Any anti vax/mask/virus hoaxers here?

Highly qualified and respected medical specialists.

Fears that the vaccine is sometimes going into the bloodstream instead of the muscle, because injectors are not first 'aspirating' the syringe. With bad consequences. The person injecting should insert the needle and then first pull the plunger back slightly to make sure the syringe does not pick up blood (from a blood vessel) before pushing the plunger:
21 min

 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
Lt. Col. Theresa Long Silenced by U.S. Army After Grounding Pilots Experiencing Adverse Reactions to Covid ‘Vaccines’ - Nwo Report

In particular the 3 hour video of the summit brought together by a US Senator, yet completely ignored by the media.

Just an alternate view...in the manner of genuine Science
Click to expand...

I don't go with the China conspiracy stuff. But the dangers of the vaccination are delberately underplayed, imo

There is a real risk, both short and long term, to be balanced against the effectiveness of preventing overload upon the health services. At what cost, is the question? Is the cure worse than the disease?

I think it is quite disingenuous to write hospitalization WITH covid-19 along with hospitalization BECAUSE of covid. I think this seriously distorts the death statistics, especially with a new variant that is quick spreading but mild in its effect.

There are a lot of problems with hospitals being closed to cancer and other serious operations, not because ICU beds are filled with covid cases, but because the mere presence of covid in a hospital causes other non-covid cases to be diverted to new clinics which cannot handle the load.

For the same reason it is very hard to arrange a face-to-face doctor appointment and there is a three year waiting list for dentists. This is not because covid patients are filling all the ICU beds.

There are a LOT of questions. People have a right to ask without being villified as flat earth anti-vaxx loonies and even as murderers.
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
Highly qualified and respected medical specialists.
Click to expand...
How do you read the plethora of highly qualified medical studies that say you don't need to aspirate?

I wonder if the guys above are of the generation that were taught to do it that way, and subsequent tests and best-practice is not to, so could it be a case of 'that's the way to do it, because that's the way I've always done it'?

RJM Corbet said:
I don't go with the China conspiracy stuff. But the dangers of the vaccination are deliberately underplayed, imo
Click to expand...
If we had evidence, that might help, but I haven't seen any firm figures?

Interestingly I read a Byline Times article which says the big problem is data analysis is quite complex, and people want simple answers, so the data tends to become secondary to the answer they're inclined toward.

As the old adage has it, 'There's lies, damn lies, and statistics!'

RJM Corbet said:
I think it is quite disingenuous to write hospitalization WITH covid-19 along with hospitalization BECAUSE of covid.
Click to expand...
Not so sure ... the question is what is the primary cause of hospitalisation. I know 2 people who died, both with health issues, both who caught Covid, and both who would most probably be alive today if they hadn't. Simply, that already weakened, Covid overwhelmed them.

Is it not like pneumonia, 'the old man's friend'?
 
Again and again, I am coming to I endorse anyone's right to refuse a vaccine, or not wear a mask, but I also stand but the right for society to impose restrictions upon them if that's the case.

If you make that decision, fine. Then be responsible for it, and be responsible about it.
 
RJM Corbet said:
Fears that the vaccine is sometimes going into the bloodstream instead of the muscle, because injectors are not first 'aspirating' the syringe. With bad consequences. The person injecting should insert the needle and then first pull the plunger back slightly to make sure the syringe does not pick up blood (from a blood vessel) before pushing the plunger.
Click to expand...
Normally the medical staff do this. But vaccine jabs are in the region where there are no big vessels, i.e., in the muscle.
 
Last edited:
On aspiration:

Nursing Times, published by the Royal College of Nursing:
Injection technique 1: administering drugs via the intramuscular route
"The procedure for IM injection has been discussed widely in the literature but there are concerns that nurses are still performing outdated and ritualistic practice relating to site selection, aspirating back on the syringe (Greenway, 2014) and skin cleansing." (my emphasis)

"Aspiration
It is common practice to draw back on a syringe after the needle is inserted to check whether it is in a blood vessel. While it is important to aspirate if the DG muscle site is used – because of proximity to the gluteal artery – it is not required for other IM injection sites (PHE, 2013; Malkin, 2008)."

