“We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes.”
Dr. Eric Rubin on the FDA panel deciding on whether to give the “SARS-COV-2” vaccines approval for 5-11-year-olds https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/10/26/fda-panel-member-were-never-gonna-learn-about-how-safe-the-vaccine-is-until-we-start-giving-it-n2598090
“That’s just the way it goes.” Just accept it. We need to give ourselves and our children unproven experimental toxins injected directly into the bloodstream for a “virus” never scientifically proven to exist so that the researchers can see how “safe” this practice ultimately is. It’s not like we have decades of rushed vaccine efforts leading to injury and death to look back upon in order to see that this is a dangerous and disastrous path.
Oh wait, that’s exactly what we have. While I could go back pretty far to outline the knowledge the scientific community had about the dangers of vaccination, the Salk/Sabin Polio vaccine campaign of the 1950’s and 60’s offers a compelling parallel to what is occurring with the “SARS-COV-2” mass vaccination campaign today.
Let’s start with excerpts from a letter by virologist Thomas Rivers (yep, that same one who watered-down Koch’s Postulates in 1937) regarding the Polio vaccine by Jonas Salk:
VACCINE FOR POLIOMYELITIS
To the Editor:–For many years I have followed the work of a number of investigators who were attempting to develop an effective vaccine for the prevention of paralytic poliomyelitis.
In the March 28, 1953, issue of The Journal in a paper entitled “Studies in Human Subjects on Active Immunization Against Poliomyelitis: 1. A Preliminary Report of Experiments in Progress,” Dr. Jonas E. Salk pointed out how the contributions of numerous investigators have resolved many of the basic problems leading to the reasonable expectation that a vaccine for poliomyelitis may now be achieved.
I have been kept informed of the progress of these investigations, and it seems to me that the recent paper by Dr. Salk provides substantial evidence that a practical vaccine against human paralytic poliomyelitis can be achieved by the use of virus propagated in tissue culture, rendered noninfectious by treatment with a solution of formaldehyde, and administered in the form of a mineral oil emulsion. It is evident that any investigator who possesses a promising preparation for the prevention of a human disease is faced with a decision either to conduct innumerable small-scale studies with relatively few subjects, in an effort to develop more effective preparations before widespread application, or to employ the experimental preparation in large numbers of human subjects even though the preparation may not yet possess all of the refinements ultimately desired. The temptation will be great to urge that the experimental vaccine studied by Dr. Salk be prepared for immediate widespread use. Such enthusiasm, however, should be tempered not only by the realization of what we do know but, perhaps even more, by what we do not know.
Because of the social as well as the scientific problems created by Dr. Salk’s work, I suggested that the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis meet with Dr. Salk to consider the future course of his work.”
“At this meeting, it was our privilege to hear from Dr. Salk a full and detailed account of the studies he has carried out to date. As a result of the critical evaluation that followed, this group recommended that (1) before large-scale field trials are initiated, additional studies involving increasing numbers of persons be undertaken to extend the experience already accumulated; (2) such studies be limited to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (3) such studies be stopped for that part of the summer of 1953 during which poliomyelitis might be prevalent in order to avoid instances of poliomyelitis occurring shortly after vaccination being erroneously attributed to the immunization procedure; and (4) these investigations be resumed on an ever-increasing scale after the poliomyelitis season is passed and that they be conducted in a sufficient number of communities to permit a controlled evaluation of the effectiveness of this preparation during the summer of 1954. There is every indication that the preparation in question is as safe as any other vaccine now widely used against diseases other than poliomyelitis. However, only by gradual extension in ever-increâsing groups of persons and in a systematic fashion as herein indicated can this be established with the certainty required before testing the validity of the experimental vaccine against poliomyelitis under epidemic circumstances.
This letter is written with the knowledge and approval of the persons who attended the special meeting to consider this problem. The opinions herein expressed are conveyed to you in the hope that every assistance will be given to Dr. Salk so that it may be determined whether the preparation that he has developed is the long-sought, practical means for the control of human paralytic poliomyelitis. In conclusion I would like to emphasize Dr. Salk’s own statement that, while the results obtained in his studies “can be regarded as encouraging, they should not be interpreted to indicate that a practical vaccine is now at hand.”
Thomas M. Rivers, M.D.
Director, Hospital of the Rockefeller
Institute for Medical Research
New York 21.
doi:10.1001/jama.1953.02940140068025
It seemed that Thomas Rivers, while enthusiastic about the prospect of Salk’s Polio vaccine, also had some concerns about its safety and efficacy, especially regarding what was not known about the effects the tissue-cultured concoction would have on the general populace. Even Salk himself attempted to tamper down expectations. What did these two men know that the rest of the scientific community ignored?
Sadly, even with the increased vaccine precautions outlined above, things went horribly wrong with the Salk (and later Sabin) Polio vaccine. The first evidence that Rivers was right to have concerns (however genuine they truly were) come from the Cutter Incident in 1955:
The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis
“In April 1955 more than 200,000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.”
