Covid vaccines have been linked to significant increases in heart, blood and neurological disorders, according to the largest global study of its kind to date. The Mail has more.
An international coalition of vaccine experts looked for 13 medical conditions among 99 million vaccine recipients across eight countries in order to identify higher rates of those conditions after receiving the shots.
They confirmed that the shots made by Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca are linked to significantly higher risk of five medical conditions – including a nerve-wasting condition that leaves people struggling to walk or think.
But the study also warned of several other disorders that they said warranted further investigation, including the links between a brain-swelling condition and Moderna’s shot.
Still, the team says the absolute risk of developing any one of the condition remains small. For instance, 13 billion doses of vaccines have been administered and there have only been 2,000 cases of all conditions. …
Meanwhile, the study also confirmed a threefold higher risk for a type of heart inflammation called myocarditis, though researchers did not give the number of expected cases versus actual cases.
Myocarditis was seen most commonly in young men. It’s believed to be related to immune response triggered my the mRNA vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna, which work by instructing cells to produce the same protein that sits atop the coronavirus.
This prompts the immune system to produce antibodies against the spike protein, providing protection against Covid. In rare cases, this immune response may lead to inflammation in the heart muscle. …
There was a greater than 3.7 times risk of a condition called Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), which causes swelling in the brain and spinal cord that damages the protective covering of nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord, after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine. …
The study also found that after getting the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there were 1.9 and 3.9 times increased risks of transverse myelitis and ADEM, respectively.
Bell’s palsy, which causes temporary weakness or paralysis of the muscles on one side of the face, had an increased odds of 1.05 after a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
There was also a 1.3 to 1.4 times greater risk of having a seizure following the first and second doses of the Moderna vaccine, as well as the fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine. …
After a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, there was a 3.2-times-greater than expected risk of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST).
The risks after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and after the second dose were 1.49 and 1.25 times higher.
Worth reading in full.
The researchers tried to soften their findings by claiming that Covid vaccines have saved 19 million lives, though critics have said this figure is based on counterfactual modelling with assumptions about vaccine efficacy that are unrealistic.
The researchers also noted that Covid infection was much worse than vaccination for many side-effects: “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.”
But even if this is taken at face value, it ignores that the infection rate was typically higher not lower in the vaccinated and the risks will add on top of one another.
The study was published in the journal Vaccine.
Pathologist Dr. Clare Craig was not impressed with the study. In a tweet that has been viewed over 100,000 times, the author of Expired – Covid the untold story branded the paper “a joke”. Aside from the claim to have saved “cardboard cutout lives” based on “laughable modelling”, Dr. Craig said the authors’ handling of the data was “dishonest” because they hid the crucial difference between the first and second 21 days after inoculation.
“For the first 21 days or more all events are lower because of the healthy vaccinee effect,” the medic explained. The healthy vaccinee effect is the known phenomenon where people who are currently sick don’t get vaccinated, artificially lowering the incidence of all disease in the first several weeks after vaccination. The authors know this, notes Dr. Craig, which is why they “looked at 0-7 days, 8-21 days and 22-42 days separately”.
However, despite having done this analysis, the researchers then only included in the paper the data for the whole period, thus cancelling out many of the problems that would have turned up in the second 21 days via the healthy vaccinee effect lowering incidence in the first 21 days.
“For this manuscript, we present results for the risk interval of 0-42 days only,” wrote the authors.
Despite pulling this trick, they “still found problems”, notes Dr. Craig.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It wouldn’t matter if it relied on viewership to fund itself. It would just die off quite quickly as people stopped watching and listening to their garbage.
The problem is that the state takes money from all of us to produce all the propaganda.
it’s like being forced to fund your enemy.
I don’t pay it, Starmer will just make the TV licence an internet tax. Mark my words.
This has already been done in Germany. The system there is a little different. You don’t need to get license to watch TV but a license is required for owning a device which could be used to watch TV or receive radio transmissions of public broadcasters. Without anyone asking for that, the German public broadcasters all started to offer internet streaming services and hence, turned everyone with a device which could access anything on the internet into a forcibly recruited subscriber.
Yes, like the “Devshirme” tribute of Balkan Christian children demanded by the Ottoman Turks for 300 years, or the “Jizya Tax” demanded of all infidels.
So candidates who are “dismissive or derisory of diversity and inclusion” will be excluded, thus making the BBC less diverse!
Doublethink is strong with these people. Orwell knew what he was talking about.
Candidates should test the BBC on their commitment to equity by demanding the same salary as Gary Lineker.
