Covid-19 Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 5 - Get vaccinated.

Remove this Banner Ad

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infec...d-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf

In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated people it was 561 per 100,000, a more than 10-fold difference. The rates of COVID-19 ICU admissions or deaths peaked in the fortnight 8 September to 21 September at 0.9 per 100,000 in 2-dose vaccinated people compared to 15.6 per 100,000 in unvaccinated people, a greater than 16-fold difference.
 
Last edited:
Did Pfizer ever make the claim their vaccine stopped transmission?
Of course not. Vaccines can't stop transmission. Some can cause the immune system to kick in and stop a virus replicating to the point where it deosn't give symptoms or be detectable with current technology. Pfizer was actually surprisingly effective at this until the virus mutated enough and was able to replicate enough to become detectable and for people to get symptoms.
 
Lol at the deniers. Theres countless examples of Fauci, Biden, the press sec, and all the CNN talking heads stating that the "vaccine" stops transmission and prevents people from contracting covid19.

But you sheeple cant admit when you're wrong. Colour me surprised...

Keep getting your myocarditis boosters!!

Getting covid while unvaccinated has a higher risk of myocarditis, compared to vaccinations.

To still be getting this wrong after all these years Jenny, it makes you look quite slow on the uptake.
 
Theres countless examples of Fauci, Biden, the press sec, and all the CNN talking heads stating that the "vaccine" stops transmission and prevents people from contracting covid19.
Think I posted a video earlier showing how Fauci has been taken out of context.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Got proof of that? Did facebook fact checkers tell you this? What other misinformation have you swallowed? Or should i say, injected?



Dont hear too many talk about herd immunity these days do we? But governments were quite happy to force people to lose their jobs and means of earning a living for an experimental vaccine that hasnt lived up to the big pharma promises.

Once we have immunity across the population, the virus is slowed. This means that transmission slows. You're posting something from January 2021.
 
Of course not. Vaccines can't stop transmission. Some can cause the immune system to kick in and stop a virus replicating to the point where it deosn't give symptoms or be detectable with current technology. Pfizer was actually surprisingly effective at this until the virus mutated enough and was able to replicate enough to become detectable and for people to get symptoms.

Not going around coughing everywhere reduces transmission.
So if the vaccine prevents symptoms, it can help reduce transmission.
 
Same for Covid. The risk/benefit analysis should have been up to the individual.
We already had no jab no play rules for other vaccination. So you can take your demand for individuals decision and shove it up your arse.
 
Got a link as that sounds like unsubstantiated bullshit.


"In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91-99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12-18])."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)


"In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91-99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12-18])."
Thanks for link; unfortunately it doesn’t describe the symptom severity (is one more likely to be just a meaningless troponin bump and is the other more likely to cause impact on quality of life)

Edit: other sources state that this is an outlier study - ie no one else has found the same thing


and also with vaccination myocarditis, this study shows it is actually a nothing burger


while COVID myocarditis is more serious than COVID without myocarditis


though possibly not super serious as well


also incidence of myocarditis post covid vax is not much different compared to any other regular vaccination (the one quoted specifically here is influenza) with the exception of small pox vaccine which has a much higher incidence of myocarditis than covid vaccine

 
Last edited:
Thanks for link; unfortunately it doesn’t describe the symptom severity (is one more likely to be just a meaningless troponin bump and is the other more likely to cause impact on quality of life)


Not necessarily. "The primary cause of death was determined to be myocarditis, causally-associated with the BNT162b2 vaccine."


"We report the autopsy results, including microscopic myocardial findings, of 2 teenage boys who died within the first week after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose. The microscopic findings are not the alterations seen with typical myocarditis. "
 

Not necessarily. "The primary cause of death was determined to be myocarditis, causally-associated with the BNT162b2 vaccine."


"We report the autopsy results, including microscopic myocardial findings, of 2 teenage boys who died within the first week after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose. The microscopic findings are not the alterations seen with typical myocarditis. "
single events while unfortunate for the individual do not mean much, you could be that individual and die from COVID if you are also unlucky.
if the vaccine was very dangerous these events would be a lot more common and would have been noted in the studies I posted (after your reply)
 
single events while unfortunate for the individual do not mean much, you could be that individual and die from COVID if you are also unlucky.
if the vaccine was very dangerous these events would be a lot more common and would have been noted in the studies I posted (after your reply)

This is from one the studies you posted.

"Post-vaccination myocarditis is predominantly seen in young male patients in their early 20,s with an average age of 21 years. Most patients with vaccine-induced myocarditis present within a few days following the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines. The most common presenting symptom is chest pain followed by fever and myalgia or general body ache. The electrocardiogram is abnormal in most patients and may show either ST-segment elevation or T waves inversion or non-specific ST-segment changes. Most patients have elevated troponin I and raised inflammatory markers on blood tests and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging shows late gadolinium enhancement which indicate myocardial necrosis or fibrosis in these patients.