“The Cutter incident led to the replacement of Salk’s formaldehyde-treated vaccine with Sabin’s attenuated strain. Though Sabin’s vaccine had the advantages of being administered orally and of fostering wider ‘contact immunity’, it could also be re-activated by passage through the gut, resulting in occasional cases of polio (still causing paralysis in six to eight children every year in the 1980s and 1990s, when a modified Salk vaccine was re-introduced). As Offit observes, ‘ironically, the Cutter incident—by creating the perception among scientists and the public that Salk’s vaccine was dangerous —led in part to the development of a polio vaccine that was more dangerous’.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/
According to the history books, the Cutter Incident occurred because the Polio “virus” inactivation procedures were not followed correctly by Cutter Laboratories. Due to this misstep, “live virus” vaccines were injected into the unsuspecting victims which caused many cases of paralysis and even death. No consideration was given to the fact that it was the toxic ingredients of the vaccine made from emulsified monkey kidneys and formaldehyde (along with who knows what else) that was to blame for the severe reactions. Thus, the vaccination campaign continued unquestioned for another 8 years.
It wasn’t until 1963 that the concerns about the dangers of the Polio vaccines were once again raised in the form of the SV40 contamination:
Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer
“Some of the polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with a virus, called simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. Researchers have long wondered about the effects of the contaminated vaccine on people who received it. Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it might have caused cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk. However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.”
SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine
“The tissue cultures used to grow poliovirus for the vaccines in question came from kidneys of rhesus and cynomolgus macaques.2 In 1960, Sweet and Hilleman (1960) reported that these tissues could be infected with SV40, a pre- viously unknown virus that commonly infects rhesus macaques. SV40 is a member of the polyomav~rus family3. Soon after its discovery, SV40 was shown to be able to produce tumors in hamsters and to transform human cells in culture (Eddy et al., 1961, 1962; Girardi et al., 1962; Koprowski et al., 1962; Shein and Enders, 1962a,b). Testing confirmed that some of the tissue cultures used in producing inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were contaminated with SV40. In 1961, the U.S. government established requirements for testing to verify that all new lots of polio vaccine are free of SV40 (Egan, 2002). Potentially contaminated vaccine from previously approved lots of IPV was not recalled, however, and might have been used until 1963.
Current formulations of IPV and OPV available in the United States are required by the FDA to be free of SV40. The IPV produced today uses poliovirus grown on Vero cells, a continuous line of green monkey kidney cells. OPV is no longer produced in the United States, but as the recommended vaccine to control polio outbreaks, a stockpile of OPV is available for these purposes (CDC, 2000). The OPV was produced in the United States in monkeys raised in colonies free from SV40 or grown in Vero cells and was screened for viruses, including SV40 (Sutter et al., 1999).
IPV administered between 1955 and 1963 to about 98 million children and adults is assumed to be the primary source of human exposure to SV40 in the United States. In addition, experimental lots of OPV contaminated with SV40 are known to have been administered to about 10,000 people participating in clinical trials between 1959 and 1961. Tests of stored samples of the IPV that had been administered in the United States from May through July in 1955 found varied levels of SV40 contamination, with some vaccine showing no contamination (Fraumeni et al., 1963). From these data, Shah and Nathanson (1976) estimated that 10% to 30% of IPV contained live SV40 and that similar percentages of the approximately 98 million Americans who had been vaccinated by 1961 were exposed to SV40.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25057632/
For 8 years, the ignorant people fearful of a “virus” never scientifically proven to exist nor cause disease, lined up for experimental injections that caused harm to hundreds of thousands (a very likely undercount). With the discovery of SV40 contaminating the vaccines, it was clear that the tissue-culture technique which led to the creation of unpurified toxic concoctions was to blame for the various severe reactions. Still, the long-term effects were unknown at the time. Eventually, the Polio vaccines became associated not only with the symptoms of disease they were supposed to protect against but also an increased future cancer risk. Sounds pretty familiar to what is sadly happening today.
The early incidents with the Polio vaccine are not the only instances of these experimental medical interventions causing harm. A quick look at the CDC’s very own list of historical vaccine safety concerns presents an alarming picture of a repeating pattern of mistakes with various “viruses” and vaccines:
Swine Flu Vaccine and Guillain-Barre Syndrome – 1976
“In 1976 there was a small increased risk of a serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following vaccination with a swine flu vaccine. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. When over 40 million people were vaccinated against swine flu, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization until the issue could be explored.”
Hepatitis B Vaccine and Multiple Sclerosis – 1998
“In 1998, some research caused concern that hepatitis B vaccination might be linked with multiple sclerosis (MS), a progressive nerve disease.”
