Need debunking: Japanese researchers claim thousands of paper on vaccine side effects

[Jasondebunker]

Hi everyone,

I would be grateful for your help on debunking this claim as I hope to pull a love one out of the rabbit hole. They provided the below link on a recent Japanese press conference on the side effects of covid vaccine.

Claims

1. "Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination, affecting every possible aspect of human pathology – from ophthalmology to psychiatry." [Timestamp: 00:00:46]
2. Spike protein and lipidnanoparticles are toxic to human [Timestamp: 00:03:19]
3. "antibody called IgG4 actually suppresses immunity" [Timestamp: 00:04:13]

Who made the claim: JSVRC (from the article, they are a vaccine issues study group), the primary researcher on this topic at this conference is Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima of Kyoto University
Where was this claim made: at a press conference in Japan

My debunk: I can't manage to find their published papers. It seems to me they are correlating the illnesses of the patients who have had covid vaccination as evidence that covid vaccine caused those illness/side effects.

My question: are there thousands of papers showing side effects from covid vaccine (even causing the diseases)? are the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles toxic (if so, how toxic)? and does IgG4 really suppress immunity?




Link:
https://www.aussie17.com/p/japan-vaccine-study-groups-press

Article:

On January 11, 2024, in Japan, the Vaccine Issues Study Group convened a press conference to reveal the critical and worrisome findings of their initial six-month investigations into the side effects of vaccines. The results, as presented by a panel of esteemed medical experts, have been nothing short of alarming, drawing particular attention to a wide range of medical concerns, from cancer to neurological disorders.

Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima of Kyoto University urgently addressed the diverse array of side effects uncovered by their study. “A systematic review of the literature has unveiled some shocking information," he stated, setting a grave tone from the outset. "Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination, affecting every possible aspect of human pathology – from ophthalmology to psychiatry." Noting the broad scope of these findings, he highlighted that "This kind of reporting on drug side effects or the like is unprecedented."

Providing more specifics, Professor Fukushima mentioned significant spikes in certain conditions following vaccination campaigns, "For example, the age-adjusted mortality rate for leukemia has increased. And there are significant findings for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and so on," pointing to serious implications for critical illness due to vaccines, which is unlike anything previously documented.

The press conference did not shy away from discussing the suppression of such information. "Japanese doctors are trying hard, but they face various obstructions," Professor Fukushima remarked, shedding light on the undercurrents of medical censorship that have stonewalled professional discourse around the vaccination issues.

On brain-related adverse events, the evidence was equally disturbing, with Professor Fukushima expressing, "mental disorders, psychiatric symptoms, depression, mania, anxiety, came up in abundance, but it's endless." He emphasized that the sheer volume and variety of neurological issues raised in response to the vaccines were unforeseeable, "So this is just a part of it."

Speaking out about the implications of these findings, Professor Yasufumi Murakami from Tokyo University of Science did not mince words regarding the responsibility to halt the use of vaccines based on their adverse effects. "It's very clear what happens when you administer a toxic gene to a human. There are cases that occur within one or two weeks after injection, but there are also many cases that appear after one or two years," he specified, indicating the long-term risks involved with vaccine-induced conditions.

The novelty of the immune response to the vaccine was also a major point of discussion, with Professor Murakami highlighting that "with the current messenger-type vaccines, a significant amount of IgG4 is being induced," which defies the expectations for a normal vaccine response and could interfere with immune functions.

Professor Masayasu Inoue, Emeritus Professor at Osaka City University School of Medicine, reaffirmed the gravity and the unforeseen nature of these issues. "It is unprecedented in human history for a single vaccine to have this much literature out on it," he said. Such a statement draws attention to the historically unparalleled level of concern and scrutiny the vaccines have attracted.

Wrapping up the discourse with a sobering critique, Professor Masanori Fukushima emphasized the indiscriminate dissemination of mRNA vaccines throughout the body. “It doesn’t know where to go. If it goes into the bloodstream, it goes to the brain, liver, and kidneys," he explained, painting a picture of potential systemic vulnerability widely overlooked by the public and professionals alike.

Fukushima then addressed the superficial level of understanding that has been guiding the current vaccine narrative. “With fragments of such knowledge, they exaggerate things and think they can go with this," he remarked, hinting at a misplaced confidence among authorities who promote the vaccines as safe and effective based on an incomplete grasp of the facts.

Calling for a foundational review of biological understanding, he stated, “So, honestly, they need to go back and redo from middle school biology to high school and university entrance exams." This stark advice implied that those at the helm of decision-making lacked the necessary biological insight to comprehend the full spectrum of vaccine implications.

He succinctly summed up the situation by acknowledging the nascent state of modern medicine, "As I mentioned earlier, medicine is still immature." This final note served as a cautionary reminder that the medical field must adopt a more circumspect and knowledge-driven approach in its dealings with new and emerging medical technologies like mRNA.

Content from External Source

 

[Mendel]

Claims

1. "Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination, affecting every possible aspect of human pathology – from ophthalmology to psychiatry." [Timestamp: 00:00:46]

It sounds like they're a planning a publication on this. I'm not going to duplicate their work. Remember also that the incidence matters: we know that the vaccination has side effects, but statistically, the risk and severity of suffering them is lower than the risk and severity of an unvaccinated Covid infection.

2. Spike protein and lipidnanoparticles are toxic to human [Timestamp: 00:03:19]

I didn't see that in your written quote. Everything is toxic if the dose is high enough.

3. "antibody called IgG4 actually suppresses immunity" [Timestamp: 00:04:13]

IgG4 seems to have some properties that need further research. It's essential to look at recent sources.

Article:

We highlight how, depending on the setting, IgG4 responses can be beneficial (for example, in responses to allergens or parasites) or detrimental (for example, in autoimmune diseases, in antitumour responses and in anti-biologic responses).

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-023-00871-z

I'm skeptical of the claim that the vaccines contain Igg4.
If the vaccination produces elevated IgG4 levels, it's important to figure out how long that lasts (days or months?), and what the actual effect is.

Generally, as you noted, we need to look at the supporting evidence for these claims; if they pre-published their upcoming paper, it might be findable.

 

[Mendel]

Among my acquaintances, many have been vaccinated, and some have had Covid. On the whole, I'm hearing more complaints about "long Covid" effects than about vaccination (these are more like "knocked out for a day").

Maybe your loved one would benefit from a reality check: "are the media right, or just scary rumors? what has actually happened to our friends and acquaintances?"

 

[Mendel]

I found an older interview with Masamori Fukushima.

Article:

I interviewed Professor Fukushima via Zoom on December 28th [2022].

[...]

PP: So, the vaccines are useless?
MF: Useless. I think so.

