all 6 comments

[–]Canbot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bullshit. Fist off the medical community has zero credibility left on this topic. Second, this information is coming to you through the corrupt propagandist in the media. If you believe this you are a moron.

Covid is a respiratory virus. When you catch it the vast majority of it stays in your throat and lungs. There may be some that gets into your blood, but for a healthy person that is not the case. It only thrives in those conditions. It does not infect the blood and spread wildly throughout the blood the way the mRNA treatment does.

Fuck these piece of shit liars.

[–]infocom6502 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's a poor article that does not link to the original study and gives the reader a misleading impression and a very poor analysis of the paper. (FYI, I would call it deception through omission rather than classify it as censorship.)

Asymptomatic infection and mildly symptomatic infections (paucisymptomatic) are unlikely to lead any meaningful risk increases, while hospitalized serious infection will.

The big elephant in the room here is that this paper makes no distinction between asymptomatic to paucisymptomatic infections versus those on the opposite spectrum, severe and hospitalized infections. I believe almost certainly that the data pointing to concern (which definitely warrants further investigation and gathering more detail) is being driven entirely by fully symptomatic cases, or possibly even just mainly the hospitalized to severe cases. (Remember, these are still somewhat rare conditions and therefore that data will be very impacted by some hospitalized cases with a demographic of unhealthy populations (high BMI, low calcidiol levels---which is dramatically correlated with poor metabolic and cardiovascular health, poor immune function---long covid correlation, and generally poor health).

It's a study that will not be very meaningful until the authors (or another team) investigates disease severity versus risk increase of these categories.

increased risk of arterial thromboembolism (....[slight rise] after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.02, 1.82 to 2.24 at 15-21 days). Secondary analyses found increased risk of CVST after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (4.01, 2.08 to 7.71 at 8-14 days), after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (3.58, 1.39 to 9.27 at 15-21 days) .... An increased risk of CVST was observed in those who had the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine who were younger than 50 (8-14 days: 6.36, 2.61 to 15.46).


Rates of all outcomes increased with age except for CVST where the highest rates occurred in those aged 20-50 years and 60-64 years. Rates also varied by ethnicity.


This finding suggests the results were not sensitive to censoring due to death, except for reductions in incidence rate ratios for arterial thromboembolism and ischaemic stroke associated with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine at 15-21 days and CVST

[–]Budget-song-budget[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you're well informed? Impressive. Trouble is the more detailed the study, for the lay person, the more break down they need to comprehend it. So as you say omission might be their attempt to overcome that hurdle.

[–]GST893 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Still not taking the shot!

[–]Budget-song-budget[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's your choice. Don't approve of intimidation tactics, as they undermine the validity of all vaccination. Plus if like the BBC radio news presenter dies they can't reimburse her, her life. Due to the gene editing technology used in chrona virus, which had not been approved for human use, there is question mark handing over it.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–]Budget-song-budget[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Newseek has done a article on how Israel is illustrating vaccines are not preventing Covid. But they're spinning vaccine are effective! 3 jabs later at 60% take up, and they say it's because those landing in hospital are older! Due to vaccines people forgot to practice - hand cleaning etc! So what was the point squandering millions to benefit the same damm millionaires!

    Next country to illustrate how effective is UK. Only problem Tory have just ordered body bags up to 2025.

    The vaccines street cred is seriously starting to wane!