Rotavirus Vaccine and Intussusception 1998-1999
“In 1998, the FDA approved RotaShield vaccine, the first vaccine to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis. Shortly after it was licensed, some infants developed intussusception (rare type of bowel obstruction that occurs when the bowel folds in on itself) after being vaccinated. At first, it was not clear if the vaccine or some other factor was causing the bowel obstructions. CDC quickly recommended that use of the vaccine be suspended and immediately started two emergency investigations to find out if receiving RotaShield vaccine was causing some of the cases of intussusception.
The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition.”
GBS and Meningococcal Vaccine – 2005 – 2008
“There were concerns that the meningococcal vaccine Menactra caused a serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Between 2005 and 2008, there were a number of youth who reported GBS after receiving Menactra.”
HiB Vaccine Recall – 2007
“In 2007, Merck & Company, Inc. voluntarily recalled 1.2 million doses of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccines due to concerns about potential contamination with bacteria called B. cereus. The recall was a precaution, and after careful review, no evidence of B. cereus infection was found in recipients of recalled Hib vaccines.”
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine and Narcolepsy – 2009 – 2010
“An increased risk of narcolepsy (a chronic sleep disorder) was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine that was used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. This risk was initially found in Finland, and then some other European countries also detected an association.”
Porcine Circovirus and Rotavirus Vaccines – 2010
“Porcine circovirus (PCV) is a common virus found in pigs. In 2010, it was discovered that both rotavirus vaccines licensed in the U.S.- Rotarix and RotaTeq- contained PCV type 1. PCV1 is not known to cause disease in animals or humans. In fact, PCV is common in healthy pigs, and humans are routinely exposed to the virus by eating pork. Safety monitoring of both vaccines has not shown any reason for concern about PCV.”
HPV Vaccine Recall – 2013
“In 2013, Merck & Company, Inc. recalled one batch of Gardasil, a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The recall was a precaution following an error in the manufacturing process. The company had concerns that a small number of vials might have contained glass particles due to breakage.”
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html
Keep in mind that this list is what the CDC actually admits to even though they claim their own researchers/studies found no evidence in some of the cases. They fail to mention obvious vaccine concerns such as the association between the MMR vaccine and autism, the oral polio vaccine and increased cases of paralysis in third world countries, and the HPV vaccine and its association to cervical cancer. However, even without those admittances, the CDC timeline is a very disturbing picture of a history of repeated mistakes which exposed otherwise “virus-free” people to dangerous and deadly side effects.
In Summary:
- According to a 1953 letter by virologist Thomas Rivers (of the revised Koch’s Postulates fame), the work of Jonas Salk provided evidence that a vaccine against poliomyelitis could be achieved by the use of “virus” propagated in tissue culture, rendered noninfectious by treatment with a solution of formaldehyde, and administered in the form of a mineral oil emulsion
- He warned that the temptation would be great to bypass innumerable small-scale studies with relatively few subjects, in an effort to develop more effective preparations before widespread application, and to employ the experimental preparation in large numbers of human subjects even though the preparation may not yet possess all of the refinements ultimately desired
- Rivers stated that such enthusiasm should be tempered “not only by the realization of what we do know but, perhaps even more, by what we do not know“
- Due to the social as well as the scientific problems created by Dr. Salk’s work, Rivers set up a meeting between the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis with Dr. Salk to consider the future course of his work
- The group recommended four guidelines:
- Before large-scale field trials are initiated, additional studies involving increasing numbers of persons be undertaken to extend the experience already accumulated
- The studies should be limited to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
- Studies should be stopped during the summer of 1953 when polio might be prevalent in order to avoid instances of polio occurring shortly after vaccination being attributed to the immunization procedure
- These investigations be resumed on an ever-increasing scale after the poliomyelitis season is passed and that they be conducted in a sufficient number of communities to permit a controlled evaluation of the effectiveness of this preparation during the summer of 1954
- Rivers claimed that only by gradual extension in ever-increâsing groups of persons and in a systematic fashion can safety/efficacy be established with the certainty required before testing the validity of the experimental vaccine against polio under epidemic circumstances
- In conclusion, Rivers emphasized Dr. Salk’s own statement that, while the results obtained in his studies “can be regarded as encouraging, they should not be interpreted to indicate that a practical vaccine is now at hand.”