Source: https://drcolinholloway.com/2023/02/05/unprecedented-vaccine-disaster-an-interview-with-professor-masanori-fukushima/

Conclusion: the old professor ("emeritus" means retired) doesn't know what he's talking about (I spot several other examples in that interview), and has been in the anti-vaxx camp for years. He's biased.

 

[FatPhil]

Generally, as you noted, we need to look at the supporting evidence for these claims; if they pre-published their upcoming paper, it might be findable.

It's also worth checking if any of the claims are supported by tainted evidence, such as those directly or indirectly from retracted papers. To this end, RetractionWatch is useful, they maintain a specific list of CoViD-19-related retractions that might be worth scanning through (https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/ )
E.g. regarding IgG4, there is one retracted paper:

195. “IgG4 related orbital/ophtalmic disease in COVID-19 after improving from critical pneumonia,” published on June 30, 2022 in the European Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine; retracted on June 30, 2023.

Content from External Source

(That title links to https://www.ejcem.ur.edu.pl/system/..._covid-19.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=2039&force= )
Of course, retraction can sometimes be a slow process (over a decade sometimes).
It's also worth remembering that by design, out of urgency, peer review was all but halted in many journals during the CoViD-19 peak - which means a lot of dross slipped through, and probably won't ever be noticed. Look for claims with replication studies if you want to be more certain of reliability.

 

[Ann K]

Spike protein and lipidnanoparticles are toxic to human

And that is one of the reasons they think that Covid attacks so strongly: it's covered in spike proteins.

It's unproductive and unrealistic of him to complain about vaccine side effects without comparing them to the devastating effects of NOT having a vaccine for a deadly disease. Yes, it's nice to have all the time in the world to approach a research project cautiously, but let's face it, that approach is unworkable while millions of people are dying. Every country seems to have its rabid vaccine opponents, and his hair-on-fire vehemence about the subject and insistence that all vaccinations be stopped fits the description nicely:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmB19tp5aU

 

[John J.]

Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination, affecting every possible aspect of human pathology

Every possible aspect of human pathology? Dextrocardia? Ingrowing toenails? Asbestosis? Nut allergies? Decompression sickness? Rabies? Contrecoup injury? Tourette's syndrome?
Hyperbole, and almost certainly incorrect.

In some nations, people are encouraged to use formal reporting systems to document any claimed after-effects of medications (particularly newer medications), e.g. the Yellow Card system in the UK
(Wikipedia, Yellow Card Scheme, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Card_Scheme).
The reports are mainly compiled by general practitioners / family physicians and hospital doctors / nurses, but anyone can make one.

In populations with high vaccine uptake, there will be coincidental cases of pretty much every kind of illness / injury amongst recently vaccinated people. Conversely, some rare but actual (sometimes very serious) side effects might be initially thought to be coincidental; common but less serious side effects might be mistaken for symptoms of unrelated minor illness or the condition being treated (e.g. doxycycline frequently causes vomiting; some of the conditions it is used for can cause vomiting).
Collation and statistical analysis of the reported possible side effects allows correlations between medications and side effects to be identified.

Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima's press conference brought to mind the press conference organized by the disgraced and struck-off former doctor Andrew Wakefield, and

...the media frenzy that began in 1998 when Andrew Wakefield, a UK-based doctor, suggested a link between the administration of the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the development of autism in children. The news reached the media through press releases and a press conference. Relentless negative press coverage over the next five years eventually led to a significant fall in MMR vaccinations in the UK and elsewhere. Many newspapers conveniently ignored expert advice on the safety of the vaccine in favour of attacking the UK government, which defended the vaccine's safety.

Content from External Source

From "Bad science in the headlines. Who takes responsibility when science is distorted in the mass media?", Andrew Moore, EMBO Reports 7 (12), 2006, available at the (US) National Institutes of Health, National Center for Biotechnology Information website here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1794697/

Maybe we should start being more cautious of claims made by people who use pre-arranged press conferences to advance contentious views. Such methods circumvent peer review, and exclude critical opinions.

 

[John_Sheldon]

Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination, affecting every possible aspect of human pathology.

Content from External Source

My mother is on the UK yellow card reporting due to the Covid vaccination.
May I ask you guys something,
Im not sure what to believe anymore, I see lots of reports about excess deaths in young people, (should i find it that concerning that ive seen people censored if they simply ask 'could it connect it to the covid vax?)
However, I have seen the more heavily locked down & vaccinated places (like New Zealand) reportedly does not see a spike in deaths (https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-data-does-not-show-spike-in-vaccine-related-deaths/)

Why does America still have it recommenced for anyone & everyone including babies over 6 months
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/

For the best protection, CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone 6 months and older.

Content from External Source

While here in the UK its only over 65 unless you have co-morbidity https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/

aged 65 years old or over, aged 6 months to 64 years old and are at increased risk. living in a care home for older adults. a frontline health or social care worker.

Content from External Source

So I don't understand why young, healthy people are being told to take it (And would have been ordered by the state to do so had some got their way)

Can we all agree that we was overtly lied to at certain points?
If you do not think we were, can you explain the following to me please (I'm not going to cite these statements as I'm assuming we are already very familiar with them)
'100% safe & effective!'' (No Medical intervention is)
''Stops Transmission!'' (They admitted they never even tested for that, they just made it up & in my opinion it was the root cause of anger/panic towards the unvaccinated with shouts of ''Granny killer'' or ''don't give them hospital treatment'')
''Mask up'' (Cloth masks to stop a microscopic virus, World Leaders seen publicly putting them on for a speech & removing them off stage. Yet heavily enforced on the public)
''Ivermectin is horse de-wormer, you are not a horse, stop it!'' (From the FDA & all over MSM when they know it can be prescribed by GP's.)

I also see articles like this one from Phys.org raising questions relatively early (2021)
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-covid-lies-statistics-corruption-pandemic.html

Clandestine contracts for medical goods and services have become the norm in many countries, while data on COVID-19 cases and deaths has been manipulated and underreported.

Content from External Source

Along with Gov data updates from Dr John Campbell etc the picture I see being painted is not good.
The Covid enquiry being delayed by the UK Gov is also unacceptable, (I will try to get something mundane with no serious public health ramifications like my tax return also delayed for a year or two and see how far I get.)
Now, I have no issues about the first variant & first lockdown, we truly did not know how serious it was.
But by the time we get to Omnicron the measures seemed more like an exercise in profiteering than public safety,
I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, I'm not 'anti-vax' either like I had the MMR vaccine a few years ago.
But something isn't right about this.

