And let's all remember, if someone dies suddenly it's highly inappropriate to ask about their vaccination status.
That information was only relevant for getting into pubs and restaurants - or for keeping your job.
Forum whore
And let's all remember, if someone dies suddenly it's highly inappropriate to ask about their vaccination status.
That information was only relevant for getting into pubs and restaurants - or for keeping your job.
Forum whore
DNA contamination in the Covid vaccines.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11130870/
The available information and data indicate that the ready-to-use mRNA vaccine Comirnaty contains DNA impurities that exceed the permitted limit value by several hundred times and, in some cases, even more than 500 timesGoogle 'Can insertional mutagenesis cause cancer?'Further, it should also be taken into account that DNA impurities in Comirnaty® are apparently integrated into the lipid nanoparticles and are thus transported directly into the cells of a vaccinated person, just like the mRNA active ingredient.
Forum whore
Scooter boy
I still can't believe this was forced on us. I feel sorry for people that were easily fooled or forced into this. Im glad I stood strong and had common sense.
The largest COVID-19 'vaccine' safety study ever conducted, involving 99 million 'vaccinated' individuals, confirmed that the injections are NOT SAFE. They dramatically increased the risks of:
1. Up to a 610% increased risk of myocarditis following mRNA platform injection.
2. 378% increased risk of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following mRNA injection.
3. 323% increased risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) following viral-vector injection.
4. 249% increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following viral-vector injection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38350768/
Smooth as Tennessee whiskey.
Forum whore
Obviously you must be a scientist but for the common folk among us, can you explain how you got those percentages from this:Originally Posted by Kb2020dope
Results: Participants included 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals. In total, 183,559,462 doses of BNT162b2, 36,178,442 doses of mRNA-1273, and 23,093,399 doses of ChAdOx1 were administered across participating sites in the study period. Risk periods following homologous vaccination schedules contributed 23,168,335 person-years of follow-up. OE ratios with LBCI > 1.5 were observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) following the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis showed an OE ratio of 3.78 (95 % CI: 1.52, 7.78) following the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. The OE ratios for myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 were significantly increased with LBCIs > 1.5.
it's not a bad thing till you throw a KLR into the mix.
those cheap ass bitches can do anything with ductape.
(PostalDave on ADVrider)
The Majestic Metal Wizard
From a pure maths perspective:
An increase to 4 from 1 is a 400% increase,
OE is Observed to Expected ratio
LBCI is lower bound of the 95% confidence interval - which as I understand is a statistical measure for risk - whereby you are looking at values in the bottom 2.5% of the bell curve of results.
To answer the question directly:
observed for Guillain-Barré syndrome (2.49, 95 % CI: 2.15, 2.87) - if 2.49 is 2.49 times increase - that would be 249%
cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (3.23, 95 % CI: 2.51, 4.09) - same again 323%
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis showed an OE ratio of 3.78 (95 % CI: 1.52, 7.78) - same again would be 378%
Which aligns rather nicely for the numbers claimed in the post - with one exception - from the exerpt you quoted, we do not see the same nice neat cluster of data for myocarditis.
Also my pedantry is irked that for 2 of the diseases, the ratio is included inside the bracketed information, but for the last, it is outside. Tsk Tsk on formatting.
Last edited by TheDemonLord; 15th January 2025 at 09:12. Reason: missed something
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Forum whore
Now that you have the explanation, do you have any comment on the figures?
I mean, they're not exactly insignificant increases.
Anorak
You might want to read the actual study...
Although it won't say what you so desperately want it too...
I look forward to you not understanding what you have posted actually comprehensively shows its better, in fact many fold safer then the virus. so many cretins on the thread said covid is no worse then the flu, Epically funny.
because it seems those same groups are now changing their tunes saying look at these side effects of the vax they are so bad so heinious, This is so funny for them to have this opinion when its patently clear these side effects are far better and happen so far less often than what those have when they catch the virus the virus so funny..... yet another epic fail for the kb antivaxers.
In this study including more than 99 million people vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, the risk up to 42 days after vaccination was generally similar to the background risk for the majority of outcomes; however, a few potential safety signals were identified. We observed potential safety signals for GBS and CVST after the first dose of ChAdOx1 based on more than 12 million doses administered.Overall, studies of the vector-based vaccines such as the ChAdOx1, have observed a higher incidence of GBS after vaccination compared with the background incidence; whereas, most studies of the mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, have not observed increases of GBS [15], [24], [14], [25], [26], [27]. Atzenhoffer et al. [24] reported an elevated OE ratio > 2.0 for adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines, across countries contributing to VigiBase, an international database of adverse drug events and Patone et al. [27] reported 38 excess cases of GBS per 10 million exposed in the 1–28 days risk period following vaccination with ChAdOx1 in England. The authors did not observe an increased risk in those who received BNT162b2. In contrast, a study by Li et al. [28] showed no increased risk of GBS for ChAdOx1, while only SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher risk. The discrepancy, compared with the results of Patone et al. [27], could however be explained by a smaller sample size and different outcome measures. Overall, this evidence supports our findings of a GBS safety signal following ChAdOx1 vaccination. Although rare, this association was acknowledged by the WHO, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia, resulting in GBS being listed as a rare side effect following exposure to ChAdOx1 [15], [29], [30].
