SEARCH
COVID 19: Will the Vaccine Now Being Shipped Have More Risks than Benefits?
Related: electrolytes, gear, gears of the machine, health, magnesium, nutrition, risk assessment, SARS-CoV-2 aka COVID-19 aka Coronavirus, vaccination
re: COVID 19: Efficacy of Vaccines, Particularly a New and Minimally Tested COVID-19 Vaccine
It’s so reasuring to know that companies who stand to profit tell us it’s safe: Coronavirus could be under control by 'end of next summer,' BioNTech co-founder says
Life is all about risks vs rewards and I trend to the getting vaccinated side—I just had my 2nd does of Shingles vaccine, and I plan to get a pneumococcus vaccine... influenza not yet decided. Certain things, the risk/reward is clear (tetanus and DTP and polio come to mind).
But the idea that vaccines are free from side effects is absurd. And it’s all but certain than some percentage of children are in fact damaged by vaccinations, the only question is how many as a percentage. And where are the rigorous studies on vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, and all the possible health effects? Because if you don’t actually look, you won’t find out. And the FDA is not looking*.
I won’t be getting a COVID vaccine right away (and perhaps never) for two reasons. First, after finally pulling out of 6-month long-haul COVID nightmare, I am probably immune. Second, why rush to get the vaccine? I’m waiting to see what happens to the first 10 million people, though I wonder if the truth will be reported as to side effects, since you only find what you look for, and the FDA is likely to be asleep at the wheel. There is zero value in rushing this for myself. Actually there is negative value (high risk, if my experience is any guide).
TIP: never have more than one vaccination per week. The FDA has *never* evaluated the risks of more than one vaccine at a time. I am also skeptical that vaccine side effects ever been studied in any credible way, particularly vaccines containing mercury or aluminum or other metals.
TIP 2: raise your magnesium levels before getting any vaccine and supplement robustly around the time of the vaccine. Robust Mg levels help displace toxic ions including mercury and aluminum, both of which can be found in vaccines (mercury may be in the form of Thimerosol). Most people have magnesium deficiency.
Is a COVID-19 vaccine useful for the elderly?
Will the vaccine have any meaningful efficacy for those most at risk, those 75+ years old?
The claimed efficacy of 97% would make any con-artist blush with embarrassment.
Typically the elderly respond very poorly to vaccination. Are we to believe that this COVID vaccine now offers us a miracle efficacy unlike nearly all other vaccines, including an especially low efficacy for influenza vaccine?
How many people will the new vaccine damage?
COVID 19: Efficacy of Vaccines, Particularly a New and Minimally Tested COVID-19 Vaccine
With a new vaccine not yet tested in the general population with people having a wide variety of health conditions, genetic and epigenetic and gut biome differences, industrial chemicals in the body, magnesium deficiency and other nutritional issues, it is all but guaranteed that some people will be damaged, perhaps killed, by the vaccine. The question is how many, and no one can answer that—we have to vaccinate millions and see who gets screwed.
So now that a COVID-19 vaccine is literally on trucks being distributed, the question arises: will the COVID-19 vaccine have a net benefit based on a realistic risk assessment, particularly for the elderly, or might we being sold a bill of goods with 0.1% (1 in 1000) or more of people having adverse reactions, perhaps severe adverse reactions up to and including death?
I did not choose that 0.1% figure at random—it’s the COVID-19 death rate here in San Mateo County. With a new and minimally tested vaccine, it’s very possible that the severe adverse effects of a COVID-19 vaccine could exceed that 0.1% death-rate figure.
I’ve read nothing of a proper risk assessment being done for this new vaccine. One by real experts, meaning those beyond career hacks (a team must include doctors, epidemiologists, economists, psychiatrists, economic and business experts, etc NOT just medical doctors). And how could that even be determined in a few short months of testing since some issues appear over time and effects can be cumulative? Given the present hysteria over COVID-19, I have very low confidence in an objective process over at the FDA*, since the FDA has long ignored numerous problems in medications. I just don’t trust an organization where no one is accountable in any meaningful way, and political and career pressures are intense.
Realize also that vaccine produces have zero liability, so there is intense pressure to ship a vaccine, even if it might damage some small percentage of the population. You and me, we have no recourse if the vaccine hurts us or our loved ones. None, zero, nada.
* The de facto role of the FDA has been to damage health for a long time now—making drugs very expensive to get approved, denying treatment to those suffering deadly diseases, politically-driven recommendations for nutrition and health, etc.