 

[Landru]

Can we all agree that we was overtly lied to at certain points?
If you do not think we were, can you explain the following to me please (I'm not going to cite these statements as I'm assuming we are already very familiar with them)
'100% safe & effective!'' (No Medical intervention is)
''Stops Transmission!'' (They admitted they never even tested for that, they just made it up & in my opinion it was the root cause of anger/panic towards the unvaccinated with shouts of ''Granny killer'' or ''don't give them hospital treatment'')
''Mask up'' (Cloth masks to stop a microscopic virus, World Leaders seen publicly putting them on for a speech & removing them off stage. Yet heavily enforced on the public)
''Ivermectin is horse de-wormer, you are not a horse, stop it!'' (From the FDA & all over MSM when they know it can be prescribed by GP's.

No we cannot agree. You are going to need to provide evidence to support your statements.

 

[NoParty]

Can we all agree that we was overtly lied to at certain points?

Your point is indisputable:

"…when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to
be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done." DJT 2/26/20

"We’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away.
Just stay calm. It will go away." DJT 3/10/20

"It did go — it will go away." DJT 4/7/20

And many, many, many more.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/politics/covid-disappearing-trump-comment-tracker/

'100% safe & effective!'' (No Medical intervention is)
''Stops Transmission!''

Can you cite the CDC or similar saying "100% safe & effective!"? Maybe you're representing
this accurately, but I have no memory of any legit source ever claiming any vaccine "100% safe."
Given what we now know about the colossal number of humans getting the vaccine, and the relatively low numbers of serious side effects, I'm good with "Exceptionally safe & effective!"

Again, I don't recall absolute claims about 100% stopping transmission, but it seems hard
to argue that--since we knew vaccinated people got COVID less often--then everyone's
odds of being close to an infected person were lower, and thus transmission is reduced.

 

[Mendel]

Why does America still have it recommenced for anyone & everyone including babies over 6 months
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/
For the best protection, CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone 6 months and older. Content from External Source While here in the UK its only over 65 unless you have co-morbidity https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/
aged 65 years old or over, aged 6 months to 64 years old and are at increased risk. living in a care home for older adults. a frontline health or social care worker. Content from External Source So I don't understand why young, healthy people are being told to take it (And would have been ordered by the state to do so had some got their way)

Your source links seem outdated.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/p0912-COVID-19-Vaccine.html

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, September 12, 2023

CDC recommends everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine to protect against the potentially serious outcomes of COVID-19 illness this fall and winter.

Content from External Source

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccination/getting-a-covid-19-vaccine/

Who is eligible for a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine

You or your child may be offered a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine if you are:

• aged 65 years old or over (you need to be 65 years old by 31 March 2024)
• aged 6 months to 64 years old and are at increased risk
• living in a care home for older adults
• a frontline health or social care worker
• aged 16 to 64 years old and are a carer
• aged 12 to 64 years old and live with someone with a weakened immune system

Content from External Source

Note that vaccine recommendations have always been tailored to the amount of vaccine that's available.

Note also that these recommendations concern seasonal "booster shots", not the base immunisation.

If you want to know why the UK recommendation is thus limited, you're going to have to look into British public health politics. I don't see that there's much to debunk there.

 

[Mendel]

Im not sure what to believe anymore, I see lots of reports about excess deaths in young people, (should i find it that concerning that ive seen people censored if they simply ask 'could it connect it to the covid vax?)
However, I have seen the more heavily locked down & vaccinated places (like New Zealand) reportedly does not see a spike in deaths (https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nz-data-does-not-show-spike-in-vaccine-related-deaths/)

Now it would help if you linked and quoted these reports.
From the EuroMoMo mortality data at https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps , it looks like there was a spike in the 0-14 age group in England at the end of 2023, but not in any of the previous years, and not in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales; so it seems unlikely that vaccinations (in general) are to blame for that, especially as (see above) children were not generally recommended to be vaccinated that season.

 

[Mendel]

''Mask up'' (Cloth masks to stop a microscopic virus, World Leaders seen publicly putting them on for a speech & removing them off stage. Yet heavily enforced on the public)

The "microscopic virus" is bound to much larger mucus droplets as you exhale; studies have shown that masks are effective in reducing the viral load in the air around an infected and potentially asymptic person; obviously it depends on the type of mask, and at the beginning of the pandemic, the more effective masks were in short supply, so they were reserved for people working in hospitals and care homes, where they could do the most good.

''Ivermectin is horse de-wormer, you are not a horse, stop it!'' (From the FDA & all over MSM when they know it can be prescribed by GP's.)

Evidence suggests that ivermectin only affects the course of a Covid infection if the patient had worms to begin with. If you suspect you have worms, talk to your GP and have that diagnosed and treated.

 

[Ann K]

So I don't understand why young, healthy people are being told to take it (And would have been ordered by the state to do so had some got their way)

My grandson, already vaccinated because he has underlying health problems, started his junior year in a mask-optional high school for ONE DAY and came home with Covid. The emergency health clinic he went to said he was one of a dozen kids at that school who had been in there that day. By the end of the next week there were eighty of them out, well over a hundred the next week. Parents confronted the school board demanding that stats (previously withheld) be made public. One woman was seen standing in front of the school with a sign saying "My child has Covid. Wouldn't you like to know if your child was in any classes with her?"

This was one school, with a population of mostly young, healthy people. That's what Covid can do. Yes, we were lied to, but that was by our US president at the time, who assured us it would all magically go away in the springtime. America has had a million Covid deaths since then, and they weren't all old folk.

 

[Mendel]

So it is for people then

for Horses
for People
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details

Article:

Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin

• The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.
• Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.
• Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.
• If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.
• Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

 

[Mendel]

According to the statistical model, 11 out of the 15 cardiac deaths in young women that occurred within 12 weeks of a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine were likely to be linked to the vaccine; this corresponds to 6 cardiac-related deaths per 100,000 females vaccinated with at least a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine.

so, not Pfizer, because Pfizer's uses mRNA
afaik they stopped giving this one to women and phased it out altogether

So, Whats a layperson like me supposed to think?

schedule a date with your family doctor instead of doing your own research on the internet

social media and clickbait amplify fear and doubt far beyond what is reasonable or healthy

 

[Landru]

Im just asking questions Landru chill out, I thought this place was metabunk.
There is a ton of misinformation out there, and I've only been told they are all safe which I have questions about.

BNT162b2
Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Content from External Source https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious

I'm going to take one slice where you cherry picked your quote. This was taken from your source.

NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced updated topline results from analysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 observed in their pivotal Phase 3 study through March 13, 2021, showing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, was 91.3% effective against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose. The vaccine was 100% effective against severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 95.3% effective against severe COVID-19 as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Content from External Source

Pfizer was reporting the results of a study and not stating the vaccine would be 100% effective for everyone who took it. Paraphrasing and cherry picking quotes is against the rules here. Please stop.

