How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System

An article from November, but I couldn't find it as a thread here (I may have mentioned it in some other thread here, not sure) and I think it contains some very interesting information, so felt it should be posted as a thread here. Constructive feedback welcome.

**
STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they’re exposed to the virus
• Previous coronavirus vaccine efforts — including those for SARS, MERS and RSV — have revealed a serious concern: The vaccines have a tendency to trigger antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)
• ADE means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated
• Lethal Th2 immunopathology is another potential risk. A faulty T cell response can trigger allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes can activate the complement system, resulting in airway damage
• There’s evidence showing the elderly — who are most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 and would need the vaccine the most — are also the most vulnerable to ADE and Th2 immunopathology

According to a study that examined how informed consent is given to COVID-19 vaccine trial participants, disclosure forms fail to inform volunteers that the vaccine might make them susceptible to more severe disease if they’re exposed to the virus.

The study,1 “Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease,” published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, October 28, 2020, points out that “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated.”

“Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE),” the paper states.

“This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”

**

Full article here:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...ronavirus-antibody-dependent-enhancement.aspx

 

Good luck to all those poor souls taking the experimental drug!

 

Keep up the linking to conspiracy theory sites it does soooo much for one’s reputation

BTW

rules of this forum

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms




though actually when you look at all vaccines it is more likely thousands Of studies worldwide

But feel free to keep posting misinformation and twaddle

 

I believe that mercola.com's site is filled with a lot of truthful information you can't get elsewhere. If you want to argue otherwise, though, feel free to.

No one is required to register to their site to see the introductions of their articles. If you want to see their -entire- articles though, you do need to provide an email address.

There are a lot of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies that purport to show that, say, mercury in them is "safe". I firmly believe that these studies are unconvincing to someone who takes a serious look at them.

 

Mercola is a conspiracy theory site that cherry picks and mischaracterises real research to try to discredit mainstream medicine often so they can make a killing off of selling quackery to the gullible

https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...c01078-c29c-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html

 

More about Mercola

 

More about Mercola

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/controversial-science-news-quackery/murky-mercola

It is a wonder that he does not offer a cure for the dangers of DHMO

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mercola/

/Clickbait conspiracy thread failure.

 

About the site you quoted:
**
True Skepticism vs Selective Skepticism
Science-Based Medicine is an organization that tries to portray itself as skeptical, but I say it’s selectively skeptical.

This is because they are not willing to entertain certain ideas and they form strong beliefs that certain treatments have no value outside of what your doctor recommends.

With regard to health, true skepticism means to be doubtful in a belief that some treatment works, but at the same time also be doubtful in forming opinions that something doesn’t work.

This means you shouldn’t form beliefs one way or the other. Your attitude should be one of not knowing if you want to be truly skeptical.

If you read SBM posts, you will see they are skeptical of ‘alternative’ remedies, but they believe that these remedies don’t work.

If you ask them about any remedy that isn’t proven by science, they will tell you the chance is close to zero that it works. They believe the people who feel an effect from them are just experiencing the placebo effect.

This is a belief that goes against true skepticism.

True skepticism would be not forming an opinion that they work or that they don’t work. ‘I don’t know’ should form the basis of true skepticism, not that XYZ treatments don’t work because it doesn’t fit with our knowledge paradigm or because there’re no large clinical trials.

If there’s no evidence that a treatment works, there’s also usually no evidence that the treatment doesn’t work. So forming an opinion one way or another is not true skepticism.

‘Skeptics’, SBM and company need to realize that the absence of scientific evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

When we didn’t have scientific evidence that exercise, vegetables or fasting are healthy, people (‘skeptics’) sneered at you for doing these things to be healthy.

Or how about before we knew that too much sugar is bad for you or that lead is bad for you.

Even just 5 years ago, many people were laughing at me for staying away from added sugars because THERE’S NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the quantities we consume are bad. In reality, there has been evidence, but it’s been confined to small trials, animal studies, etc…

I think the atmosphere is changing with regard to various healthy behaviors and all of a sudden it doesn’t sound crazy that I’ve been trying to stay away from added sugars when there was no strong scientific evidence that it was bad.

Some ‘skeptics’ will argue that there’s still no evidence because we all view the word evidence in a different way.
**

Source: https://selfhack.com/blog/a-critical-review-of-science-based-medicine/

 

On mediabiasfactcheck:
**
Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

By James D Agresti
April 24, 2017

As Just Facts grows in prominence and reputation, an increasing number of scholars, major organizations, and eminent people have cited and recognized the quality work of Just Facts. With this higher profile, Just Facts has also been subject to deceitful attacks. A recent example of such comes from “Media Bias Fact Check,” an “independent media outlet” that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.”

