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

It's not a peer review journal, not like the BMJ or the Lancet, etc. I'm reminded in the early years of the internet, there was a news publication called the 'American Chronicle", which had good writers, and bad writers. In fact, anyone could publish on it, just upload whatever and it will appear, and you could claim you were a 'writer'. Your research journal is the science paper equivalent. It's not a brownie point in anyone's favor to publish in that particular journal. It's just a place to share one's work, nothing more, nothing less. That a paper is published there is not proof of anything.

Your patronizing aside, I know what the stockholm syndrome is. I don't think it works at all. Moreover, that you traffic in cheap shot weasel words and terms of disparagement proves my point that you are not operating at any level consistent with scientific standards, and, as such, your rebuttal should be dismissed, and your conclusions not trusted.

Like hell. I'll file that in the disingenous file.

"was in the document', it's a long document. I mean, perhaps you were hoping no one would read it, as many do not click on links on this forum. To have omitted the most important part of the document is disingenuous because you are implying something different than the conclusion of the very document you cite, given the idea that many will probably not even read the document, which was your objective, right? Of course I'm right.

Your last question assumes a premise, you need to establish the veracity of the premise before asking the question. Once established, then ask.

 

It would be best to educate yourself about the differences between vaccine and mRNA technologies are. As they both perform differently in how they work. As the traditional vaccines fit the original definition, as mRNA does not. Hence the definition change to include mRNA tech.

 

Just because it is hosted at Researchgate, according to you is inadmissible hey? Here is that very same paper now, with the same authors/contributors published in PubMed/NIH.GOV. Hmm, interesting hey?
Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs

Did you forget that you stated this?

So you're the 'what you need to post when posting police'? Why do I have to copy and paste when I provided a link? It would be disingenuous if I hadn't provided that and just made a claim without the citation, right?

Selective reading is what I like to call it. IOW, dodging the question. Would you like to answer the question or play dodgeball with it?

 

I have, my benighted chum.

 

Is that why you don't produce anything to back your claims, you just make accusations that you know.

 

I made claims that I have to "prove"? Where?

 

Pretty much every statement you make. As it stands, it's just all conjecture from you, with no citation at any stage throughout any of your arguments. "Where?", EXACTLY!

 

Delete, I'll respond soon

 

It appears that the article, though published in the NIH, has yet to be fully vetted in the peer review process. so far, not looking too good, to wit:

https://osf.io/m58yh/
. We show in this Letter that this article contains
several fallacious scientific assumptions leading to misunderstandings and thus invalidating
the conclusions drawn by the authors.

(Note, that the letter critiquing the paper has about seven authors).

Nice try, though.

No, I didn't, but you aren't paying much attention to what YOU wrote, and what did you write?

You wrote this:
What is really going on is that those who got caught in the web of lies try to justify the use and advocate it
and slip into Stockholm Syndrome.

"Web of lies" -- that's a vacuous claim, lacks foundation, substantiation.

"Slip into Stockholm Syndrome" --- again, vacuous claim, lacks foundation, substantiate..

Anything you claim that you do not substantiate is vague on it's face. Anyone can utter any opinion under the sun. Who cares?
This is a forum to discuss opinions, and if you make a claim, as in a scientific data point claim (not just an opinion about politics), the onus is on you to substantiate it. Do I have educate you on how to do that?

Therefore, my previous comment stands.

I really do not care what other's standards are. But, to debate me, I will tell you what my standards are, or you do not have an argument worthy of debate

"in my opinion'. but if you want to peddle your weak arguments to others, and if they engage, more power to them, but that isn't how I debate.

And so, for me, not saying you care, particularly, but if you care to debate me, then.....

The debate principle is simple.

You gave an opinion,but you go further than that and make a data point claim, one that requires one but preferably at least two of the following::

1. A solid path of reasoning
2. One which gives examples, known occurrences we can relate to
3 Supporting articles, documents, testimonies, whatever is available to back up your claim. If it is a 'science' opinion, then peer reviewed studies, and more than one, if available, the more the merrier. At least three is the best. Note, anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Then we can have a debate. A real debate, not just opinion bantering, which, in my view, is a complete waste of time.

