New study of jabbed in the journal "Circulation"

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Many people, including a lot of doctors and scientists, have legitimate concerns about this mRNA shot. It is not a vaccine since it does not and was not designed to prevent the acquisition nor spread of the virus. It was however designed to mitigate the symptoms. For this reason, there may be value for those at risk to get it. For the general population there is little need since the risks are extremely low. The reality is that each person needs to decide for themselves whether the risks outweigh the touted benefits of the shot.

Lies, lies and more lies. Just stop. It's not a vaccine . What does Health Canada say? What does the CDC say? Or indeed ALL national approving bodies around the world???

But instead of believing actual credible experts you choose to listen to some facebook crap. Get out of your self-imposed info silo and sample the real world of credible science.

And you are just plain wrong when you claim this disease presents an extremely low risk. A mortality rate of nearly 2% (in the USA) is no one's definition of low risk. And that doesn't even consider the morbidity, along with all the tertiary damage done to others while mostly-preventable Covid-19 patients clog up our healthcare systems. The real cost of this pandemic will take years to quantify, and goes far beyond the direct impact of the virus.

I agree, taking any vaccine should be an individual's choice. But like with all choices, they come with consequences. You choose to put yourself at risk; fine. But the rest of society also chooses NOT to put itself unnecessarily at risk from the infection you will likely spread. Hence, all the restrictions on the unvaccinated.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Lies, lies and more lies. Just stop. It's not a vaccine . What does Health Canada say? What does the CDC say? Or indeed ALL national approving bodies around the world???

But instead of believing actual credible experts you choose to listen to some facebook crap. Get out of your self-imposed info silo and sample the real world of credible science.

And you are just plain wrong when you claim this disease presents an extremely low risk. A mortality rate of nearly 2% (in the USA) is no one's definition of low risk. And that doesn't even consider the morbidity, along with all the tertiary damage done to others while mostly-preventable Covid-19 patients clog up our healthcare systems. The real cost of this pandemic will take years to quantify, and goes far beyond the direct impact of the virus.

I agree, taking any vaccine should be an individual's choice. But like with all choices, they come with consequences. You choose to put yourself at risk; fine. But the rest of society also chooses NOT to put itself unnecessarily at risk from the infection you will likely spread. Hence, all the restrictions on the unvaccinated.

Hi Mike. First, you are correct when you say the cost of this, and especially of the over reaction and lock downs will take years. A recent study of the cost of the lock down by the San Francisco Federal Reserve found that it typically takes around 30 years before a society recovers economically from a pandemic.

I am however rather disappointed in your ad hominem attack. My data comes from actual peer reviewed studies, not Facebook. This is most disappointing especially coming from you. You have, until now, been a very reasonable voice in a decreasingly civil society.

As far as consequences, someone who does not take the shot is not putting society at risk. Natural immunity is many, many times more effective than the shot. Also, and more importantly, since the shot does not prevent acquisition nor spreading, not getting the shot is putting no one at risk.

As far as it supposedly being a vaccine, the U.S. CDC, or Centers for Disease Control, changed their definition of a vaccine in September of this year. Prior to September, their definition was "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease." They changed the definition since this does not produce immunity. The new definition is now "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases." By this definition Vitamin C and zinc are vaccines, since they too stimulate the body to fight diseases.

There are also numerous studies that suggest the shot isn't effective, including some statistics that show those societies with high shot rates are spreading the virus more than those with low rates. Many suspect that this is because natural immunity works whereas the shot only lessens symptoms and provides no immunity.

There is also a recent release of statistics from the British government that, if accurate, suggests those with the shot are dying at twice the rate of those without the shot. This, in theory, makes sense since some scientists are saying that the mRNA treatment weakens the immunity system. The jury is still out on this however.

I must also question your 2% morbidity claim. Granted, I haven't looked at the figures in a while, however the last time I looked a number of months ago, it was similar to the flu. There was a fairly recent peer reviewed study that claimed the morbidity figures were highly inflated. Here in the U.S. the medical industry gets something like $30,000 for every death from the virus, so there is a rush to claim the money, regardless of whether it actually caused the death. My uncle recently died and not surprisingly, his cause of death was the virus. This, despite his stage 4 cancer and his choosing to forgo treatment due to exceptionally poor prognosis of less than one half of one percent survival. Three days before he died, he went into the hospital for an operation due to circulatory issues. Then he needed two additional operations when they finally said they can't do any more. Clearly he died from the cancer and complications yet the cause was listed as the virus. On the plus side, since it was the virus, they paid for the funeral.

What I don't understand is why people are afraid to have a civil discussion and examine the science. I don't understand why people are insistent others get the shot when it doesn't prevent the spread. Perhaps it isn't about the virus and it is about control.

