Thanks, asshole? Why don't you provide a source instead of your ad hominems. My estimation of death % is based off the deaths we know or estimate having happened with actual vaccine users. No, not aware of animals dying from it, especially since animal trial experiments were skipped. It's certainly not common info, so why don't you provide a link if true.
But what you described also sounds like a secondary effect, and it sounds very unlikely a study would be done that way or with enough numbers establish the "wild virus" is the cause of death (rather than being a coincidence). I've never heard of a pre-clinical animals study where animals are released into "natural habitat" -- that sounds completely absurd. Typically, a study will forcibly give each animal the virus by direct inoculation to control infection and exposure for the experiment. Not throw them to a "natural habitat" where they'll have unequal exposure to random viruses, and other variables confounding the study. That sounds completely made up, man (or the details were butchered).
And yes, short term inflammation. Because it was fucking published to happen commonly for this tech. https://ww2.icb.usp.br/icb/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Nature_reviews.pdf
These vaccines aren't the first to use it, or the first viral vaccines introduced in humans. This is a reported side effect, which has potential for lethality. I also didn't say short-term inflammation would cause an autoimmune reaction, that was a separate piece of speculation. Normal vaccines have been speculated to cause, and are associated to, increased auto-immune disease. So why not here? This emphasizes why animal studies are necessary, something we appear to agree on.
The point about ADE isn't substantiated by you. Go read up on ADE? ADE happens with vaccines and natural immunity, nothing you added indicates why it is relevant here.
It seems painful to imagine someone having to study this. It's probably going to be a bit like past psychological studies on obedience to authority, like those Milgram did, but in our era, there's no excuse, quite unlike before. We acted this poorly despite coming in a time of historical luxury. No matter the historical knowledge and opportunities we have had, society largely behaves like tribal primitive beasts in thinking and with a bit of Lord of the Flies behavior in action... only because there is a little pressure. Our age is like the dark age, even though we're in the information age. We're led by dark thinking and most just follow suit.
As a millenial, I've been feeling we're the worst generation in history for a while now.
It goes both ways. I was liberal like my parents at first, and after I was red pilled, now they can't have a conversation on politics without getting hysterical. Whatever their age, whenever they enter the liberal hive nothing rational can shake them out.
That's really weird. It didn't even make the news enough to have me notice it.
Oddly silent since then. 4/5 of the suspects got released on bail, despite being armed and evidence of planning terrorism. There was an update last year about 5 of them pleading not guilty, and that's the latest I can find. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/suspects-connected-to-new-mexico-compound-where-missing-boy-found-dead-re-indicted-on-terror-charges/85-46089f03-02a9-4bb6-9c98-cf7b82e19937
For starters, more attention and information gathering. It would be standard to do multiple interviews of people on the area and continued reporting for something of this magnitude, especially something happening on Christmas day. In normal times, the media would go into this so hard and long everyone would know about it in detail, rather than have it be forgotten within a few days.
And if the claims about some government things in there are true, like the NSA analysis (not sure if that is actually sourced so maybe wrong here), you'd expect people investigating it as a terrorism thing.
Let's say it was just some anti-5G guy off his meds. There still should be more coverage and detailed reporting.
Fair enough, though he always said he preferred treatments to vaccines. I know he tried to push that but I think he could have done more. He seemed to only have one ally around, Dr. Atlas, and had a weak grip on the CDC and most agencies' leadership. Like, he banned woke critical race theory and the CDC is like "nah we're doing it anyway". One of his biggest problems again, lack of control over the government agencies that have become bloated and he didn't get rid of internal opposition.
This is actually what I worry about too. The chance for death is probably unpredictable and a low chance, which is still a huge deal, but that doesn't even cover all the problems that are probably more likely.
I'm familiar with the general technology, and in cases where it is not generating an immune reaction, I do not expect huge adverse effects outside of short term inflammation. But I can imagine so much going wrong when this tech is used for a vaccine. Part of the immune reaction for viruses including COVID includes T-cells killing your own infected cells. Getting a shit load of infected cells and having your immune system attack you is not a pleasant scenario. I expect that causes tissue damage that could be lasting, severe inflammation, and perhaps loss of key cells at random (say, tissue stem cells that regenerate tissue over your life). Extreme inflammation could cause lasting effects because of the positive feedback inflammation has in a variety of ways on itself and general dysfunction. I expect the vaccine will cause accelerated aging and greater risk for about any disease influenced by health status later on. Even more speculatively, I wonder if there is a chance at generating an auto-immune disease. And for the JJ and AstraZeneca DNA-based vaccines, I think side effects could be worse.
What does the John Hopkins SPARS scenario refer to?
Agenda, perhaps, but not ideology. I was watching a livestream on YT a bit yesterday and randos were saying "yay I got the vaccine I can go out and have fun". The masses getting it are mostly true believers who probably tend to think they're elite and smarter for getting it.
Striking numbers, though, we're in the internet age. I was a kid in the 90s so can't say, but how many adults would be aware of VAERS for vaccines? There is a greater chance of reporting to occur because of that, though in the last 10 years I suppose it may not matter, except now there's hyper attention on vaccines. I think if we can get more comprehensive data it would become more persuasive.
I predict vaccine proponents will hand wave their way out of this data by saying it may include temporary numbers or it's not verified by a physician. IMO to get some rock solid numbers we need to simply have number of standardized medical events for a vaccine group sample and non-vaccinated, like # of hospitalizations and deaths. The results would objectively statistically demonstrate the comparative risk for health risk with vaccine vs normal (including from COVID), and there is little anyone could do to fast talk out of it besides claiming the numbers are wrong. This approach should capture everything holistically, is the standard in science, and accounts for all the major variables. And to just look at vaccine risk alone we could compare current vs. other years.
The problem is I don't think VAERS is comprehensive and I don't think there is an easily accessed alternative. Would be very hard to get comprehensive data, I think, but might be possible in some areas that do data reporting regularly.
When I saw this post title, I thought someone made a movie to illustrate how insane journalists and society have gotten. Then I realized, it's probably going to make this character out to be the good guy. You'd still have to imagine this would backfire among sane people, despite cues from the movie trying to make it seem good.
I didn't think about that. Examining military cases might be the best way to resolve flu vs. covid case controversy. Though we could also use samples from outside, the data management is horrendous, so this should be way more persuasive. And I didn't realize that was how they designed the flu vaccine, that could end up being very impactful. If it did lead to widespread flu as a result, though, I guess they'd just call it COVID again.
Sounds right. Going OT, but now I wonder what the flu rates are for the vaccine in the military compared to out. I actually stopped getting the flu vaccine because of a bad reaction, but I go years at a time without the flu, though maybe I've had some very minor cases I don't remember. Given the uniformity and strictness the military would make for a relatively controlled study of whether masks work, whether zinc works, etc.
So is there a law that says some FDA approved intervention can be enforced by employers? Like say if there was some occupational risk that had an FDA approved preventative, could the employer only make the job open to people who took such?
This makes me wonder about the military. I assume with a lot of their woke higher ups that they have these days would love to mandate vaccines. So if the military can't, probably no one can legally require it.
Funny you should mention MN bailouts atm, "unemployment MN" seems to be trending right now apparently. My hand accidentally slipped and entered a U into the duckduckgo start page and that was the 10th autosuggestion or so... only from 1 letter!