, all nine pages, point by point, and if you can't, the post stands.

DailyMail is not a credible news source.



Of course, you are going to attempt to disparage MBFC, but note that I will destroy your argument if you try to, whether you choose to ignore it or not, though I'm certain you'll choose ignorance.


YOu're telling me the CDC is bad science, and you prove this by sourcing VAERS which is administered by the CDC. Now I know your credibility is zero

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reporting_System

As it is based on submissions by the public, VAERS is susceptible to unverified reports, misattribution, underreporting, and inconsistent data quality.[3] Raw, unverified data from VAERS has often been used by the anti-vaccine community to justify misinformation regarding the safety of vaccines; it is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused an adverse event, or how common the event might be.[4]

The sole purpose of VAERS is a tool to discover if there is something of concern that should require more study. That's all it is good for, it is NOT a 'source' or 'proof' of anything, nor was it ever meant to me. It's purpose was solely as an 'early warning system'. A starting point for more study, that's it.

The program is an outgrowth of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which requires health care providers to report:

• Any event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to subsequent doses of the vaccine.
• Any event listed in the Reportable Events Table that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination. The data are stored electronically by the CDC in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

VAERS was established in 1990 and is managed jointly by the FDA and the CDC.[5] It is meant to act as a sort of "early warning system"[6]—a way for physicians and researchers to identify possible unforeseen reactions or side effects of vaccination for further study.[7]

And if you argue 'anyone can edit wikipedia'. No, try it and you'll find your 'edits' gone in a day or two if it makes an unsubstantiated claim. Edits are fact checked.

That you traffic in discredited sources demonstrates your credibility is subpar.

 

What are the 5 objectives of VAERS?

The objectives of VAERS are to

• 1) detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events;
  
  
• 2) monitor increases in known adverse events;
  
  
• 3) determine patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events;
  
  
• 4) identify vaccine lots with increased numbers or types of reported adverse events; and
  
  
• 5) assess the safety of

...Jan 24, 2003

Surveillance for safety after immunization: Vaccine Adverse ...
nih.gov
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ...

Detect, Monitor, Determine, Identify, Assess!

Seems it is NOT THE SOLE PURPOSE!

More disinfo from you!

It doesnt debunk anything!

You dont seem to understand the difference between OPINION and VALIDATED FACT.

Right out of the park you have a strike!

The abstract has REFERENCES your OPINIONS HAVE ZERO!

OPINIONS without references =

The abstract with references counters your unreferenced psuedo bunk!

Argumentum ad populum Fallacy! lol

Lefties claim its to far rightee for their taste and cry not credible LMAO

So you got any valid arguments that we can actually discuss?

Just because you didnt do your homework before getting jabbed dont expect me to agree with your shortcomings, I need more than the naked opinions you supplied


What about all these vax problems? Did you bother to even look at it?



and how about the mortality rates that show the unvax'd had BETTER survival than the vax'd?
.

 

Hmmm yes - what a load of…….

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext

 

did I say 'purpose', ahhh, sorry bout that, the better word is 'value'.

While those are lofty goals, it's value is no better than it's input, which can come from anywhere. Given that fact, I stand by my previous comment.

The sole value of VAERS is a tool to discover if there is something of concern that should require more study.

Re-asserting, which you have ignored:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reporting_System

As it is based on submissions by the public, VAERS is susceptible to unverified reports, misattribution, underreporting, and inconsistent data quality.[3] Raw, unverified data from VAERS has often been used by the anti-vaccine community to justify misinformation regarding the safety of vaccines; it is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused an adverse event, or how common the event might be.[4]

The sole purpose (or rather, VALUE) of VAERS is a tool to discover if there is something of concern that should require more study. That's all it is good for, it is NOT a 'source' or 'proof' of anything, nor was it ever meant to me. It's purpose or rather VALUE was solely as an 'early warning system'. A starting point for more study, that's it.