[donradcliffe]

It is really hard for each person to decide for themselves when they are exposed to the level of disinformation contained in this thread.

[Mike OReilly]

Dave, natural immunity is NOT "many, many times more effective than the shot." There are numerous studies to show that, at best, it is as effective. But most credible research is indicating the vaccines produce a better immune response.

Of course the shot prevents acquisition of the disease. That's why the vast majority of current infections are in the unvaccinated.

No vaccine in history has ever produced 100% protection against the disease. All vaccines "stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases." That's how a vaccine works. Just because other things do this as well does not mean the Covid-19 vaccines aren't vaccines.

As for mortality rates, the USA's is actually 1.6%, or 236/100,000 according to John's Hopkins. Typical mortality rates for influenza range in the low/mid 20s/100,000 or .2%, so it is more than a magnitude difference.

It's been a lie of the anti crowd since the get-go that Covid-19 is not dangerous, or the risk is low, or it's just like the flu. All these things are lies being spread by the misinformed.

Of course the vaccine helps prevent spread. It helps prevent acquisition of the disease, and it significantly reduces the severity of the disease. Since Covid-19 it is spread through symptomatic activity (coughing, sneezing, snoting, etc.) this helps prevent the spread.

I'm happy to have a civil discussion on any subject. But I'm tired of all these lies being spread. And make no mistake, these are consequential lies. It's not like believing in a flat earth, a god. This lie is costing people their lives. So yeah... I'm annoyed.

[DomShangPen]

“My uncle recently died and not surprisingly, his cause of death was the virus. This, despite his stage 4 cancer and his choosing to forgo treatment due to exceptionally poor prognosis of less than one half of one percent survival. Three days before he died, he went into the hospital for an operation due to circulatory issues. Then he needed two additional operations when they finally said they can't do any more. Clearly he died from the cancer and complications yet the cause was listed as the virus“

They did the same thing with former Secretary of State Colin Powell not long ago.
The man died from cancer but was listed as covid. What a publicity stunt !!!
They think such lies and propaganda will incite people to submit to their jab. In my case it has the exact opposite effect.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DomShangPen

They did the same thing with former Secretary of State Colin Powell not long ago.
The man died from cancer but was listed as covid.

Powell had a blood cancer diagnosis - a type of cancer that greatly diminishes immunity - and then he caught COVID, and died from COVID.

We know who's lying. A great start, with your first post.

[Sand crab]

That journal allows self-publication and then the article can be peer reviewed, I think. Anyway, they have already posted a warning regarding many details in that article.


file:///C:/Users/Skeep/AppData/Local/Temp/CIR.0000000000001051.pdf

1CirculationCirculation. 2021;144:00–00. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051xxx xxx, 2021Circulation is available at www.ahajournals.org/journal/circ

© 2021 American Heart Association, Inc.
EXPRESSION OF CONCERN
Expression of Concern: Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically
Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the
PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
This article expresses concern regarding abstract “Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase En-
dothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning” which originally
published November 8, 2021; https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1....suppl_1.10712.
Soon after publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Com-
mittee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, there are
several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statisti-
cal analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.
We are publishing this Expression of Concern until a suitable correction is published to indicate that the abstract in
its current version may not be reliable

[Sand crab]

I had my jab and then a booster last week. I'm shedding like crazy and making everyone sterile. I think Bill Gates is tracking me too.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Powell had a blood cancer diagnosis - a type of cancer that greatly diminishes immunity - and then he caught COVID, and died from COVID.

We know who's lying. A great start, with your first post.

I bet CF is on some sort of auto-alert system for Covid-19 disinformation types. As soon as the subject is raised, they all come rushing in. It's amazing how many "people" with few posts show up in these threads.

I'm seriously pondering CF's moral, if not legal, role in spreading this kind of misinformation. We're seeing the large social media owners being called to account for their role. And all of them now at least attempt to flag, if not bar, these kinds of lies.

I'm very wary of any form of censorship, but I also wonder where the responsibility lies. This is especially true for issues like Covid-19, where disinformation kills.

[Lepke]

I have lung scars from my military time. I'm in my 70s and can't afford getting the covid respiratory problems. So had 2 Pfizer and a booster. I got delta 6 months after the first 2 shots. It was like a mild flu. Temp was just over 100° for a couple days, slight cough, no diarrhea, no vomiting, no breathing problems, etc., but it took about 2 weeks to feel normal.
From what I read, about 2/3 of the intensive care patients are unvaxed. Most of the dead are unvaxed. And I read a lot. Shots were not much different than any other vaccine and less painful than the flu shot. Getting a booster once or twice a year might be a pia, but better than a casket, and I get to boat a little longer.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by DomShangPen

... They did the same thing with former Secretary of State Colin Powell not long ago.
The man died from cancer but was listed as covid. What a publicity stunt !!!
They think such lies and propaganda will incite people to submit to their jab. In my case it has the exact opposite effect.