In the opening paragraph of her review of Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check contributor Faith Locke Siewert writes:

On their article http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp#affirmative, they use the Richard Sander’s (law professor at UCLA) essay “A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.” To support much of their hypothesis, obviously against affirmative action (seeming also to support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior).

Those two sentences contain three demonstrable falsehoods:

• “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” is not just an essay. It is a peer-reviewed journal paper that was published in the Stanford Law Review. Big difference.
• Just Facts does not use this paper to support “much of” its research on affirmative action. The research contains more than 60 footnotes, and this paper is just one of them. Just Facts’ full research on racial issues has 498 footnotes, and this paper is two of them.
• Just Facts does not offer any “hypothesis” in this research, much less “support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior.” To the contrary, the opening section of Just Facts’ research on racial issues covers the topic of science and presents multiple facts that challenge that notion.

The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
**

Full article:
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest

 

That was only ONE of a large number of sites including an article from WaPO warning that Mercola is in it for the money.
let’s look at how Mercola is rated by Boston University

https://library.bu.edu/fakenews/bias

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Jam....69i57.557692046j0j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

That is your "credible" source?

Sad!



Thanks for further DISCREDITING your CONSPIRACY thread.

 

This guy is a clear and present danger!

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

Inhaling H2O2? Is the man insane? Hydrogen peroxide is a free radical!

 

As I have said previously, no way am I ever taking the Pfizer jab. On the others, I will wait and see how things go with the other recipients first. the Oxford/AZ one is the one I would be more inclined to take at this point, but I want to see some real data on complications and effectiveness.

 

Leaves more for someone else

 

God be with them. The Pfizer jab isn't even the one the US government ordered the most of for a reason and my states won't even have enough of any of them to even cover the most essential folks until mid summer at least. COVID will be yesterday's news before I am eligible at the rate they are going.

 

Boston University makes mention of the FDA not approving of Mercola. Here's something people should know of the FDA:
**
FDA conceals serious research misconduct–fraud, deception, even deaths
April 17, 2017

FDA documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that the FDA has been concealing from the medical community and the public serious research misconduct; including fraud, deception, avoidable risks for human subjects — even deaths — that occurred in clinical trials. The FDA documents were obtained by Charles Seife, a journalism professor at New York University, and author of several books about deception.

Key portions in most of the FDA documents were heavily redacted. The missing information includes: the name of the drug studied, the name of the study, and specifically how the misconduct affected the quality / reliability of the data. This made it all but impossible to sort out which study was tainted. Seife and his students examined 600 clinical trials; they were able to identify the drug and pharmaceutical company involved in about 100 cases.

In 2015, Seife published two extremely important articles about FDA concealment of vital medical — one in Slate another in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). We post excerpts from the Slate article which includes links to the FDA inspectors’ documents; followed by the abstract of the JAMA article.


“Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wild video. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.

That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses.

The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.”
**

Source: https://ahrp.org/fda-conceals-colla...ch-misconduct-fraud-deception-adverse-events/

 

Whataboutism does NOT exonerate Mercola from being a debunked CONSPIRACY source with ZERO credibility.

 

What is telling is that Mercola - King of the “Earth Mat for Earth vibrations” and “Mercury will kill you but don’t check the ingredients in my products’ is out to grab ever dollar but somehow they are more ethical than public servants who don’t have a vested interest.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavins...oseph-mercola-and-mark-hyman/?sh=2c957b912df6

 

You can claim whatever you like concerning Mercola. Unlike you, however, I like supporting my contentions with long articles containing solid facts, not innuendo.

 

What “solid facts”? You are linking to a site renown for misrepresenting and frankly mangling the science. Link to original articles and you MIGHT and I repeat MIGHT get more respect for what you are posting

 

The QUANTITY of your Conspiracy codswallop is NOT a SUBSTITUTE for CREDIBLE information.

So far NONE of the LUDICROUS allegations that you have posted meets the definition of CREDIBLE.

You will find a more receptive audience for your asinine posts in the Conspiracy Forum down in the PF basement where this thread BELONGS.

 

There is NO whackdoodle conspiracy or super-high priced exotic "essential essence of virgin vitamin" that Mercola fans wants to save the lives of the readers to replace those "deadly vaccines" and provide massive profits from providers like Mercola.

Pathetic.

 

Did you even read post #17, or did you just quote it?

 

Well, you're certainly good with the insults. Come back to me when you have something substantive to say.