What do those studies mean when they say recovered from myocarditis?

It says necrotic tissue and fibrosis. The heart doesn't repair itself. That's permanent damage.

I assume they mean the inflammation dies down and the incident doesn't escalate to death, not that they leave hospital without the heart being compromised and now in a higher risk category of heart failure.

IMO the vaccines don't have to be that dangerous, to be poor statistical choice for certain age and health brackets.
 
Myocarditis 8x more likely after Covid than vaccine, even for young males



It looks like some here attended the Joe Rogan School of Medicine, followed by a postgrad course in “Refusing to Admit You Were Wrong”.
 
Myocarditis 8x more likely after Covid than vaccine, even for young males



It looks like some here attended the Joe Rogan School of Medicine, followed by a postgrad course in “Refusing to Admit You Were Wrong”.


That’s been countered, Rogan was kinda right. He said young people but it’s really young men. The authors of the study they refer to did an update where they stratified age and sex cohorts. Previously they conflated sex and age data.

They rereleased the study with age and sex break down for men:


E594B133-0F0B-4FC8-86DE-F5D580FAFF27.png

I got the graph from this sub stack from Dr Vinay Prasad: who is pro-vaccine himself, but believes there should be transparency and intellectual integrity in order to keep faith in vaccines and learn techniques that may limit the risks; such as spreading the doses further apart.

 
Last edited:
That’s been countered, Rogan was kinda right. He said young people but it’s really young men. The authors of the study they refer to did an update where they stratified age and sex cohorts. Previously they conflated sex and age data.

They rereleased the study with age and sex break down for men:


View attachment 1538502

I got the graph from this sub stack from Dr Vinay Prasad: who is pro-vaccine himself, but believes there should be transparency and intellectual integrity in order to keep faith in vaccines and learn techniques that may limit the risks; such as spreading the doses further apart.


So with mRNA-1273 jabs (only) in a specific cohort (young men) there were an additional 100 incidents (per million people) of myocarditis requiring hospitalization?

And the other vaccines in the table above, have negligible increased risk in that cohort (10 per million ballpark)?

And you're putting that forward as a reason why that cohort (young men) should be able to refuse any vaccine?

Surely (if anything) it just means that this cohort (young men) should consider a different vaccine (if they're worried about a slightly elevated 1 in 10,000 chance of getting myocarditis, weighed as against the benefits personally and communally of getting vaccinated).

One of the other vaccines in the table above for example.
 
So with mRNA-1273 jabs (only) in a specific cohort (young men) there were an additional 100 incidents (per million people) of myocarditis requiring hospitalization?

And the other vaccines in the table above, have negligible increased risk in that cohort (10 per million ballpark)?

And you're putting that forward as a reason why that cohort (young men) should be able to refuse any vaccine?

Surely (if anything) it just means that this cohort (young men) should consider a different vaccine (if they're worried about a slightly elevated 1 in 10,000 chance of getting myocarditis, weighed as against the benefits personally and communally of getting vaccinated).

One of the other vaccines in the table above for example.
We are only defining this issue now. Could be a gamut of issues to come. With so much still subjective and undetermined, the only moral decision is choice.
 
This is from one the studies you posted.

"Post-vaccination myocarditis is predominantly seen in young male patients in their early 20,s with an average age of 21 years. Most patients with vaccine-induced myocarditis present within a few days following the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines. The most common presenting symptom is chest pain followed by fever and myalgia or general body ache. The electrocardiogram is abnormal in most patients and may show either ST-segment elevation or T waves inversion or non-specific ST-segment changes. Most patients have elevated troponin I and raised inflammatory markers on blood tests and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging shows late gadolinium enhancement which indicate myocardial necrosis or fibrosis in these patients.

What do those studies mean when they say recovered from myocarditis?

It says necrotic tissue and fibrosis. The heart doesn't repair itself. That's permanent damage.

I assume they mean the inflammation dies down and the incident doesn't escalate to death, not that they leave hospital without the heart being compromised and now in a higher risk category of heart failure.

IMO the vaccines don't have to be that dangerous, to be poor statistical choice for certain age and health brackets.
Similar permanent damage accumulates over lifetime.
Recovered means no clinical change in outcomes ie exercise tolerance and mobility
Any reply to the incidence of vaccine myocarditis being similar to existing vaccines like flu shot?
 
We are only defining this issue now. Could be a gamut of issues to come. With so much still subjective and undetermined, the only moral decision is choice.
well you still had choice
Choice has consequences though.
 
Anti-vax, anti-masker, blocks anyone who disagrees with him.

No, not a good source.

You don't get to determine the truth of a work by how well liked someone is by people you like. That's not an argument founded in epistemology.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top