 

[Mendel]

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA Content from External Source https://www.pfizer.com/products/product-detail/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine

that's an incomplete quote

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (2023-2024 Formula) has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 6 months through 11 years of age.

Content from External Source

Why is this limited to children? Because the vaccine has been fully approved for humans:

Article:

For Immediate Release:August 23, 2021

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

Note that the approval process for children took longer.

 

[Mendel]

I thought this place was metabunk.

Read the posting guidelines. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
One (1) claim of evidence per thread.
You are hijacking an unrelated thread to post a poorly sourced gish gallop of long debunked myths.
Metabunk is not your garbage dump.

 

[NoParty]

Im just asking questions Landru chill out, I thought this place was metabunk.
There is a ton of misinformation out there, and I've only been told they are all safe which I have questions about.

BNT162b2

Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Content from External Source

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious

Pfizer study finds COVID-19 vaccine is 100% effective, safe for kids 12 to 15

Content from External Source

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/pfizer-study-finds-covid-19-vaccine-is-100-effective-safe-for-kids-12-to-15/


Although by Aug 2022, this has somewhat changed in 100% effectiveness in preventing severe disease. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/more-vaccinated-unvaccinated-now-dying-covid-19

Which is totally fine as the virus evolves, or it would be if it wasn’t the ‘’100% effective’’ BNT162b2 being used in Aug 2022

Doses scheduled for delivery in June through August 2022, will now be delivered in September through fourth quarter 2022.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...ontech-provide-update-covid-19-vaccine-supply

But lets just say Pfizer forgot to relabel the effectiveness of their vaccine against the new variant, it was mainly to show the ''100% effective, safe for kids'' headlines, not quite 100% safe & effective but very misleading.

Lets try a different vaccine. The Office for National Statistics did a study called: Risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in young people, England: 8 December 2020 to 25 May 2022

Content from External Source

According to the statistical model, 11 out of the 15 cardiac deaths in young women that occurred within 12 weeks of a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine were likely to be linked to the vaccine; this corresponds to 6 cardiac-related deaths per 100,000 females vaccinated with at least a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine.

Content from External Source

6 out of 100,00? Not many, but its still a football stadium full of women, they all take the non-mrna vaccine, 6 will likely die within 3 months due to that vaccine. Important information I would have thought. And if I was a woman I certainly wouldn’t take it unless absolutely necessary.

They comment further in the study:

However, receiving a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine was associated with an increased risk of cardiac death in young women. Vaccination with the main non-mRNA vaccine used in the UK was stopped for young people following safety concerns in April 2021

Content from External Source

Guess they’re not all as completely safe & effective as I was told.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...inyoungpeopleengland/8december2020to25may2022

The British Medical Journal also ran an article & video interview with a Pfizer whistleblower raising serious concerns about the safety of the trials.

ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which “Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions

Content from External Source

Content from External Source

Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks.

The FDA also has a history of lax over sight

If the FDA receives a complaint about a clinical trial, she says the agency rarely has the staff available to show up and inspect. And sometimes oversight occurs too late.

Content from External Source

“There’s just a complete lack of oversight of contract research organisations and independent clinical research facilities,” says Jill Fisher, professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Content from External Source

This vaccine trial was rushed or amateur if only for the leaks, so forgive me if I now have serious doubts over their competency with my health & wellbeing.

(An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic covid-19.)“I don’t think it was good clean data,” the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. “It’s a crazy mess.”

Content from External Source

But Jackson has told The BMJ that, during the two weeks she was employed at Ventavia in September 2020, she repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues. Jackson was a trained clinical trial auditor who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ experience in clinical research coordination and management.

Content from External Source

Jackson documented several matters late one night, taking photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box. Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants. Ventavia executives later questioned Jackson for taking the photos.

Content from External Source

She listed a dozen concerns she had witnessed, including:

• Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
• Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
• Protocol deviations not being reported
• Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
• Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
• Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.

Within hours Jackson received an email from the FDA thanking her for her concerns and notifying her that the FDA could not comment on any investigation that might result. A few days later Jackson received a call from an FDA inspector to discuss her report but was told that no further information could be provided. She heard nothing further in relation to her report

Content from External Source

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

That was Sep 2020,
In Pfizer’s briefing document submitted to an FDA advisory committee meeting held on 10 December 2020 to discuss Pfizer’s application for emergency use authorisation of its covid-19 vaccine, the company made no mention of problems at the Ventavia site. The next day the FDA issued the authorisation of the vaccine.

Content from External Source

Dec 2020
The FDA awards Pfizer with an EUA for the vaccine
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...ng-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19

As for ‘’let them all die’’ many many examples of the media geeing up the general public to openly hate and aggressively berate anyone who did not comply. https://deadline.com/2021/08/toront...e-headlines-slamming-unvaccinated-1234823976/

Buttressing those sentiments were several tweets expressing antipathy toward those who are not vaccinated, with one particular choice saying “Let them die.

Content from External Source

Or famously Jimmy Kimmel on national TV ‘’Rest in peace, whoozy’’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...mmy-kimmel-hospitals-unvaccinated-ivermectin/

Theres just a ton of them we all be here all night.

I do think there was absolutely people hyping up the fear to profit.
The Americans surely had a profiteering racket as well?
Our very own UK government peer is in a bit of trouble at the moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-secretly-received-29m-from-vip-lane-ppe-firm

Documents suggest husband passed on money from PPE Medpro, which secured £200m contracts after Mone lobbied ministers

Content from External Source

Within weeks of Mone’s referral, which led to PPE Medpro being added to the high-priority channel, the company had received two government contracts worth a total of £203m to supply millions of face masks and sterile surgical gowns.

Content from External Source

Moving on,
While I wholeheartedly agree with The National Library Of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951562/

vague information regarding both vaccine safety and the process contributing to vaccine licensure and enormous problems for public health clinicians, policymakers, and for patients as well

Content from External Source

They also state here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9574536/

misinformation can influence specific attitudinal beliefs about vaccination and thereby reduce an individual’s intention to get vaccinated.

Content from External Source

The messaging has still been very unclear & conflicting, with medical professionals like Dr Robert malone speaking out against a rushed mRNA vaccine.

And yes I do see plenty of rebuttals to his claims, but believe him or don't. He is still an incredibly qualified individual on mRNA vaccines.

Robert Wallace Malone

Content from External Source

is an American physician and biochemist. His early work focused on mRNA technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

Content from External Source

Thats before we get to retired Neurosurgeon of Theoretical Neuroscience Research Russel L Blaylock who gives this damning article in 2022 again from The National Library Of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterised by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.

