Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dark_Grey

FDA to add Warnings to Pfizer and Moderna Shots

Recommended Posts

Dark_Grey

Follow up to this thread

FDA to add warning about rare heart inflammation to Pfizer, Moderna vaccines
Reuters

Quote

June 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Wednesday it will add a warning about rare cases of heart inflammation in adolescents and young adults to fact sheets for the Pfizer/BioNTech (PFE.N), and Moderna (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccines.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory groups, meeting to discuss reported cases of the heart condition after vaccination, found the risk in adolescents and young adults is likely linked to the vaccines, but that the benefits of the shots appeared to clearly outweigh the risk.

Let's read between the lines and biased reporting here as there is potentially a lot of harm that could be coming from these shots.

Much like the initial denial and later acceptance of the Wuhan lab leak theory, the media is once again running cover for their donors.

Spoiler

1624479820306.png

J&J didn't pull their vaccine over just eight blood clots. That was the initial story then blood clots turned out to be much more common than they let on. Similarly, I highly doubt the CDC called an emergency meeting over "rare" side effects. "Rare" side effects are expected and somewhat planned for when rolling out new drugs. So how many heart attacks does it take before a major drug manufacturer will admit to a problem? Likely quite a few. Remember that despite the best intentions of nurses, Doctors and lab techs, Pfizer and Moderna will go where their board members tell them to go. If that involves rushing a drug to market to secure a potentially global contract, so be it.

The official number is currently 12.6 cases per million. Only a week or two ago, that number was 2 per million. Reporting and data analysis on everything regarding the wu-flu has been atrocious so who knows what the real numbers are. Many health professionals have admitted they are hesitant to report issues with the vaccines due to the stigma of questioning the narrative or suppression by their superiors ("I know what this looks like but there's no way it's the vaccine. Say it was something else.") This seems to be the case for a lot of people who championed the vaccines and later suffered side effects. The massive influx of VAERS reports (vaccine side effect reporting system,) should also be a concern as reported side effects for all vaccines remained relatively flat up until the release of covid shots. Can the public submit reports to VAERS? Technically, yes. But if VAERS data is good enough for the CDC and the FDA, it's certainly relevant here. 

I'm only a step above a caveman in terms of medical knowledge but based on the research I've done, the crux of the mRNA vaccine issue is this:

The spike proteins generated to fight covid are not staying localized. They leave the injection site and float throughout the body, typically settling in the heart and/or the ovaries. In women, this can cause excessive menstrual bleeding, in young men it could result in heart palpitations or heart attacks:

Spoiler

1624469365341.png

Additional research: 

"Dark Horse Podcast", Pfizer Data Analysis: Where do lipid nanoparticles collect?

The above is a 10min clip from an episode featuring Dr Robert Malone, co-inventor of mRNA technology. Naturally, it was removed from Youtube. I highly recommend viewing the entire episode. It's 3 hours long and full of very dry Science so take your time. In the full episode, Dr Malone talks about the concerns he brought to the FDA early on but was dismissed.

We are currently in one of the largest vaccine trials ever conducted and the effects are only just beginning to surface. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ted E Hughes

I'm a bit confused about what point you are making.

In one of your links (excessive menstrual bleeding) there is this article, where a man recovered from Covid after intensive medical care and has since been vaccinated: ‘Miraculous’: Ontario man’s COVID-19 recovery inspires health-care workers | Globalnews.ca

What is your point- that medical intervention is harmful, or medical intervention is beneficial? If you feel prophylactic treatment (vaccination) is harmful, are you advocating people wait until they are really sick before seeking medical help?

Or are you suggesting we need better vaccines than the ones we have at present (I guess everyone would wish that)?

Or that peopel should just take there chances and ignore medical intervention?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
11 hours ago, ted hughes said:

I'm a bit confused about what point you are making.