- In April 1955 more than 200,000 children in five states received a “defective” polio vaccine
- It was later revealed that this incident had caused 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10
- The Cutter incident led to Salk’s vaccine being abandoned and replaced by Albert Sabin’s oral vaccine
- However, the oral vaccine could be “re-activated” by passage through the gut, which resulted in cases of polio causing paralysis in six to eight children every year in the 1980s and 1990s, when a modified Salk vaccine was re-introduced
- Some of the polio vaccines administered from 1955–1963 were contaminated with a “virus,” called “simian virus 40” (SV40)
- The “virus” was said to be from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine
- Researchers have long wondered about the effects of the contaminated vaccine on people who received it
- Epidemiological studies claiming that there was no increased cancer risk were determined to be sufficiently flawed by the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee
- They concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer
- There is biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers
- The tissue cultures used to grow poliovirus for the vaccines in question came from kidneys of rhesus and cynomolgus macaques which were said to contain the “virus”
- It is claimed that SV40 was shown to be able to produce tumors in hamsters and to transform human cells in culture
- Testing confirmed that some of the tissue cultures used in producing inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were contaminated with SV40
- Even though the government established SV40 screening requirements in 1961, potentially contaminated vaccine from previously approved lots of IPV were not recalled and might have been used until 1963
- The IPV produced today uses poliovirus grown on Vero cells (also said to harbor monkey “viruses”), a continuous line of green monkey kidney cells
- OPV is no longer produced in the United States (yet it is still used in other parts of the world), but as the recommended vaccine to control polio outbreaks, a stockpile of OPV is available for these purposes
- IPV administered between 1955 and 1963 to about 98 million children and adults is assumed to be the primary source of human exposure to SV40 in the United States
- Experimental lots of OPV contaminated with SV40 were known to have been administered to about 10,000 people participating in clinical trials between 1959 and 1961
- Shah and Nathanson (1976) estimated that 10% to 30% of IPV contained live SV40 and that similar percentages of the approximately 98 million Americans who had been vaccinated by 1961 were exposed to SV40
- In 1976, there was an increased risk of a serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following vaccination with a swine flu vaccine which led to the halting of the vaccine campaign
- In 1998, some research caused concern that hepatitis B vaccination might be linked with multiple sclerosis
- In 1998, the rotavirus vaccine caused infants to develop intussusception (rare type of bowel obstruction that occurs when the bowel folds in on itself) after being vaccinated
- From 2005 – 2008, there were concerns that the meningococcal vaccine Menactra caused a serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in the youth
- In 2007, Merck & Company, Inc. voluntarily recalled 1.2 million doses of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccines due to concerns about potential contamination with bacteria called B. cereus
- From 2009 – 2010, an increased risk of narcolepsy (a chronic sleep disorder) was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine
- In 2010, Porcine circovirus (PCV), a common “virus” found in pigs, was discovered in both rotavirus vaccines licensed in the U.S.- Rotarix and RotaTeq
- In 2013, Merck & Company, Inc. recalled one batch of Gardasil, a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine due to concerns that a small number of vials might have contained glass particles due to breakage
That brings us back to today where we have a rushed mass vaccination campaign for an experimental mRNA gene therapy that began while “in season” on a large-scale population with limited safety/efficacy data. Reports from VAERS are proving that the “vaccines” themselves are highly dangerous. Warning labels have already been added to the Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and AstraZeneca vaccines for serious and potentially lethal reactions such as anaphylaxis, blood clots, myocarditis, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Meanwhile, like the Polio “virus” before it, there is no purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2” proven pathogenic causing disease. Unknown toxins are being haphazardly injected into an ignorant population that has been subjected to a successful FEAR campaign bolstered by inaccurate PCR results. What potential horrors await those injected once we look back at this event a few years down the road?
It’s becoming ever-increasingly clear that we are incapable of learning from the past.
ViroLIEgy 
Hello
What can one say? The utter vileness or even vial-ness as this ghastly stuff that comes in vials is beyond belief. That people ignore the side effects and still get poisoned, and pay for it by their taxes or even I see in the USA paying through the nose for it is utterly diabolical.
But thank you for all you do to expose the truth. The beast must be killed once and for all.
Yours, Bladmichael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it is unfortunate so many continue to sleep on the numerous well known and documented side effects. I only hope that this “pandemic” will finally open their eyes to the evils of vaccination. I will continue to do my part to help them see the truth. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you make of the claim that almost everyone who got the covid inoculation has had no side effects?
Supposedly, over 4 billion people have taken the covid inoculations and there are supposedly almost no verified deaths from it.
LikeLike
I have not seen that claim. According to the CDC, VAERS has received 10,688 reports of death among people who received a “COVID-19” vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
It has been estimated that less than 1% of deaths and adverse events are reported to VAERS. That would mean at the very least, 1 million people have been killed by the vaccines. This does not include any serious, life-threatening, or chronic conditions reported and caused by vaccination. The deaths by vaccination alone would equal more than the 850,000 deaths associated with “Covid-19.” Also, CDC director Walensky has yet to release the numbers for how many of those 850,000 deaths were from “Covid” versus those who died from some other condition after being pegged with a positive test result. This is a case where the treatment is worse than the disease.
IMO, anyone claiming the vaccinations are harmless is in denial.
LikeLike
I much appreciate that you’ve responded to my comment. Thanks.
Anyway, why should I trust that the people who reported to VAERS had their side effects caused by the “vaccine?”
And what is your evidence that only ~1% of people who had side effects reported there?
Thanks.
LikeLike
You are very welcome. The VAERS database is for reporting vaccine injuries and deaths. I guess it’s up to you whether you want to believe the reports or not but that is what the database is intended to track.