Content from External Source

Thats quite the opening statement, he continues

We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.

Content from External Source

The media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”. Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scientific experts in the field of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the fields of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology

Content from External Source

Like I said, I’m not a baseless conspiracy theorist, but maybe this isn’t as clear cut as it seems.

Incredibly, even individuals, such as Dr. Michael Yeadon, a retired ex-Chief Scientist, and vice-president for the science division of Pfizer Pharmaceutical company in the UK, who charged the company with making an extremely dangerous vaccine, is ignored and demonized. Further, he, along with other highly qualified scientists have stated that no one should take this vaccine.

Content from External Source

So Dr. Michael Yeadon worked for Pfizer?

Michael Yeadon was a scientific researcher and vice president at drugs giant Pfizer Inc. He co-founded a successful biotech. Then his career took an unexpected turn.

Content from External Source

And yes, he is also shamed in his own Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yeadon

Michael Yeadon is a British anti-vaccine activist[1][2][3] and retired pharmacologist who attracted media attention in 2020 and 2021 for making false or unfounded claims about the COVID-19 pandemic

Content from External Source

So, when the former Science Division Vice President of Pfizer, you know the company that makes one of the main vaccines, tells you not to take it, And the FDA has a history or not being on top of clinical trials & admit oversight occurs late. And then a Pfizer trial whistleblower comes out and tells you the trial did not have ‘data integrity’ and people also had univestigated serious side effects, and their tests was not one of labs ‘investigated’ to get emergency approval.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA

Content from External Source

https://www.pfizer.com/products/product-detail/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine

Of course, an EUA [Emergency Use Authorisation] didn’t mean, “let’s experiment on the public.” It meant that the FDA reviewed the data available at the time and determined that the benefits of the Covid-19 vaccines significantly outweighed the risks and uncertainties

Content from External Source

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...vaccines-rushed-it-underwent-priority-review/

The only problem is, was the available data compromised like the whistleblower said, at the least I’m not convinced enough.

So, Whats a layperson like me supposed to think?


So it is for people then

Well, I give you credit for at least trying to throw a lot of info up
(though you kinda broke the rules, how you did it)...
but much is cherry-picked or irrelevant.
At the end of the day, we know that historic numbers of the vaccines were given,
and actual, verified vaccine-caused fatalities are fairly minute...
the health agencies all interpret the data to say that the vaccines
were extremely successful...
but you just have a feeling that someone's tricking you...

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Along with Gov data updates from Dr John Campbell etc the picture I see being painted is not good.

Don't even get me started on Dr. (in nursing education) John Campbell.

You need to look into all the many people who have directly addressed specific (wrong) things Campbell has said in his videos. He's bad at reading articles, bad at reading data, but dresses it up in a very academic vibe, which he's good at because he has been a legitimate educator on medical topics for many years prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. In his Covid content he very frequently gets facts flat out wrong and does this little wink-wink insinuation of a particular (wrong) conclusion without stating it because he knows his audience.

Here's just one example, among dozens

Source: https://youtu.be/fvbY0nS4ymw

 

[Ann K]

So, Whats a layperson like me supposed to think?

A layperson like yourself is supposed to be able to read the statistics, weigh the odds, and assess the results. Dr. Fukushima fusses about much lesser consequences, but when it comes to things like "Hmm, would I rather have eczema or death?", that's pretty much a no-brainer. Add in the protection that would give you from infecting your friends and family. You have a VERY slight chance of an adverse result from a vaccine (and many of the reported problems are believed to be unrelated to the vaccine anyway, just "post hoc ergo prompter hoc" fallacies) and a much greater danger from NOT being vaccinated.

Short answer: get the damn shot.

 

[FatPhil]

''Mask up'' (Cloth masks to stop a microscopic virus...)

No, cloth, woven, or fibrous masks stop *respiratory droplets*.
The virus is carried in respiratory droplets.

If you're going to translate the facts into your version, then you might as well start making other deliberately misleading claims such as "humans can fly faster than birds". You're missing out *the most important part*, in particular as it's the explanatory "how" part.

The kind of people who deliberately leave out the parts that carry the most information and the best explanation simply should not be trusted, as that is a technique used by those who deliberately want to deceive. (Did these people also visually "demonstrate" how masks "don't work" by using cigarette or other smoke that isn't wet and mucal? Because that would be another attempt to deceive. How many strikes before these guys are out?)

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

First I want to introduce myself. I am a nursing specialist and work near Düsseldorf, in Germany, in the care and support of seniors in a retirement home. I am currently caring for some residents who have been infected with the Corona virus. Most of our residents have now been vaccinated 5-6 times, mainly with the active ingredient from Corminaty. The side effects after vaccination are manageable, as can be seen from the specialist publication on the release of the vaccine.

The PEI (Paul Ehrlich Institute), which collects and professionally analyzes the side-interactions of the vaccine, has so far not been able to determine any effects as presented in this press conference. The PEI is comparable to the US CDC.

I wouldn't pay much attention to a mere press conference. Before publication, every new scientific publication must either be available to experts as a pre-publication or uploaded to a pre-release server so that experts can view this publication. Only then can you study the content of the publication at a high scientific level and discuss the sources, analysis techniques and mistakes made or a lack of general quality.

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

The English text mentions that it claims to be able to prove after a year that the mRNA vaccine should have effects in many facts. Here you first have to take a closer look at the sources of this claim. The current state of knowledge is that the virus can be detected in the heart muscle tissue using a biopsy, even after a long time.

This new publication finds bio marker inside the blood of long covid patient. So the long influence time of the SarsCov2 virus is still current state of science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg7942

 

[Mendel]

The English text mentions that it claims to be able to prove after a year that the mRNA vaccine should have effects in many facts. Here you first have to take a closer look at the sources of this claim. The current state of knowledge is that the virus can be detected in the heart muscle tissue using a biopsy, even after a long time.

This new publication finds bio marker inside the blood of long covid patient. So the long influence time of the SarsCov2 virus is still current state of science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg7942

Thank you for your insights!

I'm not sure I understand your point here correctly.

Are you saying that observed long-term vaccine effects could really be the long-term effects of a Covid infection that are falsely attributed to the vaccination?

Or are you saying that the risk of long-term Covid infection effects outweighs the risk of long-term vaccine effects?

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

The press conference was hold on 29. Nov 2022. So its old stuff.
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/w...rofessor-slams-health-officials-for-mrna-jab/

 

[Mendel]

The press conference was hold on 29. Nov 2022. So its old stuff.
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/w...rofessor-slams-health-officials-for-mrna-jab/

It's a different press conference with somewhat different claims, but it does show that Masanori Fukushima has been anti-vax for quite a while.