The program is an outgrowth of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which requires health care providers to report:

• Any event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to subsequent doses of the vaccine.
• Any event listed in the Reportable Events Table that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination. The data are stored electronically by the CDC in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

VAERS was established in 1990 and is managed jointly by the FDA and the CDC.[5] It is meant to act as a sort of "early warning system"[6]—a way for physicians and researchers to identify possible unforeseen reactions or side effects of vaccination for further study.[7]

And if you argue 'anyone can edit wikipedia'. No, try it and you'll find your 'edits' gone in a day or two if it makes an unsubstantiated claim. Edits are fact checked.

That you traffic in discredited sources demonstrates your credibility is subpar.


I repeat, you poo poo the credibility of CDC, and the source of your 'proof' is VAERS, which is administered by the CDC.

That, right there, destroys your argument.

Moreover, that you traffic in rant words is unbecoming of science, and diminishes your credibility even further.

That you use a questionable source, the DailyMail, further discredits you.

You argument is based on the study, which is flawed, and thus your argument is circular.

The peer in review is 9 pages of annotated citations all of which indicate the flaws in your paper.

You have nor countered any of the indicated flaws in your study.

You do not counter your argument by repeating yourself, and until you do, your post is dismissed.

Your paper has not survived peer review.

You traffic in rant words unbecoming of science.

You use questionable sources no scientist would ever use in a presentation.

You post is dismissed.

 

There was no peer review.

Clearly you dont understand what a peer review is.

Furthermore higher mortality (meaning higher death rate) of the vaxd as proven by the charts posted trumps, quashes and completely destroys the sophistry and wordsmithing you posted to promote and evangelize the vax religion!

The abstract I posted is supported by over 200 peer reviewed references independent of vaers.

You have not shown any evidential peer reviewed studies, in fact no evidence what so ever, just opinions, therefore any critical thinker is forced to dismiss your claims as bogus squirming of a dying vax religion.

 

....and just to drive another nail in the coffin of PDS's argument......Lets say we use a measuring stick that is off by 7 inches because the ruler has the first 7 inches broken off of it, and we use this broken ruler for 30 years to measure rooms.

When studied, the results between over the course of 30 years will be comparatively accurate with the results over the last 3 years.

So if it were true that that this study was strictly using vaers it would be comparatively accurate since the same measuring stick was used for both cases under review.

There of course there is also this:

 

Common sense review of the pertinent facts shows Pfizer to be operating a continuing criminal enterprise for decades, the phantom virus to have an IFR of something less than 1%, and the shots to be bioweapons, meaning those who administered the shots were committing crimes against humanity.

 

Worse....they managed to get the guvmint involved with them as coconspirators! This is why we see the coverup of more guvmint crime. FOIA has provided us with all the background on this, it was lab created virus resulting from illegal gain-of-function testing funded by the Fauci and his NIH, who of course claims he knew nothing about it! Same sleight of hand scam used on us over and over, now the whole world.

 

News articles, but where are the studies and data?

 

Ah, so SARS-CoV-2 isn't a virus.

 

Can you vouch for these articles? I see no evidence you can.

 

You bet.

 

There is no point. As you'd dismiss any as quickly as you'd get your next booster!

 

You have to wonder about forum participants who ignore neatly everything that questions the propaganda they spout.

 

You have all the answers.

 

I know, hey!
Unlike some.

 

Would you have turned down the polio vaccine?

 

They are vaccines--a new type--but vaccines nonetheless.

So what if they change the definition? BFD.

Totally absurd. Half-baked nonsense.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/02/19/no-covid-mrna-vaccine-wont-cause-alzheimers-or-prion-disease-15357

A jack-of-all-trades, are you?

 

It only looks that way to those who don't understand.

 

Why don't you come up with more than conspiracy theories?

 

A vaccine that ?cures? the man-made virus? AHAHAHA, I know you would have. As for me, I would have questioned the crap out of it just as I had done so with the covid jab and narratives.

 

That is what those who believe the lies and call it 'truth' would say.

 

Anything to make the gullible sheeple take a toxic concoction.

 

Hard to believe you think viruses are a hoax.