Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Finds Links to Health Conditions

LINK: Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Finds Links to Health Conditions (msn.com)

Well, don't think you can get any more confirmation than this. 99 MILLION vaccinated people were made a part of this study across 8 different countries. And its confirmed that there ARE side effects to the Covid shot.

And note: This is from Bloomberg, not some right wing site so its going to be awfully hard for those on the left to deny this.

 

I'm glad I didn't participate in being an unpaid medical experiment. If I'm going to participate in a medical experiment I'm at least going to get paid for my troubles.

I will go to my grave believing there is a better chance that it had something to do with my girlfriend's cancer then that it had nothing to do with it.

 

Nobody has denied there are side-effects (some serious) from COVID vaccines, just as there are side-effects from pretty much any clinical intervention. What is legitimately criticised is the rhetoric, empty assertions and outright lies about relative scale, intention or the demonstrated benefits of the vaccines. As the lead researcher is quoted saying in the article;

 

Trump got the shot, said it was good

 

What a load of poppycock. The whole time it was being rolled out and for at least a year afterwards it was touted as safe and any claim of a side effect was met with derisive responses.

 

I will go to my grave believing there is a better chance that Paxlovid had something to do with my grandma's lungs going to **** (now on oxygen) than Paxlovid having nothing to do with it. Especially since the same thing happened to someone else that my family knows.

You couldn't pay me a million dollars to get me to take Paxlovid or get me to take any mRNA jab.

 

..... except for Pfizer, Fauci, CDC director lady, Biden, and all the other people effectively forcing other people to get those jabs.

 

So?

 

Did you even read your own quote from the article? "The rare events — identified early in the pandemic...". A safe treatment doesn't mean zero side effects - as I said, pretty much any clinical intervention can have side effects - and actual side effects were identified and accounted for where possible. It certainly wasn't perfect, in part because of the pace required to meet the immediate threat of COVID, plus the involvement of both politicians and private companies, but there are no huge surprises or major concerns in what is reported here.

What was (and still is) met with derisive responses are the assertions about widespread severe side effects, pretty much anything reportedly occurring after a vaccination being automatically attributed to it, their being wilfully or intentionally caused or massive speculative numbers quoted on the basis of misunderstood or misrepresented statistics. This article (and the study it is reporting on) doesn't support any of that, however much you might like to imagine it does.

 

Poppycock is correct.

People who made claims to harmful side effects (aka people who didn't tout the official narrative) were banned for "spreading misinformation" (aka telling the truth to the face of manipulative liars).

I remember hearing the constant parroting of "safe and effective" "safe and effective" "safe and effective" droning on and on and on... ... ... ...

 

Oh I fully believe that the "rare" (not really) events were identified early in the scamdemic. But they were swept under the rug and it was deemed "wrong" to discuss them at the time (lest one get banned for "spreading misinformation").

You seem to forget this very recent history. You seem to forget how unhinged people became during that time period, especially towards anyone who dared to question "the (unnamed) experts" or didn't follow along with the "mask up" "get tested constantly" "get jabbed again and again and again" official narrative. People lost their jobs over standing up against the official narrative, dude.

But yeah, it was "identified early in the pandemic" and everyone was all jolly and happy and willing to discuss it out in the open at the time....

 

so you don't care that he told he supporters to get the shot, it was good

 

Nope. He can have whatever opinion he wishes to have about it, and I don't have to agree with him about it.

As long as he doesn't force/coerce/pressure me into taking the jabs (and he's spoken out against doing such a thing, unlike Biden who actually did such a thing), then it's all good as far as I am concerned.

 

ok then, Trump says the vaccine good, get it

 

At no point did he attempt to force private employers with 100 or more employees, to force their employees to get it or the onerous ultimatum of weekly testing required.... Dictator Biden attempted that.

 

at no point did I say he did, and I said from the get go when the Biden admin did that, that it was a bluff, they could not do it, I was right

a post of mine from back then - I also said it would never fly, it was joe's way of sayin.... I tried, all I could do

the bluff did work though....

 

It wasn't deemed wrong to discuss the actual facts as known and reported at the time, what was (legitimately) deemed wrong was spreading misinformation, like asserting serious side effects weren't rare with no basis, throwing out terms like "scamdemic" or, as per my criticism of the OP, claiming that anybody ever said there no side effects from any of the COVID vaccines.

I think it's ridiculous to talking about those people being "unhinged" but not make any reference to all the people who opposed various measures for irrational reasons (like the belief that the vaccines were designed to kill millions of people).

Extreme, life and death situations are always going to elicit extreme reactions, from all sorts of people and in all sorts of ways. That is exactly why we need rational academic assessments, which is what this study and the article about it are doing. Blatantly lying about what it actually reports will only come from some of those "unhinged".

 

It wasn't a bluff when he attempted to abuse his power to enact a mandate like a dictator would.

It would have worked if the court system didn't slap his ass down.

For all you people that want to call Trump to dictator you need to pay attention to what the hell Biden is doing or attempts to do.

 

Okay then.

No.

 

IOW, censorship was present and "wrong-think" was prohibited, like I said. Got it.

 

You could (and just did) say anything you want, you just can't expect to do so without being challenged and criticised.

 

I am not telling you to get it, just repeating what Trump said

 

Aaaaannnnnddddd you didn’t read the study did you? It is hardly a condemnation as we KNOW there are adverse outcomes with vaccinations - there are adverse outcomes related to breathing and farting!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270?via=ihub#s0090

The question is not “were there any adverse outcomes” but “were those adverse outcomes lower than those for the infection”. This shows they were.

 

Awww! Did some bad mans tell you to do something?/ sarcasm

Truth is there have ALWAYS been vaccine mandates and for good reason

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/schoolvaxview/requirements/index.html

 

Bunkum! why do you think the CDC maintains VAERS?? Why do you think it is open access data? Why do you think the CDC maintains informations sheets on ALL vaccines?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

You had to sign a disclaimer and health check to even get the vaccine https://www.immunize.org/wp-content/uploads/catg.d/p4065.pdf