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

Here is an accurate science publication of Dr. Masanori Fukushima out of 2020.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.26754​

So than he turned of science now. I do not know what happened to him and whats arguments changes his minds.

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

Here its a statement of him. First I disagree how high he rated that problem of post-vac syndrom. Yes, there some cases. We must analysis also that problem, because we must know, with which underlying disease a Covid 19 vaccination tends to have a high potential for serious side effects.

Here it is his statement:

Professor Fukushima’s Address​

My name is Fukushima and I am the President of the Study Group on Vaccine Problems. The official name of the study group is Japanese Society for Vaccine Related Complications.

As a doctor and as a scientist, I am gravely aware that we are facing a tremendous crisis right now. I could say that this crisis has just begun.

This is a crisis of democracy. The people’s right to access information is completely undermined. The government adopts a shameless attitude to keep disregarding the basic human rights such as the right to pursue happiness, and the right to live that are protected under the Japanese Constitution.

This is absolutely unacceptable.

As you can see in the materials handed to you, honest scholars have documented numerous vaccine-related harms and injuries etc, at their academic conferences. The number of vaccine harms reported at the academic conference is ‘many hundreds’.

This is not just an unusual situation. Nothing like this has ever happened before. What vaccines are causing is not drug-related harms. Totally incomplete substance called a nucleic acid medicine, which is in fact not even a medicine, was distributed to the public.

So what happened as a result?

I dare say murder. We could say that a massacre has occurred. This is more like a holocaust caused by a bioweapon.

What is happening now? Something very sloppy and half-baked has been released onto the world. Trillions of public money was wasted on that half-baked product.

Under the circumstances, I seriously believe that the raison d’être: the reason for existence, of scientists, doctors and citizens, is now being tested. So I announce that the spirit of our group, which I would say is the soul of the Vaccine Problem Study Group, is ‘patient first, facts as is is, face reality, raison d’être of physician and scientist’.

Now, I will provide the official mission statement of the Vaccine Study Group.

We will address the post-vaccination syndrome. According to the international classification, this is classified as ‘adverse drug reaction’. It is high time to deliver appropriate medical care to patients affected by post-vaccination syndrome in a truly serious manner.

It is not too late.

Immediately, all doctors, all scientists, need to face this huge problem.

https://nzdsos.com/2023/09/12/fukushima-tremendous-crisis/

 

[FatPhil]

Here its a statement of him. First I disagree how high he rated that problem of post-vac syndrom. Yes, there some cases. We must analysis also that problem, because we must know, with which underlying disease a Covid 19 vaccination tends to have a high potential for serious side effects.

Here it is his statement:

As you can see in the materials handed to you, honest scholars have documented numerous vaccine-related harms and injuries etc, at their academic conferences. The number of vaccine harms reported at the academic conference is ‘many hundreds’.

Content from External Source

https://nzdsos.com/2023/09/12/fukushima-tremendous-crisis/

Looks like a scare statistic - more to shock than to inform. The reality is firstly that 'many hundreds' is almost nothing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Japan

COVID-19 pandemic in Japan - Wikipedia
The COVID-19 pandemic in Japan has resulted in 33,803,572 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 74,694 deaths, along with 33,728,878 recoveries.

Content from External Source

If vaccines only reduced the fatality rate by a few percent, they'd still have been a nett benefit, preventing thousands of deaths, even if the cost was "many hundreds" of cases of "harm".

And secondly that those are just numbers of reports, which are usually self-reported, rather than cases with a proven connection. C.f. the old joke: I've had to report my local kebab shop to the food and hygiene authorities, as every time I pop in there for a large kebab with extra hot chilli sauce on my way home from the pub on footie nights, I end up feeling like crap in the morning.

 

[Mendel]

And secondly that those are just numbers of reports, which are usually self-reported, rather than cases with a proven connection.

Not even numbers of reports; numbers of conference talks.
I went looking for the handout for the September 7, 2023, JSVRC press conference and found it:

Article:

2. Academic case reports related to diseases after COVID-19 vaccination (December 2021 to September 2023)

Source: https://jsvrc-jp.translate.goog/kaiken230907/

It does not distinguish among vaccine types, has entries that are not associated with any side effects, and contains this caveat (auto-translated):

Note: These are excerpts of presentations related to case reports and adverse reactions (including adverse reactions that affect testing/diagnosis, etc.) that developed or were observed after vaccination against the new coronavirus from the programs of each academic society, and are not necessarily a causal relationship was recognized [sic]. It doesn't have to be something. Additionally, the number of presentations does not match the actual number of cases or reports, as multiple cases may be presented at the same conference or the same research group or presenter may present at multiple different conferences.

Content from External Source

What this tells me is that vaccine side effects are being studied thoroughly.
The list does not tell me whether suspected side effects are actually caused by the vaccine (and by which caccine), how serious these adverse reactions are, and how many people are actually at risk of experiencing them. It's biased towards fearmongering.

Note also that conference papers/presentations have a much lower threshold of peer review; most are like pre-prints in that respect.

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

I found a report of

PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines​

Abstract​

This clinic has been using the PULS Cardiac Test (Predictive Health Diagnostics Co., Irvine, CA) a clinically utilized measurement of multiple protein biomarkers, which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) called the PULS Score. The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein inflammatory biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF) which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score. The PULS score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, we tracked the changes of the PULS score and three of the inflammatory markers it measures in all of our patients consecutively receiving these vaccines.
This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a previously scheduled PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd mRNA COVID shot and was compared to the pt’s PULS test drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre-shot. Each vac pt’s PULS score and inflammatory marker changes were compared to their pre-vac PULS score, thus serving as their own control. There was no comparison made with unvaccinated patients or pts treated with other vaccines.
Baseline IL-16 increased from 35+/-20 above the norm to 82 +/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46+/-24 above the norm post vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the pre vac PULS score of predicted 11% 5 yr ACS risk to a post vac PULS score of a predicted 25% 5 yr ACS risk, based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study.
In conclusion, the mRNA vacs numerically increase (but not statistically tested) the markers IL-16, Fas, and HGF, all markers previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle, in a consecutive series of a single clinic patient population receiving mRNA vaccines without a control group.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

So, there is a problem by the inflammation of the the markers. But they do not collected a group of unvaccinated patients as control group.

Only if the unvaccinated group has a lower score of inflammatory biomarkers, I would say, there is a problem. So an other studie has do this.

 

[John J.]