In one of your links (excessive menstrual bleeding) there is this article, where a man recovered from Covid after intensive medical care and has since been vaccinated: ‘Miraculous’: Ontario man’s COVID-19 recovery inspires health-care workers | Globalnews.ca

What is your point- that medical intervention is harmful, or medical intervention is beneficial? If you feel prophylactic treatment (vaccination) is harmful, are you advocating people wait until they are really sick before seeking medical help?

Or are you suggesting we need better vaccines than the ones we have at present (I guess everyone would wish that)?

Or that peopel should just take there chances and ignore medical intervention?

If you want a quick takeaway from the OP, it should be this: 

Assess your risk to benefit ratio before taking questionable medicine. In this case, "questionable medicine" is covid vaccines  utilizing mRNA technology, provided by companies with long histories of medical scandals. Only you can determine if the dangers of covid-19 are more or less than the vaccinations meant to treat it. If you are immuno-compromised, vaccinations may be the answer as they are designed to reduce symptoms. If you are relatively healthy, the vaccines become less necessary due to the weak symptoms of covid (most people experience mild to no symptoms after contracting the virus). If unvaccinated mortality for covid was up around 30% instead of 1-2%, I would be first in line with my sleeve rolled up.

There are political reasons to take the jab (or not,) but that's a whole other topic. For now, I just want to present another perspective to this echo chamber so we can all be as informed as possible. Basing your health decisions off incomplete data (IE only mainstream news sources and Government infographics,) is selling yourself short. I'll update or create new threads as these stories develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
Posted (edited)

If someone is worried about 12.6 per million cases effecting you than shouldn't they be even more afraid of the 100s per million who are hospitalized from Covid?

The odds would be worse with Covid.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

If someone is worried about 12.6 per million cases effecting you than shouldn't they be even more afraid of the 100s per million who are hospitalized from Covid?

The odds would be worse with Covid.

I've just checked. A healthy 20 year old has a 400-1000 in a million chance of dying with Covid.

Or a 12 in a million chance of suffering these side effects.

I think I know which to pick here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
20 hours ago, ted hughes said:

Or that peopel should just take there chances and ignore medical intervention?

I believe this should be an available choice without being mocked or threatened or penalized by ANY entity.  It's that whole "freedom" comes with responsibility thing.  That said, if the person makes that choice and becomes seriously ill then IMO, they've forfeited their right to "extraordinary" measures to save them.  I've already created an "advanced directive" for my choices, should I become incapacitated by this or any other illness or trauma.  Palliative care only.  No vents, no transplants, nothing except O2 by canula and sufficient medication to create a coma state until my body either fails or beats it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
1 hour ago, and then said:

I believe this should be an available choice without being mocked or threatened or penalized by ANY entity.  It's that whole "freedom" comes with responsibility thing.  That said, if the person makes that choice and becomes seriously ill then IMO, they've forfeited their right to "extraordinary" measures to save them.  I've already created an "advanced directive" for my choices, should I become incapacitated by this or any other illness or trauma.  Palliative care only.  No vents, no transplants, nothing except O2 by canula and sufficient medication to create a coma state until my body either fails or beats it.  

I personally believe that even if people make that choice to take the risk that they should still be given the best medical care available if they are in the hospital.

(Unless of course there is just not enough supplies for everyone)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katniss
3 hours ago, and then said:

I believe this should be an available choice without being mocked or threatened or penalized by ANY entity.  It's that whole "freedom" comes with responsibility thing.  That said, if the person makes that choice and becomes seriously ill then IMO, they've forfeited their right to "extraordinary" measures to save them.  I've already created an "advanced directive" for my choices, should I become incapacitated by this or any other illness or trauma.  Palliative care only.  No vents, no transplants, nothing except O2 by canula and sufficient medication to create a coma state until my body either fails or beats it.  