The identified increased risk of CVST following ChAdOx1 vaccination in this study is corroborated by multiple studies. An increased OE ratio was observed in a nationwide cohort study from Denmark and Norway, with increased rates of venous thromboembolic events, including CVST with an excess rate of 2.5 events per 100,000 vaccinations following ChAdOx1 [7]. Based on a variety of methodologies, other studies have also reported increased incidence of CVST after vaccination [31], [32]. Ultimately, this rare but concerning safety signal led to the withdrawal of the ChAdOx1 vaccine from COVID-19 vaccine programs or implementation of age-based restrictions in multiple countries [8].
It is crucial to acknowledge the significance threshold of prioritised safety signals applied in this study (LBCI > 1.5). This threshold was selected based on expert opinion within the GVDN and at CDC, to focus on those outcomes most likely to be true signals. Some observed events, although not fulfilling this threshold, may still hold clinical importance and require further investigation. For instance, ITP with an OE ratio > 1.0 and LBCI of 1.2 following vaccination with ChAdOx1 aligns with findings reported in the literature as a potential signal. This concurrence is highlighted in a study conducted in Victoria, Australia, which observed a substantially higher than expected rate of ITP following ChAdOx1 vaccination [33].
Moreover, we observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 as well as pericarditis after the first and fourth dose of mRNA-1273, and third dose of ChAdOx1, in the 0–42 days risk period. The elevated rates of pericarditis following ChAdOx1 vaccination identified in this study rely on a limited number of observed counts in the meta-analysis. The wide confidence interval underscores the substantial uncertainty of characterizing pericarditis as a safety signal following ChAdOx1 vaccination. However, our study confirms findings of previously identified rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following first and second doses of mRNA vaccines [21], [22], [23], [34]. A large cohort study of 23.1 million residents across four Nordic countries revealed an increased risk of myocarditis among young males aged 16–24 years, based on 4–7 excess events in 28 days per 100,000 vaccinees after a second dose of BNT162b2, and between 9 and 28 per 100,000 vaccinees after a second dose of mRNA-1273 [22]. Similarly, studies from British Columbia, Canada reported cases of myocarditis to be higher among those receiving a second dose compared with a third dose, and for those who received a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine compared with the BNT162b2 vaccine [35], [36]. Patone et al. [37] estimated extra myocarditis events to be between one and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection period. A systematic review by Alami et al. [38] concluded that mRNA vaccinated individuals were twice as likely to develop myocarditis/pericarditis compared with unvaccinated individuals, with a rate ratio of 2.05 (95 % CI 1.49–2.82). Given the evidence, WHO issued updated guidance regarding these safety signals and mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and EMA provided updates to the Product Information for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines [21], [23]. TGA as well as the CDC continue to monitor and review data on myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination [39], [40].
Another potential safety signal was identified for ADEM after the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, with five more observed than expected events based on 1,035,871 person-years and 10.5 million doses administered; however, the number of cases of this rare event were small and the confidence interval wide, so results should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in future studies. Although some case reports have suggested a possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and ADEM, there was no consistent pattern in terms of vaccine or timing following vaccination, and larger epidemiological studies have not confirmed any potential association [41], [42], [43], [44]. Moreover, case reports may report on coincidental events and do not establish association nor indicate causality, thus larger observational studies are warranted to further investigate our finding. To address this, a follow-up study is currently being undertaken within the GVDN, focusing on a demographic not included in our analysis. Based on reports of rare ADEM cases to the European Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction, EMA assessed the potential association of ADEM following vaccination with ChAdOx1 [45]. Frontera et al. [46] concluded that chances of having a neurological event following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were up to 617-fold higher than following COVID vaccination, suggesting that the benefits of vaccination substantially outweigh the risks. A safety signal for generalized seizures was identified following Gamaleya Research Institute/Sputnik vaccination, however the number of vaccinations was relatively low compared with other vaccines in this study. Further studies are warranted to explore this potential safety signal.
Conducting a cohort analysis in the unique multi-country context of the GVDN leverages a vast and diverse data pool. Aggregating data from multiple countries on more than 99 million vaccine recipients has significantly increased the sample size and the statistical power compared with many previous safety studies. This enhances the ability to detect safety signals, especially for extremely rare adverse events, as the larger sample size provides greater precision in estimating observed rates.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
In terms of percentages, they look bad - 378% !! - but in actual numbers of individuals, maybe not so. While it is unfortunate for the actual people involved, so was dying from Covid.
it's not a bad thing till you throw a KLR into the mix.
those cheap ass bitches can do anything with ductape.
(PostalDave on ADVrider)
The Majestic Metal Wizard
And therein lies the problem.
If you weren't over 65 and did not have any pre-existing health conditions (Asthma, Morbid Obesity etc.) the chance of you dying from Covid was virtually 0.
And there is an argument that mandating Vaccinations (that did not stop transmission) for everyone (not just the at-risk-of-dying group) that include these elevated risks was wrong.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Forum whore
No-one's questioning the right of individuals to take whatever steps they feel are necessary to protect themselves from the virus.
It's the mandating of something that was clearly neither safe nor effective that is morally abhorrent.
Forum whore
..........
Anorak
Darwin sure was right, its certainly isn't "survival of the thickest."
You would think that the math is pretty basic even for the more basic amongst us..... although it seems some still can't quite figure it out........
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
The 'thickest' are currently dropping dead from heart issues and soaring cancer rates.
In the riders seat
Where's the info on current cancer rates in New Zealand ?, I cant find anything past 2022 and rates were relatively stable to that point for the last 10 years, they should be updated this year
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks