News & Events Non-Football COVID-19 Discussions

[jmoo wan]

Say you catch covid and are vaccinated and it doesn't do much to you, but then next year you get it again (you have had you're booster shot) but are perhaps a bit more sick from a variant that stronger, then the following year you get a mild case...and so on. What happens after we have had it 10 times. We will be allowing it to come, and allowing us to get it multiple times. Will there be some sort of damage to our bodies that will eventually catch up with us and make really sick.

No. The immune system doesn't work like that. Think of it like memories. For example - imagine yesterday you ate a really tasty looking jelly bean that was flavoured like a piece of dog shit and you ate it and thought, "this is really gross I am never doing that again". But then next year you see a piece of dog shit that looks delicious but that smells really similar to that jelly bean, and you take a really big sniff of it and it makes you a little woozy, but you remember that jelly bean flavoured dog shit that you ate last year, and decide not to eat it because it was nasty. And then the year after that, you come across another similar piece of dog shit that looks really tasty, but maybe this one is a different consistency, and so you have a little nibble, but then before you can go any further it triggers the memory of that dogshit flavoured jelly bean that you really didn't like, and you remember that it is a bad idea so you run away from that particular strain of dogshit.

its just like that.

The jelly bean is the vaccine, and covid is the dogshit.

 

[Kong]

The findings in the paper that was released yesterday are new.

Which is what? I saw the screenshot you posted and your comments, but haven't read the paper.

What were the new key findings?

 

[ghostdog]

Which is what? I saw the screenshot you posted and your comments, but haven't read the paper.

What were the new key findings?

Soz, I edited.

 

[ghostdog]

Kong
Mmmm... for some reason BF isn't letting me post the link. I keep getting the 'Ooops' message.

If you Google;
A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After Covid19 Vaccinations

That should bring you there.

 

[ghostdog]

My memory could be letting me down, but didn't our governments acknowledge the deaths at the time, anyway?

I think I get what ghostdog is saying, but I also feel like none of this is new information.

I think they were aware, which is why there was the phase out that Jade referred to. The government was then more interested in Pfizer.

 

[pepsi]

Medicines of all types have adverse reactions, they help more people than they harm.

Absolutely. But we usually have a choice whether to take medication or not.

Many people had to take the vaccine to be able to work. That was not a choice.

I'm not against vaccination and have had all of them that I've needed to take through my life.

That does not mean we can't question the covid vaccine and everything that happened around it.

 

[ghostdog]

Which is what? I saw the screenshot you posted and your comments, but haven't read the paper.

What were the new key findings?

"Results​

We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. The mean age of death was 70.4 years. The most implicated organ system among cases was the cardiovascular (49%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (11%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination, of which the primary causes of death include sudden cardiac death (35%), pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), VITT (7.9%), myocarditis (7.1%), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).

Conclusions​

The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings."

 

[DERO]

Absolutely. But we usually have a choice whether to take medication or not.

Many people had to take the vaccine to be able to work. That was not a choice.

I'm not against vaccination and have had all of them that I've needed to take through my life.

That does not mean we can't question the covid vaccine and everything that happened around it.

Spot on.

 

[Kong]

"Results​

We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. The mean age of death was 70.4 years. The most implicated organ system among cases was the cardiovascular (49%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (11%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination, of which the primary causes of death include sudden cardiac death (35%), pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), VITT (7.9%), myocarditis (7.1%), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).

Conclusions​

The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings."

Thanks, fair enough.

I don't recall what % numbers were given at the time, maybe this study is a lot higher, which would make sense as they know more about it now.

It still doesn't seem overly revelatory to me, and Mercurial summed up my thoughts better than I can.

I understand if that's alarming to some, but I'm comfortable with my and most of the world's decision.

 

[Old Campaigner]

"Results​

We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. The mean age of death was 70.4 years. The most implicated organ system among cases was the cardiovascular (49%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (11%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination, of which the primary causes of death include sudden cardiac death (35%), pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), VITT (7.9%), myocarditis (7.1%), multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%), and cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).

Conclusions​

The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings."

The authors look like they're mostly from an organisation called The Wellness Company "a dietary supplement and telemedicine company owned and managed by prominent COVID-19 disinformation promulgator Peter McCullough. The Wellness Company sells various kits (and subscriptions) with names like, "COVID Emergency Kit," supplying unregulated supplements and disproven treatments."

It's only wikipedia but that study is probably a bit suss

 

[Phone]

My memory could be letting me down, but didn't our governments acknowledge the deaths at the time, anyway?