That wouldn’t be fair – they would be doing ten times more work than the crisp salesman.
The short answer to this question (“explain what …”) is “Nothing”. Both are umbrella terms without any real meaning.
And that’s why you’re not BBC material. Which, in many ways, is not at all insulting. Quite the opposite.
Diversity = Less White People. ——–So you will be employed by the BBC if you approve of that. Do the BBC think that all white people are oppressors, and all black people are oppressed? Do they then believe that these people should receive preferential treatment? ——-Here are a couple of BBC headlines “Inside the mind of White America”—-“Elderly White men block change.”.——The Cultural Marxists at the BBC like to dive us up into different groups (1) Black or White (2) Muslim or Christian (3) Straight or LGBT (4) Oppressors and Oppressed. ——–The name of the game is “Intolerance” in the name of “Tolerance”———The “Dying Breed” white male has to go.
Stopping racism with racism. Keeping people out in the name of inclusion. Making sure everyone looks the same to ensure diversity. Giving people priority to ensure equality. Orwell wouldn’t know whether he should be horrified or proud that he called it.
As diverse intellectually as the Hitler youth leadership.
“explain what diversity and inclusion means to you …..’
So if you say something like – ‘it means no white people, especially no white men, plus the promotion of biologically inaccurate labelling instead of merit or ability for hiring purposes, to meet DEI criteria and ESG scores’ – will that get you the job?
“will that get you the job?”
No. Shortlist possibly.
This is why I call this a viral ideology. Once it infiltrates a company, it completely takes over. We hire people in good faith because we believe they are the best qualified candidates to do the job. And then they turn around and replace all the people around them with their own. And before you know it you’re being kicked out cause you’re no longer adequate. This is happening in organizations and governments across the board. And it is our fault that we allowed such a hateful and hostile ideology to take hold. Now there’s no purging it. The people that should do the purging have already been replaced. They’re now protected by law. I don’t see any way out of this other than convincing a majority of the population to fight back against this, to all demand of their employers to cleanse this virus from their HR departments. But we’re a decade away from that. By the time everyone catches on, it might be too late.
Other observation about diversity: The concept is inherently anti-democratic because it maintains that qualification for public offices and similar posts ought to depend on people’s pedigree.
Well here’s some people who are definitely dismissive of ”diversity”. Or at least in the Clown World context. I can’t believe they got fined 18,000 euros for stating a fact. There should be a law against this, but when the judiciary are epic woketards who act like they’d be better off banged up in a nut house due to being a liability to rational and sane folk then you’ve got no chance.
”Bayer Leverkusen has been fined €18,000 by the German Football Association’s (DFB) sports court after its supporters unfurled a banner that stated there are only two genders — a move deemed to be discriminatory against the LGBT community.
The Bundesliga club was indicted by the DFB for “discriminatory, unsportsmanlike behavior on the part of its supporters” for the incident that occurred during the team’s away match against Werder Bremen on Nov. 25 last year.
A huge banner unrolled by fans displayed the slogan, “There are many styles of music but only two genders.”
The financial penalty was imposed in a ruling by a single judge who ruled that €6,000 of the fine could be used to fund “preventative measures against discrimination.”
The club and the DFB have agreed to the judgment, which is now legally binding.
Julian Reichelt, the former editor of Germany’s largest tabloid Bild, slammed the judgment and claimed the banner “simply states the basic biological fact of our existence.”
“The spirit of our institutions is being eaten away by an ideological virus,” he added.
Conservative commentator Anabel Schunke said the judgment was indicative of Germany entering “peak madhouse.”
https://rmx.news/germany/there-are-only-two-genders-bayer-leverkusen-fined-e18000-for-discriminatory-supporters-banner/
There are actually three genders in German but Germans still have only two sexes (the German term for both gender and sex is Geschlecht, though).
Apart from that: Professional football is notoriously corrupt. And the corresponding institutions have long since been bought by the usual suspects. Hence, that’s not an indication of Germany entering peek mental asylum, it just confirms that the multinational companies sponsoring football via open advertising and hidden direct payments have the power to punish people for making public statements their executives consider disagreeable.
“The BBC is not a welcoming place for those with conservative opinions.”
That is very interesting, because I read somewhere years ago that US medical schools were quietly ensuring that no applicants with “conservative” views would ever be accepted, regardless of their abilities. Only applicants demonstrating left-wing views were allowed to become practicing physicians. I wonder if the same sinister vetting system is being used in UK and other western medical schools.