If all you want to do is cram your opinion down the throats of others, I don't know about others on this forum, but I'm not one to take anyone's word for anything on this forum, and the convention on debate forums since they began with the internet it to back up your claims.

If you don't want to do that, that is fine, but I will have to put you on ignore, because I'm not taking your word for anything. Give me something I can work with.

You offered one paper in a non peer reviewed journal and even then you omitted quoting the most important line in the paper, that it viewed the vaccine favorably. Still, That's not even worthy anyone's time if they are serious about the subject.

But, here's three, a cursory search, and I"m certain there are many more:

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...wed-report-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-publishes

mRNA-1273 is highly efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-069761

Conclusions mRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.

In the above, it's stating that three vaxxes were most effective for the alpha and delta variants. but less effective for the omicron variant. still, given the odds, it's worth taking the vaccines.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427. opens in new tab.)

At the minimum, you should find a peer reviewed journal, and preferably three or more studies.

So far, I'm seeing studies that indicate to me that, despite the rarer instances of adverse events, the odds you'll survive much better with the vaccines than take your chances on Covid without the vaccines. And yes, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, but I had a friend succumb to Covid, this was before any vaccine was available, and I have had three vaxxes and when I got Covid, it was for only a week, and the worst of it lasted only 2 days. so, in my view, the vaccines gave me protection against a much worse result than I would have experienced but for the vaccine.

To establish something as a new paradigm in thinking about data point in science, the more studies in your favor, the merrier, because there are, indeed, studies that are in the vaccines favor, more than one in peer reviewed journals. But you didn't link to them, you found one in a non peer reviewed share file source. Moreover, given your propensity to traffic in terms of disparagement, rant words, why should anyone take you seriously if you are predicating your premise on science?

In summary, your post fails.

 

nope, they changed the definition due to the way the new vaccine works, the mRNA causes the cells of ones own body to create the vaccine

as technology increases, definition change

 

because the mRNA is still a vaccination shot, it just causes the body to create the vaccine

 

What an absolute load of rubbish.

 

Got anything that backs your claim?

 

It appears you fail to perceive the analogy of it. That being those who bought the lies of the pandemic to get an unnecessary injection, defend those who spruiked and sold the lies and injections. This is what was meant by the syndrome, ka pichè!

 

Indeed, the efficacy of the covid injections is up there.

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19

If the statement "safe & effective" actually meant something, then why is there a database such as the latter?

 

We shall see when and who the last men & women are left standing, hey?

 

Aw did I grab the wrong one

https://www.govexec.com/management/...fy-federal-fleet-including-funds-usps/184998/
https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/two-s...-over-biden-administration-booster-shot-plan/
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/why-these-covid-vaccine-scientist-resigned-fda-n1278207

When four scientists and physicians at two of the most important United States agencies leave during the middle of a global pandemic with no ready transition plan or heirs apparent, there is clearly a need to look to the agencies’ leadership.

It’s safe to say that acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock, once considered the likely Biden nominee, is clearly not getting the top job after concerns that her mistakes helped fuel the opioid crisis and criticism over her handling of the controversial approval of a drug for Alzheimer’s disease. The FDA, one of the most important regulatory agencies in the country, if not the world, needs leadership in the form of a commissioner now.

Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA's Office of Vaccines Research and Review, and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, announced Tuesday that they plan to retire by November according to a memo from Dr. Peter Marks, director of the agency's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Gruber is a 32-year veteran of the FDA, respected around the world for her work on a number of vaccines, including those for Ebola, Zika and now Covid-19.

The announcement that she plans to retire comes on the heels of several weeks of confusing messaging from public health officials which might have fueled the pending departures. The White House announced that Covid-19 booster shots would start Sept. 20, ahead of approval of the idea by the FDA or discussion by the country’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.


Health experts quit CDC, NIH due to 'bad science'
ClarkCountyToday.com
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com › news › health-ex...

Jul 19, 2022 — Amid low morale fostered by “bad science,” frustrated and alarmed experts with the NIH, CDC and FDA are quitting, creating serious staffing ...


Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves ...
Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk › health › article-11015235

Jul 14, 2022 — Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves because they are embarrassed by 'bad science'.


FDA, CDC and NIH Employees Are Quitting in Droves Due To ...
OutKick
https://www.outkick.com › fda-cdc-and-nih-employee...

Jul 14, 2022 — The report details these exact concerns; low quality data analysis is leading to poor decision making based on political pressure: “The heads of ...
(0.45 seconds)

 

Does anyone else wonder why the creators of the mRNA junk don't take their own pseudo-science? Because they know of the harm it does to the body.

COVID 'vaccines' are a medical experiment on humanity

I wonder how the above-quoted statement helps with the marketing term "safe and effective"? Because it doesn't.

 

It doesnt go away!

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.


All I can say is good luck with that! Hope your decision does not lead to premature death.


.

 

Sad but true.

 

A tried and true tactic of the conspiracy theorist....spouting copious inaccurate and bogus stats from questionable sources. Tucker Carlson? LOL Does he even believe it? SEE Mehdi Hassan

 

A tried and true tactic of disinfo peddling apologist pundits.

Carlson is not the source, try again!

Citations to prove up your claim?
Wait I dont see any!
Do you think its because they dont exist?

SEE:

Authors:

Stephanie Seneff

• 
  
  
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Greg Nigh

• 
  
  
  • Immersion Health

Anthony Kyriakopoulos

• 
  
  
  • Nasco AD Biotech Lab

AND:

• 
  
  
  • Evaluation of DNA adduct damage using G-quadruplex-based DNAzyme
    New Article
    • May 2023
    • Bioactive Materials
    
    Authors:
  • Yi Xiao
  • Haomin Yi
  • Jingzhi Zhu
    Fangfu Ye
    
    Nope no tucker carlson, sorry

 

You traffic in all sorts of pseudo debate tricks, and posturing is the main one.
comments like 'laughable' are not scientific arguments.

Now then

Anyone can report to VAERS, it's not reliable.

.the Vaccine Safety Datalink is a better source which is for professionals and scholars. I wonder why they didn't use that one?

A study posted in Research Gate is share file website, it's not a peer review journal.

The study has been thoroughly debunked here:

https://osf.io/m58yh/

What you have quoted has many red flags, it reads like the person is hysterical, and has a political agenda. Competent studies do not do this.

The study makes one good statement: More studies are needed.

But, of course, that has always been true for Covid.

It's well established that the vaccines and boosters do not last perhaps more than a year. It goes like this, you get the vaxxes, and if you get the disease you'll not suffer anywhere near as bad, and once you get the disease, you'll have a much stronger immunity. but, if you don't get the vaxxes, your chances of death are much greater should you contract the disease. The data says get the shots, they will save your life. Not everyone's life, but the odds are much better, and survival is not something you want to trivialize, because the flip side of survival is death. Take your pick. I choose the former.

I will qualify my statement, I would welcome studies, even those that do not put the vaccine in a good light, if there are a number of them and published in peer reviewed journals. I'm also mindful that Pfizer and Moderna made billions off the vaccines, and there is the troubling idea of profit motive influencing the industry, but at the minimum, show me peer reviewed studies, and the peer reviews, and more than one, if you can find them.

 

Debunked, and this is just one page of the 9 page report: As you can see, your source isn't that scientific.

https://osf.io/m58yh

Dear Editor, You recently published in “Food and Chemical Toxicology” an article from Seneff et al.entitled “Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs”

[Patricio notes: it was also published in the NIH website]

We show in this Letter that this article contains several fallacious scientific assumptions leading to misunderstandings and thus invalidating the conclusions drawn by the authors. We suggest that the article be retracted since a careful analysis of the provided bibliography indicates profound misinterpretations of topics and conclusions about the negative impact that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 could have onimmunity.In the abstract, the authors claim that they will provide "evidence that vaccination induces profound impairment in Type I interferon (IFN) signaling, which has various adverse consequences to human health". This statement relies on an unpublished preprint available on ARxiv since August 2021, thus not yet peer-reviewed.