I think I get what ghostdog is saying, but I also feel like none of this is new information.

Yes, and it played a central role in our 'botched' vax rollout. AZ could be produced in Australia while Pfizer, etc, could only be produced overseas and greatly impacted our ability to get them. So AZ was gonna do the leg-work, but as the reports came in about the clotting related to AZ + our stable covid position prior to Delta, we changed our vax rollout to basically be "wait until we get the Pfizers". This happened in April 2021: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-doses-given-blood-clot-warning-for-under-50s - Delta came along in July 2021. So that was the "announcement" - for lack of a better word - that people under 50 should wait for Pfizer, which of course led to people over 50 also wanting to wait for Pfizer and the entire vax rollout falling to pieces at a time of zero covid. Which became a bit of problem when Delta blew up the zero covid world.

Once Delta came in and started kicking our butts because it was just impossible to contain without setting the country on fire, Morrison tried to row back and do a rollout of AZ (https://www.theguardian.com/austral...a-what-took-him-so-long-to-take-atagis-advice) but the damage was done. I say this as someone who was under 30 in July 2021 and got the AZ vax. Due to the announcements, no doctors would give me the vax so I had find a clinic that the Commonwealth (iirc) was running in a totally different part of Sydney. Pharmacists were not allowed to do covid vaccines until after July 2021 as well. I was told of the clotting risks, and informed that if I feel anything strange, go the hospital and get checked out.

Anyway, I'm not really sure AZ disappearing from the approved vaccines in 2024 means much of anything...? ATAGI also now recommends that people between 18 - 65 without medical issues only 'consider' a covid booster from here on out. The world is totally different now. If ATAGI's advice was still for everyone to get a covid booster every 6 months or whatever it once was and covid in 2024 was still as dangerous as it was in 2020-2021, I dare say their current advice about AZ would be different too.

 

[yodellinhank]

Thanks, fair enough.

I don't recall what % numbers were given at the time, maybe this study is a lot higher, which would make sense as they know more about it now.

It still doesn't seem overly revelatory to me, and Mercurial summed up my thoughts better than I can.

I understand if that's alarming to some, but I'm comfortable with my and most of the world's decision.

I think "most of the world" (who could afford it) went straight for the mRNA vaccines?

 

[yodellinhank]

Yes, and it played a central role in our 'botched' vax rollout. AZ could be produced in Australia while Pfizer, etc, could only be produced overseas and greatly impacted our ability to get them. So AZ was gonna do the leg-work, but as the reports came in about the clotting related to AZ + our stable covid position prior to Delta, we changed our vax rollout to basically be "wait until we get the Pfizers". This happened in April 2021: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-doses-given-blood-clot-warning-for-under-50s - Delta came along in July 2021. So that was the "announcement" - for lack of a better word - that people under 50 should wait for Pfizer, which of course led to people over 50 also wanting to wait for Pfizer and the entire vax rollout falling to pieces at a time of zero covid. Which became a bit of problem when Delta blew up the zero covid world.

Once Delta came in and started kicking our butts because it was just impossible to contain without setting the country on fire, Morrison tried to row back and do a rollout of AZ (https://www.theguardian.com/austral...a-what-took-him-so-long-to-take-atagis-advice) but the damage was done. I say this as someone who was under 30 in July 2021 and got the AZ vax. Due to the announcements, no doctors would give me the vax so I had find a clinic that the Commonwealth (iirc) was running in a totally different part of Sydney. Pharmacists were not allowed to do covid vaccines until after July 2021 as well. I was told of the clotting risks, and informed that if I feel anything strange, go the hospital and get checked out.

Anyway, I'm not really sure AZ disappearing from the approved vaccines in 2024 means much of anything...? ATAGI also now recommends that people between 18 - 65 without medical issues only 'consider' a covid booster from here on out. The world is totally different now. If ATAGI's advice was still for everyone to get a covid booster every 6 months or whatever it once was and covid in 2024 was still as dangerous as it was in 2020-2021, I dare say their current advice about AZ would be different too.

Yeah, I was told "You're eligible for the vaccine, but it is not advised". Cheap ass gubmint.

 

[Kong]

I think "most of the world" (who could afford it) went straight for the mRNA vaccines?

I was referring to getting vaccinated in that first 12 months. Would have done it even without the mandate, and didn't think highly of those that refused without a valid reason, but I do understand the mandate was a bit much.