As for the 1% claim, it comes from a Harvard study sponsored by the HHS and essentially silenced by the CDC:
“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1–13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”
Click to access r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
This is a great article on the underreporting and failings of VAERS:
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/
ICAN also reported underreporting of anaphylaxis due to the “Covid” vaccine:
https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/underreporting-of-serious-injuries-to-vaers-confirmed-by-new-study/
LikeLike
I would think that many people who report a side effect to VAERS had a condition unrelated to the vaccine, but that occurred coincidentally at the same time as the “vaccine,” like with “covid deaths.”
LikeLike
While it may be possible that there may be those who had underlying conditions that could possibly be reported as vaccine injuries, this would be rather unlikely to be reported as most do not know of or report to the database. The conditions being reported most regularly such as anaphylaxis, blood clots, myocarditis, Guillain Barre Syndrome, etc. are less likely to be due to underlying conditions and actual adverse reactions from the vaccines. In fact, warnings have been added to the vaccines due to the prevalence of these conditions upon vaccination. It is much more likely adverse reactions caused by the vaccines are either under reported or not reported at all versus underlying health problems being reported as vaccine injuries.
LikeLike
What makes you say actual side effects are more likely?
And thanks for all your responses so far.
LikeLike
You bet! The side effects of vaccination are well known and documented. The fact that the FDA has added warning labels for anaphylaxis, blood clots, myocarditis, and GBS is admittance these reactions are caused by the vaccines. I have yet to see any reports on false reporting of chronic or underlying health conditions to VAERS. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it seems rather unlikely, especially in light of admittances that many actual vaccine injuries go unreported.
What makes you believe VAERS would be full of non-vaccine related adverse event reports?
LikeLike
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/does-vaers-list-deaths-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines
Supposedly, if any *potential* negative effect happened within a certain time of getting a vaccine, it must be reported to VAERS.
What do you say regarding that?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Yes, they are supposed to be reported after vaccination. They say vaccine reactions are supposed to be reported within 2 weeks yet they do not have any long-term safety data showing adverse reactions do not happen after that time frame. VAERS is the way this is tracked. Will there be false reports? Possibly, but that would happen with any reporting system. That would not mean that the whole system is flawed and that the reports are not accurate. As I’ve stated, they admit that negative vaccine reactions go unreported and underestimated. It Is admitted that the vaccines cause negative reactions. Some (not all) of hese are on the warning labels. There is no reason to assume they are safe, especially since there are numerous reports stating otherwise. Even the US Supreme court stated vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. This is what is admitted to with the Pfizer vaccine:
“WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF COMIRNATY (COVID-19 VACCINE, mRNA) AND THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
THERE IS A REMOTE CHANCE THAT THE VACCINE COULD CAUSE A SEVERE ALLERGIC REACTION. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after getting a dose of the vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after vaccination.
SIGNS OF A SEVERE ALLERGIC REACTION can include:
• Difficulty breathing
• Swelling of your face and throat
• A fast heartbeat
• A bad rash all over your body
• Dizziness and weakness
MYOCARDITIS (INFLAMMATION OF THE HEART MUSCLE) and PERICARDITIS (INFLAMMATION OF THE LINING OUTSIDE THE HEART) HAVE OCCURED in some people who have received COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
IN MOST OF THESE PEOPLE, SYMPTOMS BEGAN WITHIN A FEW DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF THE SECOND DOSE OF VACCINE. The chance of having this occur is very low. You should seek medical attention right away if you have any of the following symptoms after receiving the vaccine:
• Chest pain
• Shortness of breath
• Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart
Side effects that have been reported with COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or
the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine include:
• SEVERE ALLERGIC REACTIONS
• non-severe allergic reactions such as rash, itching, hives, or swelling of the face
• MYOCARDITIS (inflammation of the heart muscle)
• PERICARDITIS (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)
• injection site pain
• tiredness
• headache
• muscle pain
• chills
• joint pain
• fever
• injection site swelling
• injection site redness
• nausea
• feeling unwell
• swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy)
• diarrhea
• vomiting
• arm pain
THESE MAY NOT BE ALL THE POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE VACCINE. Serious and unexpected
side effects may occur. THE POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE VACCINE ARE STILL BEING STUDIED IN CLINICAL TRIALS.”
https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download#page=2
LikeLike
But wouldn’t a lot of random, vaccine-unrelated events happen within two weeks of “vaccination?”
LikeLike
Possibly. However, anaphylaxis, blood clots, myocarditis, and GBS are not random in healthy people nor unrelated as they are very much tied to vaccine adverse events, hence the warning labels.
I’m curious, are you of the opinion that vaccines are free of adverse reactions?
LikeLike
I’m not, but I hear a lot of claims that attempt to “debunk” me or my views.
I’m not as knowledgeable about this as you, so thanks again for consistently answering my questions!
By the way, I hear the claim that people in hospitals with the “covid” label attached are almost entirely “vaccinated.” How can that be?
Finally, how are there so many kids still alive today if *all* the vaccines they receive (of which there are quite a few) are harmful?