Data show a differential gene expression profile in peripheral dendritic cells based on vaccinal status, but do not support the authors’ claim that there is Type I IFN suppression due to the vaccine. Reliable research shows this is simply the reaction expected from a vaccine: a high immune response without systemic and uncontrolled inflammation.

Furthermore, arguing that SARS-CoV-2vaccination would result in loss of the Type I IFN immune response (and therefore leading to a higher infectious risk or lack of cancer surveillance) contradicts other published data on the immune response.

At the opposite, a transient increase of Type I IFN could explain some immune side effects caused by vaccination.

To date only a set of SARS-COV-2 viral proteins have been shown to antagonize Type I IFN response, not the vaccine.

Furthermore, the authors used more than 200 references, including misunderstandings of other authors’ conclusions. To illustrate our point, in Table 1, we detail a non-exhaustive list of such misunderstandings of the literature. The authors rely on hypothetical physiological disturbances induced by vaccination. For example, they suggest a possible increased risk of various cancers which has never been published so far, whereas for patients with cancer,vaccination is still highly recommended

No causal relationship can be established between the described biological mechanisms and the alleged effects of mRNA vaccines in this article. The misuse and the erroneous interpretations which can result from the VAERS(Vaccine Adverse Events Database) database has been extensively described. [Patricio interjects: recall what i said about 'VAERS' anyone can post to it] Besides the analysis proposed by the authors only takes into account the relative values of the occurrences of several adverse events for SARS-COV-2 or non- SARS-COV-2 vaccines without taking into account either the number of injections for each vaccine or the differences pharmacovigilance. Thus, no conclusion can be drawn from this analysis. To date no published analysis of the data from the VAERS database supports the hypothesis of significant increased mortality secondary to vaccination confirming that anti-SARS-CoV-2vaccination has a very favorable risk-benefit ratio and saved and will save lives.

The review of important paragraphs has highlighted major shortcomings and blatant approximations in the usage of the literature which, in fact, goes against all the assumptions made in the manuscript.The entirety of the scientific and medical community is concerned about the conspiracy theories regarding sanitary measures and vaccines against SARS COV2.This denial of fact-based data and diligently curated research takes many forms and is expressed in abundance in social networks in particular. We fear that this article, widely shared on social media,20 facilitates misinformation and fearmongering around COVID-19vaccines. Also, the dissemination of false information by physicians on social networks (such as rapid sharing of controversial publications) is a major cause for concern as they are considered a reliable source of guidance for the public, and could lead to suspension or revocation of their medical license.

As such, it jeopardizes public health policies and represents a real danger to all of humanity.The important shortcomings and misusage of scientific literature and data have no place in scientific journal. Therefore, we suggest that this article should be retracted in an effort to prevent further damages to health care policies

 

From your citation:
"In our opinion, this article contains several assumptions and misinformation"


Their 'opinions' debunk nothing!

I want the same peer reviewed papers you demand, yet I dont see any!

The VAERS reporting system has been approved by the FDA, the CDC, the NIH and its good enough for them, and you are telling us they are a bunch of unprofessionals for using it. "[Patricio interjects: recall what i said about 'VAERS' anyone can post to it]"

You give me opinions and claim its been debunked!

They admit the vax was designed to so exactly what the abstract claims is wrong with it!

It simply dont get better than this folks!


Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves because they're embarrassed by 'bad science'

• The NIH and CDC are reportedly facing staffing shortages as low morale drives away employees

By Mansur Shaheen U.S. Deputy Health Editor For Dailymail.Com

Two of America's top health agencies are reportedly hemorrhaging staff as poor decision-making, described by staff as 'bad science,' has led to low morale.

At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.)

The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?”

Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”

Why are they embarrassed?

In short, bad science.

The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions.

Both agencies, along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been mired in controversy throughout the pandemic for inconsistent messaging and for decision-making that didn't seem to line up with available science.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...g-NIH-CDC-droves-embarrassed-bad-science.html


Patricio Da Silva why did you get all those jabs?

Fear?

You unwittingly jumped into the fire and now you want the general public to be their test guinea pigs right along with you is that it?

From your citation:


Admission they are testing all the unknowns on the public!

Seems you have double standards here!

Im sorry but unsupported opinions debunk nothing.