Why does America still have it recommenced for anyone & everyone including babies over 6 months
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/
For the best protection, CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone 6 months and older. Content from External Source While here in the UK its only over 65 unless you have co-morbidity https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/
aged 65 years old or over, aged 6 months to 64 years old and are at increased risk. living in a care home for older adults. a frontline health or social care worker.

You're not comparing the same thing (though there is significant overlap).

The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention recommend, but (AFAIK) do not provide, Covid-19 vaccinations from 6 months onwards.

The UK "65 or over" (plus many people under 65 in high-risk groups) refers to the cohort for whom the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK will provide vaccines, and make arrangements for their distribution and administration.

People under 65 deemed to be at increased risk from COVID-19- down to the age of 6 months- can also be vaccinated:

Who can get a COVID-19 vaccine

Seasonal COVID-19 vaccines
You may be able to get a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine if you're at increased risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19. For example, this may be due to a health condition or your age. The NHS will contact you if your NHS record suggests you may be eligible.

COVID-19 vaccines for children aged 6 months to 4 years old
Children aged 6 months to 4 years old who are at increased risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 can get a 1st and 2nd COVID-19 vaccine. They can then get a seasonal COVID-19 vaccination through their GP surgery.

Content from External Source

(UK) NHS website, article "About COVID-19 vaccination", last updated 21 March 2023
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccination/about-covid-19-vaccination/

Also,

Who is eligible for a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine
You or your child may be offered a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine if you are:

• aged 65 years old or over (you need to be 65 years old by 31 March 2024)
• aged 6 months to 64 years old and are at increased risk
• living in a care home for older adults
• a frontline health or social care worker
• aged 16 to 64 years old and are a carer
• aged 12 to 64 years old and live with someone with a weakened immune system

...Children aged 6 months to 4 years old who are at increased risk of getting seriously ill from COVID-19 can get a 1st and 2nd COVID-19 vaccine.
They can also get a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine if they had their 2nd dose over 91 days ago.

Content from External Source

NHS website, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccination/getting-a-covid-19-vaccine/

If you want to know why the UK recommendation is thus limited, you're going to have to look into British public health politics.

@Mendel is almost certainly correct; the UK is per capita much less wealthy than the USA.

@John_Sheldon, remember that the NHS doesn't have a monopoly on healthcare in the UK- anyone who has appropriate health insurance, or who wants to pay for a private prescription, can see a doctor about vaccination
(which I guess is the normal route in the US?)

My mother is on the UK yellow card reporting due to the Covid vaccination.

(I'm sure we all hope your mother is well.)
Information about Yellow Card reporting of coronavirus vaccines and general advice about COVID-19 vaccines here,
Coronavirus vaccine- summary of yellow card reporting, Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, UK government website (GOV.UK), link here.

​

 

[Mendel]

PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

From the "expression of concern":

Article:

Soon after publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Committee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.

Source: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051

The last 3 items mean that the study is not reliable.

About the author:

Article:

Gundry has made erroneous claims that lectins, a type of plant protein found in numerous foods, cause inflammation resulting in many modern diseases. His Plant Paradox diet suggests avoiding all foods containing lectins. Scientists and dietitians have classified Gundry's claims about lectins as pseudoscience. He sells supplements that he claims protect against or reverse the supposedly damaging effects of lectins.

[...]

In November 2021, Gundry published a poster abstract in Circulation which claimed that mRNA vaccines against the COVID-19 virus "dramatically increase" inflammation and that this was associated with heart disease. Commentators in British media cited the abstract as evidence of the mRNA vaccines being unsafe. The abstract was not peer-reviewed before publication. The American Heart Association issued an expression of concern, warning that the abstract may not be reliable and that, among other problems, there were "no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used”. The Reuters Fact Check team concluded that it did "not provide reliable evidence that mRNA vaccines increase risk of heart disease". Full Fact noted that the claims in the abstract relied on results from a test for which there was little evidence that it could accurately predict the risk of heart attacks.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Gundry

We discussed this 2 years ago, here on Metabunk.

Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS).

Content from External Source

A big problem is that this is a very indirect measurement.
They're measuring proteins that are correlated with an inflammation that is correlated with a coronary risk. As with cholesterol, without a clear theory of causation this may mean nothing.
It may be true that whatever causes a coronary risk also causes the PULS to go up, but there may also be other causes that do that that don't involve coronary risk; you can't really tell because the test is so indirect.

It's also turned out that for similar heart-related risks, an actual Covid infection is a lot worse than just the vaccination.

Note also that the vaccination is supposed to "simulate" an inflammation to get the immune system to respond. Because the heart has ACE2 receptors, that simulated inflammation would also target the heart. But the difference to a real inflammation is that, because there's no actual virus, you don't get a chronic inflammation. So if you can detect that simulated inflammation with PULS, that's great, the vaccine worked! But you don't have a 5-year risk because you don't actually have a chronic inflammation.

A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot.

Content from External Source

If what I said is true, then the PULS score should go down again some time after the vaccination. If Gundry had some patients vaccinated in March or earlier, he should've had the opportunity to look at PULS scores 6 months after vaccination and see if they drop. But he's not reporting on that; he's reporting a fairly short-term effect that's comparable to the persistence of vaccine-induced antibodies.

Some interesting background info on the PULS test:

Its website summarizes and links to a clinical evaluation of the PULS test.

This clinical evaluation consisted of nothing more than asking cardiologists whether the test could be helpful in determining risk and treatment for their patients:

So, we note:
• Gundry is selling his own test
• He does not claim that people actually got sick, only that some biomarkers went up
• Since he had hundreds of patients there, surely now, over two years later, he should have some data if their actual illness or death reflects their pre-vaccination PULS score, or the post-vaccination score?
• He should also have data on whether the PULS score dropped again, say, a year later.

Has he published any follow-up for that alarming abstract?

 

[Mendel]

So, there is a problem by the inflammation of the the markers. But they do not collected a group of unvaccinated patients as control group.

He is using the patients themselves as controls: he collects the PULS, then they get vaccinated, then he collects another PULS, and then compares the score from before to after the vaccination.

The problems here are that
• nobody else uses this score
• it hasn't been properly validated
• so we don't know that "score goes up" means "people get sick"
• we don't know if the scores go up naturally in the demographic he's testing.

But having these biomarkers go up is not dangerous by itself; what would be dangerous is if the risk of heart disease increased as much as these markers are claimed to indicate. But there's no data on whether that actually happened, because Grundy shows no data on actual illness.

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

He is using the patients themselves as controls: he collects the PULS, then they get vaccinated, then he collects another PULS, and then compares the score from before to after the vaccination.