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, DomShangPen.

Colin Powell has died at age 84 of complications from COVID-19, his family confirmed.
It is unclear what the status [thought to be in remission] of Powell's multiple myeloma, and his immune system was, at the time of his death; or whether the cancer could have made him vulnerable to COVID-19, despite full vaccination. Studies have shown patients with multiple myeloma are at higher risk for severe COVID-19.
Powell had multiple myeloma, a cancer of blood plasma cells, that suppresses the body's immune response, as well as early stage Parkinson's disease.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I bet CF is on some sort of auto-alert system for Covid-19 disinformation types. As soon as the subject is raised, they all come rushing in. It's amazing how many "people" with few posts show up in these threads.

I'm seriously pondering CF's moral, if not legal, role in spreading this kind of misinformation. We're seeing the large social media owners being called to account for their role. And all of them now at least attempt to flag, if not bar, these kinds of lies.

I'm very wary of any form of censorship, but I also wonder where the responsibility lies. This is especially true for issues like Covid-19, where disinformation kills.

There is no doubt in my mind that controlling who has the right to disseminate their opinion is morally wrong and certainly not the job of the operators of discussion forums.

I learn often from disagreement and I have seen the destructive force of confirmation bias brought on by the internet and social media. We are smart enough to discern between accredited sources and made up facts and if we cannot we dig deeper.

If there has been any strong force present in the Covid information realm it has been the control of what is presented in the media. In Canada, our government and media bellow loudly that we should listen to the science until they disagree with the Science Council's conclusion on Astra Zeneca whereupon they call the presentation of the Science Council to be irresponsible. This is the fuel for all kinds of conspiracy theories and it accomplished little.

Put all the 'facts' on the table and let the cream rise to the top.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

There is no doubt in my mind that controlling who has the right to disseminate their opinion is morally wrong and certainly not the job of the operators of discussion forums.

Ah, but it is. We've always held people, and the media, responsible for the dissemination of falsehoods and lies. It's why we have defamation laws, and many general limits on free speech. Facebook and Twitter and the like have at least paid lip-service towards accepting this responsibility.

As a former journalist, I'm doubly uncomfortable with any form of censorship. But I also recognize that there are no absolute rights, and with rights come responsibilities. Where lies the responsibility for the dissemination of Covid lies? And remember, this is a lie that leads to real harm. It's not like lying about the shape of the Earth.

Originally Posted by danstanford

I learn often from disagreement and I have seen the destructive force of confirmation bias brought on by the internet and social media. We are smart enough to discern between accredited sources and made up facts and if we cannot we dig deeper.

Some are, some aren't, as demonstrated over and over in these discussions.

Originally Posted by danstanford

If there has been any strong force present in the Covid information realm it has been the control of what is presented in the media. In Canada, our government and media bellow loudly that we should listen to the science until they disagree with the Science Council's conclusion on Astra Zeneca whereupon they call the presentation of the Science Council to be irresponsible. This is the fuel for all kinds of conspiracy theories and it accomplished little.

OK, you're going to have to explain this further, or source what you're talking about. What's the "Science Council?" And what conclusion about Astra Zeneca are you refering to? I honestly don't follow (and I follow this stuff pretty closely). Are your referencing NACI (National Advisory Committee on Immunization)? What did the government call "irresponsible?"

Originally Posted by danstanford

Put all the 'facts' on the table and let the cream rise to the top.

Except one inconvenient fact is that disinformation spreads far more efficiently than boring old accurate information. We know this now through actual studies looking at human psychology, and how this is exploited by social media tools -- like CF.

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by Shanachie

Ah, our friends the anti-vaxxers are back.

it's not necessarily an anti-vaxxer that questions the mRNA vaccines. after all .. it is the most dangerous vaccine in history

[Knotical]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The website, to which longjonsilver directs us, is titled:
Finally! Medical Proof the Covid Jab is “Murder”

The “study” that the website promotes is:
“Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning” ~ by Steven R Gundry*
Abstract ➥ https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1....suppl_1.10712

* Steven R Gundry is best known for his disputed claims that lectins, a type of plant protein found in numerous foods, cause inflammation resulting in many modern diseases.[5] His Plant Paradox diet suggests avoiding all foods containing lectins.[6] Scientists and dieticians have classified Gundry's claims about lectins as pseudoscience. He sells supplements that he claims protect against or reverse the supposedly damaging effects of lectins.
➥ https://www.gripeo.com/dr-steven-gundry/
➥ https://theskepticalcardiologist.com...steven-gundry/

Love this, Gord.