 

[ant555]

A high likelihood of a casual link .
I would like a high likelihood of a casual link to me winning 100,000,000 in powerball.

 

[yodellinhank]

A high likelihood of a casual link .
I would like a high likelihood of a casual link to me winning 100,000,000 in powerball.

Given the odds of winning powerball are 1 in 134,490,400, and the price per game is around $1.20 I think the current advice is not to play powerball. But that can all change so check regularly and keep yourself up to date.

 

[Lore]

Not sure about the journal article above, but there is some truth to the AZ vax being risky to some extent, which the company conceded in court documents.

The other thing that is notable is that those side effects appear in the first 2-42 days after the first dose, if they are going to, so shouldn’t be causing any issues now for people that did have it at the time.

Why a popular COVID-19 vaccine has been withdrawn worldwide

AstraZeneca says newer vaccines have led to a decline in demand for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is no longer being manufactured or supplied.

www.sbs.com.au

And not to forget why it was popular in the first place - was available sooner, in bigger quantities, and was able to be stored in regular fridges instead of needing a consistent -40 across the entire supply chain before it could be rolled out.

As an individual health decision there are other factors to consider as well, but when you’re trying to vaccinate millions of people as quickly as possible and get the workforce back out there to operate businesses and keep the economy turning it was a logical decision on a macro level at the time (putting all our eggs in one basket was less logical but )

AstraZeneca to withdraw Covid vaccine

The firm said the decision was taken because of a decline in demand for the vaccine.

www.bbc.com

 

[faible]

My memory could be letting me down, but didn't our governments acknowledge the deaths at the time, anyway?

I think I get what ghostdog is saying, but I also feel like none of this is new information.

Without reading any of the paper linked, this is just from memory, my recollection is:

AZ had a known link between clotting in some cohorts, mostly younger men. Critically, this risk was substantially lower than the risk of the same thing occurring from a COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated cohorts. ATAGI updated the advice for which cohorts should receive this vaccine following this risk being identified. Upon being identified, it meant healthcare providers knew what to look for. This vaccine has also largely been superseded by updated vaccines for the more recent variants anyway.

How different is this from what the paper says?

 

[boncer34]

Without reading any of the paper linked, this is just from memory, my recollection is:

AZ had a known link between clotting in some cohorts, mostly younger men. Critically, this risk was substantially lower than the risk of the same thing occurring from a COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated cohorts. ATAGI updated the advice for which cohorts should receive this vaccine following this risk being identified. Upon being identified, it meant healthcare providers knew what to look for. This vaccine has also largely been superseded by updated vaccines for the more recent variants anyway.

How different is this from what the paper says?

Read the paper.

 

[faible]

Kong
Mmmm... for some reason BF isn't letting me post the link. I keep getting the 'Ooops' message.

If you Google;
A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After Covid19 Vaccinations

That should bring you there.

I googled it. This link came up:

A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination

This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lance

papers.ssrn.com

This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. Further information is available here: https://www.thelancet.com/preprint-faq

That didn't seem great, so I went back, and this link came up:

A Systematic REVIEW of Autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of inj…

www.sciencedirect.com

Declaration of Competing Interest
Drs Alexander, Amerling, Gessling, Hodkinson, Makis, McCullough, Risch, are affiliated with and receive salary support and/or hold equity positions in The Wellness Company

Seemed a little odd for so many of the studies authors to have the same affiliations. So I googled The Wellness Company, where I saw this name:

Dr. Peter McCullough

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH Chief Scientific Officer for The Wellness Company From Dr. McCullough: "Myself and Dr. Harvey Risch joined forces to form the Chief Medical Board of The wellness company, which is driven by Foster Coulson who is a business leader and innovator. We are a virtual...

www.twc.health

Which rang a bell, so I googled that name:

Peter A. McCullough - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In October 2022, the American Board of Internal Medicine recommended that McCullough's board certification be revoked due to his promotion of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

Given The Lancet removing the paper, and the very clear issues with McCullough's company being so heavily involved with this study, I'd be highly skeptical about their findings.

 

[faible]

Read the paper.

I've now read it, and can see why The Lancet has removed it. Some seriously sketchy conclusions.

 

[ant555]

I've now read it, and can see why The Lancet has removed it. Some seriously sketchy conclusions.

A high likelihood of a casual link .

 

[faible]

A high likelihood of a casual link .

Perhaps even a causal one

 

[dank420_]

Perhaps even a causal one

They have causal clothes day at my work

 

[faible]

They have causal clothes day at my work

If you worked from home that could be every day