Thankss
LikeLiked by 1 person
People will rationalize vaccines as long as they believe in the “virus” lie which is why I tend to focus on the lack of proof for “viruses.” Once they see that, they will realize that vaccines are dangerous and absolutely unnecessary.
I am not sure about the claim that most of those in the hospital with “Covid” are vaccinated. It is entirely possible as more people get vaccinated and still get labelled as positive. Vaccination is not protective and the same faulty PCR tests are being used to label one positive. The CDC did admit most deaths associated with “Covid” were cases where people had 4 or more comorbidities:
“Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said 75% of people who died of COVID-19 had at least four comorbidities, sparking an outpouring of commentary from people surprised by her statement and others saying, “I told you so.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gazette.com/ap/cdc-director-says-75-of-covid-19-deaths-had-4-or-more-comorbidities/article_2c944302-7267-11ec-91c9-a3689650d909.amp.html
Throwing toxic vaccines in with people already suffering disease will only lead to more hospitalizations and deaths. This will definitely end up being a case of the hospitalized being vaccinated unless they change the definition of what fully vaccinated means. Many who have had two doses are now being listed as unvaccinated.
As for kids, they receive a much lower dose of the “Covid” vaccine than adults. There are reports of increased myocarditis in children which is not a natural phenomenon at all. There are numerous examples of children injured and killed by vaccines. The Vaccine Injury court has paid out over $4 billion in damages:
“According to the September 1, 2020 Data & Statistics report from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the total compensation awarded under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has now surpassed $4 billion. This milestone comes as 2020 is on pace to have the highest total amount of compensation awarded since the VICP’s establishment in 1988.”
https://vaccinelaw.com/lawyer/2020/10/19/Filing-a-Claim/VICP-Compensation-Surpasses-$4-Billion-in-2020_bl41040.htm
Keep in mind, many children suffer long-term chronic ailments from vaccines such as autism, autoimmune disorders, neurological disorders, cancer, etc. These are either under reported or brushed off as not caused by the vaccines even though warning labels clearly state that these are possible side effects.
LikeLike
I’ve got quite a few arguments I’ve heard for this “covid” stuff, so I’ll go through ’em one by one here. And God bless ya for helping me out by answering me! I don’t know enough about this shit to refute a lot of the claims I hear.
Anyway, first claim: Many hospitals are now overrun from people with a positive covid test. Supposedly, the hospitals where people get “vaccinated” less have much more hospitalizations for “covid cases.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hospitals will definitely be overrun with positive cases as everyone going into the hospital for completely unrelated conditions/issues are required to be tested. How many of these cases/hospitalizations/deaths are FROM “Covid” vs. WITH “Covid” is something the CDC will not say:
“CDC Director Walensky says CDC will provide data on “how many of the 836,000 deaths in the U.S. linked to Covid are from Covid OR HOW MANY ARE WITH COVID,” and adds “Omicron has just been with us for a few weeks.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/cdc-director-deaths-from-covid-19.amp
Taking into account that the CDC also stated 75% of these were people with 4 or more comorbidities and it is clear to see the vast majority are hospitalized for other reasons and being labelled with a faulty test.
The more people are tested, the more cases will be found. The PCR test is extremely faulty and the results are meaningless. Cases mean nothing in the long run. It is used as fear propaganda to keep the scam alive. This is why I always say it is a Testing Pandemic and not a “viral” one.
LikeLike
But still, why would people who have taken the “vaccine” not be the ones getting deemed to “have covid” who are hospitalized?
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand the question. In terms of who is getting labelled positive, it all lies in the results of faulty tests not meant for diagnostic use. Literally anyone can test positive with PCR if enough cycles are run. Water, fruits, animals, Coke, a salmon cutting board…the list of things testing positive goes on and on. The results are essentially meaningless as the tests can not tell you if what it detects is the cause of the illness or not.
LikeLike
Damn, another answer. So much for that argument.
Next: possibly my least favorite of all: “Trust the experts because they know what they’re doing! You would trust a doctor if he prescribed medicine to you! There’s a point when you gotta trust other people!”
What would you say to that?
Thanks again!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s an appeal to authority logical fallacy. This link breaks it down very well:
https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/
It is always best to be your own expert by doing your own research. You may hold a Dr. in a high regard based on their education but that does not mean they are going to be correct. Dr.’s regularly prescribe wrong medications or recommend unnecessary surgeries/procedures. In fact, medical errors are the 3rd leading cause of death. This is why it is always best to get multiple opinions. Just because someone is a Dr. does not mean they have infallible knowledge. Many Dr.’s just regurgitate what the pharmaceutical reps sell them.
LikeLike
It says on Wikipedia’s page on the argument from authority fallacy that trusting the “scientific consensus” is not using the fallacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course. Why would they want you to distrust the scientific consensus. 😉 However, consensus is not science. Consensus runs counter to science. Michael Crichton summed it up brilliantly:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
On top of that, appealing to scientific consensus is another logical fallacy as explained here:
https://firmitas.org/logic-majority.php
Remember, at one point in time, the consensus was that smoking was not bad for ones health. We know that to be false even though the majority of Dr.’s believed it was harmless at one point in time.