The problems here are that
• nobody else uses this score
• it hasn't been properly validated
• so we don't know that "score goes up" means "people get sick"
• we don't know if the scores go up naturally in the demographic he's testing.

But having these biomarkers go up is not dangerous by itself; what would be dangerous is if the risk of heart disease increased as much as these markers are claimed to indicate. But there's no data on whether that actually happened, because Grundy shows no data on actual illness.

Yes, you are right! If the score would be a high rated Prophylaxis instrument for the outbreak of heart disease, all people, like me (with 5 vaccinations) would have to develop symptoms. Since this is not the case, this score does not appear to have the significance that some scientists believe it to have.

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

From the "expression of concern":

Article:

Soon after publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Committee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.

Source: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051

The last 3 items mean that the study is not reliable.

About the author:

Article:

Gundry has made erroneous claims that lectins, a type of plant protein found in numerous foods, cause inflammation resulting in many modern diseases. His Plant Paradox diet suggests avoiding all foods containing lectins. Scientists and dietitians have classified Gundry's claims about lectins as pseudoscience. He sells supplements that he claims protect against or reverse the supposedly damaging effects of lectins.

[...]

In November 2021, Gundry published a poster abstract in Circulation which claimed that mRNA vaccines against the COVID-19 virus "dramatically increase" inflammation and that this was associated with heart disease. Commentators in British media cited the abstract as evidence of the mRNA vaccines being unsafe. The abstract was not peer-reviewed before publication. The American Heart Association issued an expression of concern, warning that the abstract may not be reliable and that, among other problems, there were "no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used”. The Reuters Fact Check team concluded that it did "not provide reliable evidence that mRNA vaccines increase risk of heart disease". Full Fact noted that the claims in the abstract relied on results from a test for which there was little evidence that it could accurately predict the risk of heart attacks.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Gundry

We discussed this 2 years ago, here on Metabunk.




So, we note:
• Gundry is selling his own test
• He does not claim that people actually got sick, only that some biomarkers went up
• Since he had hundreds of patients there, surely now, over two years later, he should have some data if their actual illness or death reflects their pre-vaccination PULS score, or the post-vaccination score?
• He should also have data on whether the PULS score dropped again, say, a year later.

Has he published any follow-up for that alarming abstract?

Yes, he built up a group of scientist, doctors in 2023. So you must go to that group and reading there postings. In one of my posting you can find a statement of that scientists of himselves to it.

 

[Nicole Schnaß]

Here the name of his group:
The official name of the study group is Japanese Society for Vaccine Related Complications.

 

[FatPhil]

Has he published any follow-up for that alarming abstract?

Initially he went a bit quiet:

Gundry, through his assistant, told us that he had “no comment” on the journal’s decision.

Content from External Source

-- https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11...art-trouble-risk-earns-expression-of-concern/

But he "met an AHA-imposed deadline" and gave it an extensive makeover:

Correction Issued for Controversial Study Linking COVID-19 Vaccines to ACS Risk
The updated abstract is more explicit about the limitations of the research, which continues to be embraced by vaccine skeptics.

December 22, 2021
Definitive conclusions cannot be drawn about a possible link between the mRNA vaccines and future ACS risk, according to a correction issued late yesterday on the Circulation journal website, which had last month published an abstract from the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) 2021 Scientific Sessions.

All strong conclusions and alarmist phrasing have now been removed from the corrected abstract, with additional wording acknowledging that no rigorous comparisons have been made between vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects.

“The content of the new abstract speaks for itself—it includes observational findings, from a small set of patients treated at one facility, using a risk estimator for 5-year risk that has not been validated in this population,” Manesh Patel, MD (Duke University, Durham, NC), chair of the AHA Scientific Sessions program committee, said in a statement sent to TCTMD. “The research author has also clarified that there was no control group—no unvaccinated patients were included, and no statistical comparison was conducted. The research author’s conclusions have been updated to reflect these critical details.”

The abstract, as originally released, made alarming claims—that there were “dramatic changes” in a score indicative of future ACS risk after patients received mRNA vaccines—and continues to be circulated on social media by people skeptical of COVID-19 vaccines. The sole author of the abstract, which was accepted as an “ePoster” at the meeting, concluded that the shots “dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T-cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”

As previously reported by TCTMD, Circulation earlier published an “expression of concern” calling for a correction of several deficiencies, issued by Patel.

The abstract author, Steven R. Gundry, MD (International Heart & Lung Institute, Palm Springs, CA), met an AHA-imposed deadline to address the problems with his abstract and the updated version and a detailed explanation of what was corrected were published yesterday in Circulation after a standard scientific review. Overall, the abstract has been updated to correct some typographical errors, to clarify study processes, and to reflect the limitations of the research, including the lack of any formal statistical analyses.

Gundry is a former cardiothoracic surgeon who left his practice to open a “restorative medicine” clinic; according to a PubMed search, he has no other published research on ACS in the medical literature and his only scientific publications relate to surgical procedures and date back to the early 2000s.

Changes to his abstract start right at the top with a markedly toned-down title. The original stated: “mRNA COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning.” That has been changed to read, “Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines.”

Information on the test used in the study—the PULS Cardiac Test—has been modified as well, with a change in the cited manufacturer and a shift in the language used to describe it, from “clinically validated” to “clinically utilized.”

Instead of stating that “dramatic changes” were seen in the PULS Score—reflective of the 5-year risk of new ACS—upon the rollout of the mRNA vaccines, the abstract now states that “we tracked the changes of the PULS score and three of the inflammatory markers it measures in all of our patients consecutively receiving these vaccines.”

The abstract also now makes clear that there were no comparisons performed between recipients of the mRNA vaccines and either unvaccinated people or recipients of other COVID-19 vaccines. And regarding changes in inflammatory markers and in the estimated 5-year risk of ACS, the abstract now notes that “no statistical comparison was done in this observational study.”

Finally, Gundry’s conclusion was revised to reflect greater uncertainty about what the observations in this study mean and is now much less definitive. It reads: “In conclusion, the mRNA [vaccines] numerically increase (but not statistically tested) the markers IL-16, Fas, and HGF, all markers previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T-cell infiltration of cardiac muscle, in a consecutive series of a single clinic patient population receiving mRNA vaccines without a control group.”

[...]

Content from External Source

-- https://www.tctmd.com/news/correction-issued-controversial-study-linking-covid-19-vaccines-acs-risk


Edit: is “restorative medicine” a poisoned field? Woo-infested? It's in scare quotes in the quote above, and I noticed that Fukushima is now also associated with that field. I genuinely have no idea, I haven't investigated what it's supposed to mean. I just noticed the scare quotes above and remember seeing the phrase yesterday too.