That's easier said on paper and on the Internet, than actually going through it in real life. I hope you never have to go through that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Susanc241
On 6/23/2021 at 10:43 PM, Dark_Grey said:

The spike proteins generated to fight covid are not staying localized. They leave the injection site and float throughout the body

I don’t understand this statement.  Please explain how a vaccine, or any injectable medication for that matter, would be of any use if it stayed in the area of the injection site, in this case the upper arm.  What am I missing here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
2 hours ago, Susanc241 said:

I don’t understand this statement.  Please explain how a vaccine, or any injectable medication for that matter, would be of any use if it stayed in the area of the injection site, in this case the upper arm.  What am I missing here?

@Dark_Grey

Also, spike proteins are not generated to fight covid. They are a part of the virus but one which can't do anything on their own  The body generates antibodies in response. These are the things that fight covid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
9 hours ago, Setton said:

@Dark_Grey

Also, spike proteins are not generated to fight covid. They are a part of the virus but one which can't do anything on their own  The body generates antibodies in response. These are the things that fight covid.

You are correct in regards to traditional vaccines (dead viruses). However, mRNA is a different beast:

Link

Quote

Modified mRNAs as Vaccines

An mRNA vaccine encodes a protein unique to a pathogen – like a virus’s spike. The two first COVID vaccines are gulped into cells and freed outside the nuclei, where the machinery that normally translates mRNAs into proteins goes to work. Soon, the cells release viral spike proteins – but not viruses – and cells of the immune system – dendritic cells and macrophages – sound the alarm. Within a few days, T cells activate B cells to crank out antibodies. Immunity has begun.

I don't understand half the terms in these medical articles but I'm starting to get the theory behind mRNA tech and why we are seeing issues in some people. What was meant to be localized immune system stimulation turns in to a free for all. 

Quote

What makes the spike protein pathogenic. What exactly are the effects, and by what mechanism?

Evidence has emerged suggesting that the spike protein encoded by the mRNA vaccines itself is cytotoxic to vascular endothelial cells (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902).
What does this mean? Maybe nothing, but it's definitely a cause for concern. It especially needs to be mentioned that nobody expected this (just like how nobody expected that the vaccine lipid particles would distribute throughout the body to the extent that they appear to.)

I think I mixed up "spike proteins" and "lipd particles" in the OP. It's the little fat globules containing the mRNA that are floating through the body, settling and beginning to generate the spike proteins (and thus inflammation,) in dangerous places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

You are correct in regards to traditional vaccines (dead viruses). However, mRNA is a different beast:

Link

My description is not an accurate description of traditional vaccines at all. It is an accurate description of mRNA ones.

You need to do some more reading. The spike proteins are not part of the body's defence. They are a part of the virus. mRNA vaccines get the body to produce just the spike proteins. The body then learns how to disable these spike proteins.

The spike proteins are what the virus uses to infect your cells. This means if you would be infected with Covid, your body now neutralises the spike proteins, meaning the virus can't get a foothold.

It also helpfully means that either the virus spike proteins don't mutate (so the vaccine still works) or they do, in which case they won't be as good at getting into your cells anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, Setton said:

My description is not an accurate description of traditional vaccines at all. It is an accurate description of mRNA ones.

You need to do some more reading. The spike proteins are not part of the body's defence. They are a part of the virus. mRNA vaccines get the body to produce just the spike proteins. The body then learns how to disable these spike proteins.

Yeah I got that part. The mRNA stimulates your cells to produce the same spikes as the virus, then your body produces antibodies to fight those spikes. 

Quote

The spike proteins are what the virus uses to infect your cells. This means if you would be infected with Covid, your body now neutralises the spike proteins, meaning the virus can't get a foothold.

Right, because you already have the antibodies before the virus ever infects you.

Quote

It also helpfully means that either the virus spike proteins don't mutate (so the vaccine still works) or they do, in which case they won't be as good at getting into your cells anyway.

Mutations are more of a concern than covid-19. Now we are facing Delta, India and likely a few more variants coming down the pipe. I worry we are going to be chasing increasingly deadly mutations for years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.