LikeLike
In the article you linked for the argument of authority fallacy, it also said that when the “scientific consensus” is appealed to, it is non-fallacious.
LikeLike
Appealing to authority and appealing to the majority are different logical fallacies. Attempts to do either are weak illogical arguments.
LikeLike
Have you covered the attempt at isolating the virus from (January 7) 2020 from a Chinese group?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I’ve gone through every single original paper for every “coronavirus” from the 1960’s to today. Just jump to the section for “SARS-COV-2” for that one specifically. I believe the paper you are looking for is the Zhou study:
https://viroliegy.com/2021/12/24/creating-the-coronavirus/
LikeLike
Supposedly, there are still many ongoing clinical trials for the covid inoculation.
https://covid19.nih.gov/treatments-and-vaccines/clinical-trials
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, they are still testing it. The long-term effects remain unknown, especially for children. It is one giant experiment and those getting the jab are the Guinea pigs.
LikeLike
Why do you think so many people lie about this (covid bullshit)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those who are running this scam, it is about control. They get the added benefit of depopulating the world and making lots of money in the process. There are many theories as to why such as ushering in a satanic agenda, transhumanism, a great reset, etc. No one knows the exact reason other than control over a weak, fearful, and submissive population.
LikeLike
I heard the claim that some “scientists” put some solution that supposedly contained the virus, or just the virus, into animals, and it went into their (the animals’) lungs and killed them.
Supposedly, that was reported in the isolation studies.
LikeLike
There has been no study I have found. They have admitted repeatedly that no animal model recreating the full disease exists. I did a few posts on this:
LikeLike
But if the test is faulty, why are people with the “vaccine” getting much less positives?
Oh, and thanks a lot (again).
LikeLike
No worries! Where have you seen that the vaccinated are not testing positive?
LikeLike
https://www.mha.org/newsroom/covid-19-hospitalizations-increasing-at-alarming-rate-for-unvaccinated-adults/
https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-charts-show-pfizer-vaccine-works-against-covid-delta-2021-8?amp
https://m.facebook.com/sandiegocounty/photos/a.140867134563/10159128894379564/?type=3&source=48
LikeLike
A few things. First, always look at the source. This data comes from the CDC. They are a biased source which has proven to be unreliable in the past with their estimates and data.
Second, the CDC get their data from Covid-Net which is based on a limited sample size:
“The CDC tracks these rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations through COVID-NET, a system that COLLECTS DATA FROM 250 HOSPITALS ACROSS 14 STATES (located in different areas of the country) every week.”
“COVID-NET covers approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population. The counties covered are located in all 10 Health and Human Services (HHS) regionsexternal icon. The designated COVID-NET surveillance area is generally similar to the U.S. population by demographics; however, THE INFORMATION MIGHT NOT BE GENERALIZABLE TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.”
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose-methods.html
They admit their data may not be generalizable to the entire country.
Third, the definition for what constitutes “fully vaccinated” is in flux. There are reports some hospitals don’t count a patient as fully vaxxed if they have not been boosted. Many times, partially vaccinated are considered as unvaccinated in the numbers.
Fourth, cases are determined by PCR which, as I’ve pointed out already, is faulty and inaccurate especially in light of the lack of purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2.” People going to the hospital for any reason are being tested and counted among the numbers if it comes back positive.
Fifth, statistics are easily manipulated. I tend to stay away from them for this very reason. As Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
This is why it is best to keep the focus on the lack of a purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2.”
LikeLike
I think that sample size is large enough. And supposedly, “the doctors” are all claiming that almost everybody who dies with a positive PCR test has not been vaccinated.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about those claims but, as I said, the definition of vaccinated varies and the PCR results are unreliable. There really is no reason to debate anyone on those points as there is no purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2.” Without a purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2,” the PCR tests were never calibrated/validated against an actual “virus” so the results and cases are meaningless. Unvaccinated people die but not from “Covid.” They are dying from many unrelated co-morbidities. Focusing on questionable statistics and faulty PCR results is akin to getting lost in the weeds.
LikeLike
Can you summarize the faults with the attempts at isolating covid?
LikeLike
I did a few times already but these are the most recent:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/01/11/has-the-virus-been-isolated-no/
https://viroliegy.com/2022/01/01/what-you-need-to-know-about-covid-19-in-2022/
LikeLike
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-rna-idUSL1N2LS27P
What do you say about this?
Thanks
LikeLike
What specifically are you referring to in that article? The links I provided previously cover everything claimed in the article you linked. Without actually purifying and isolating the particles claimed to be “SARS-COV-2” directly from a human sample first (without culturing), there can be no claim that the genome came from one unaltered source. They have never satisfied Koch’s Postulates ss admitted by the original researchers for “SARS-COV-2.”
LikeLike
In the article (and in an article linked from there), they say that Koch’s postulated are not applicable to viruses partially because they were created before the “discovery of viruses.”
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2020/11/16/kochs-postulates-covid-and-misinformation-rabbit-holes.html
LikeLike
Yes, they attempt to get away with not fulfilling them by saying that yet these are logic-based criteria that must be satisfied. Researchers still use Koch’s Postulates as the criteria to be fulfilled. Both Zhu amd Zhou admitted their “SARS-COV-2” studies did not fulfill Koch’s Postulates. Dr. Zaki also admitted in the original MERS paper that they did not fulfill Koch’s Postulates. In 2003, the WHO said they must be fulfilled in order to prove a pathogen causes disease. If Koch’s Postulates are somehow invalid, the researchers and the WHO sure must not believe that to be the case.
LikeLike
Another argument I heard: If almost everyone “diagnosed with covid” who died in hospitals didn’t get “vaccinated,” that means the vaccines prevent the deaths (and hospitalizations).
LikeLike
Correlation does not equal causation. This claim you refer to relies on manipulated statistics. Just because a person tests positive does not mean their death was caused by “Covid.” Most deaths can be attributed to previous underlying health conditions and/or invasive medical treatments. I have asked those who believe in “Covid” what exactly a “Covid” death is and how this “virus” causes it and I have never received an answer. There are no “Covid” deaths, only “Covid” labels.
LikeLike
What makes you say this uses manipulated statistics?https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
LikeLike
Any data regarding “Covid” cases will be manipulated as the data comes from results produced by PCR tests that were never calibrated and validated against the gold standard of purified/isolated “virus.” They are automatically testing anyone who comes in to the hospital and any positive result is recorded as a “Covid” case whether they were ill or not. If they die for any reason at the hospital, it is “Covid” death. If they die within 28 days from a positive result, it is a “Covid” death. It can be for any reason. People have died from auto accidents and have been recorded as “Covid” deaths because they had tested positive at one point. Also, as I stated earlier, the definition of what a vaccinated person is changes. Some are not considered vaccinated if they have not been boosted or if they have only had one shot. Any death among them is considered an unvaccinated death even though they have been vaccinated.
LikeLike
But quite a lot of people now have the “booster” (what a horrible euphemism!), so many people dying with a positive “covid test” should also be “fully vaccinated.” Why would the “vaccine” status affect whether or not the “test” detects the “virus?”
LikeLike
The status does not affect test results. There are plenty of cases of “fully vaccinated” dying. The test does not differentiate between the two. The difference is in the definition. Fully vaccinated are those who are two weeks after their last shot. Anyone before that is considered unvaccinated in many cases. If they have yet to receive boosters, they may also be considered unvaccinated. The definition of what is vaccinated vs unvaccinated is the difference.
Remember, statistics can be manipulated to say whatever the people supplying them want the stats to say. Here are two good examples of the CDC being called out for manipulating statistics:
https://humanevents.com/2021/10/11/lawmakers-seek-federal-investigation-for-manipulated-covid-19-death-data-collection/
https://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/13232/20210910/cdc-manipulating-number-of-deaths-caused-by-covid-jabs-report-says.htm
LikeLike
But in the page I linked, they also showed a difference between people with the “booster” and people with only two doses.
LikeLike
I’ll be honest, I’m not that great with statistics. I understand how they can be easily manipulated. They use limited sample sizes and create estimations. They have different definitions that they use and various ways they can present the data to create whatever narrative they want. I have yet to fully read either of these sources but they go in depth into how this is done:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AMIOG5jDACTqWh0NhQCpNjhB45Qmrb9OIUBnkLErTa4/mobilebasic
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LrURGp0Eu8N3-6C_SKGj0ewPz8apUm7P84ib6ChPBqY/mobilebasic
In May 2021, the CDC shifted how they tracked breakthrough cases in vaccinated people by only counting those that resulted in hospitalizations and death:
“At the start of May, the CDC shifted from monitoring all reported breakthroughs to only those that result in hospitalization or death, Tom Clark, head of the vaccine evaluation unit for the CDC’s vaccine task force, said in an interview.”
“The CDC says its numbers are probably an undercount, since their surveillance system is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments that may not be complete.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-09/cdc-limits-reviews-of-vaccinated-but-infected-spurring-concerns
While I’m not a big fan of the source, this article details how the CDC manipulated statistics to create the narrative of a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
“As it turns out, to achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation. The problem is, the vast majority of the U.S.population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-manipulated-data-create-pandemic-unvaxxed-narrative/
As for differences between 2 doses and boosters, it is hard to say at this point. We honestly do not know what the ingredients are in these vaccines nor the complete long-term effects. The more people get vaccinated, the greater the increase in “covid” cases, hospitalizations, and deaths will be among them. Based on past experience, the CDC will not estimate and report them accurately.
LikeLike