BTW, Dr John Campbell is a respected contributor to the periodical.

"Aspiration before injection of vaccines or toxoids ... is not necessary because no large blood vessels are present at the recommended injection sites, and a process that includes aspiration might be more painful for infants."
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

A study published:
"While aspiration appears to be a simple procedure, it has generated a lot of controversy concerning the perceived benefits and indications. Advocates and opponents of aspiration both make logically sound claims. However, due to scarcity of available data, there is no evidence that this procedure is truly beneficial or unwarranted."
Which, I think, is balanced, but does not come down on either side. So experts saying one or t'other are possibly interpreting data in their own favour.

"There is a shortage of consistent recommendations regarding aspiration before injection in published literature, regulatory guidelines, and medical and nursing school curricula."
Which is probably why the guys are such advocates.

However:
"Based on our findings, the need for aspiration prior to administering an injection is dependent upon multiple factors. Systemic adverse effects profile and mode of delivery (IV vs IM and SC) of drugs plays a significant role in the decision to aspirate or not to aspirate. There is ample evidence that suggests that aspiration may not be required for IM (ie vaccine innoculation) and SC injections, while for IV injections the systemic side effects of the drug should be considered when aspirating before any injection."
US National Library of Medicine
 
Thomas said:
Aspiration before injection of vaccines or toxoids ... is not necessary because no large blood vessels are present at the recommended injection sites, and a process that includes aspiration might be more painful for infants."
Click to expand...
As infants are not the case here, Campbell seems to have changed his mind? He is now strongly recommending aspiration for this vaccine?
Thomas said:
Based on our findings, the need for aspiration prior to administering an injection is dependent upon multiple factors. Systemic adverse effects profile and mode of delivery (IV vs IM and SC) of drugs plays a significant role in the decision to aspirate or not to aspirate. There is ample evidence that suggests that aspiration may not be required for IM (ie vaccine innoculation) and SC injections, while for IV injections the systemic side effects of the drug should be considered when aspirating before any injection."
Click to expand...
Better safe than sorry. I don't want it in my bloodstream
Aupmanyav said:
Normally the medical staff do this. But vaccine jabs are in the region where there are no big vessels, i.e., in the muscle.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they don't have the be big vessels for some harm to occur? Tired vaccinators doing thousands of jabs a day?
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
His opinion, perhaps. What evidence does he have, that others don't
Click to expand...
I believe he is saying that in this case aspiration should be used to make sure the needle is NOT in a blood vessel, not to make sure that it is -- as for intra-veinous. Again, loads of exhausted vaccinators doing thousands of jabs a day, better safe than sorry, considering the dire consequences of a mistake.
Thomas said:
But that's how vaccines work! What about polio, smallpox, MMR, etc., etc?
Click to expand...
This covid vaccine, like the flu vaccine, is intra-muscular. I meant I don't want intra-muscular vaccine injected into my bloodstream by mistake.

I don't know whether same applies to the other vaccinations you mention, but they are far better tested and the diseases are far more dangerous to people of all ages, even especially to the young.
 
Last edited:
Covid is not dangerous to the vast majority of people, and even where present in the age demographic past normal life expectancy most at danger, it is more often a contributing factor than the cause of death. Not saying anyone should die. But the whole justification for the ruinous restrictions was never to prevent death per se, but to save overloading health systems.

Meantime the restrictions are doing untold damage far worse than the disease itself, imo

In the 'war situation' previously mentioned by someone, I forget who used the term -- it's necessary to be honest?

There are two sides to this and 'dissenters' are not flat earthers and conspiracy nutters, and even accused as murderers nowadays, it seems

It's all been said ...
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
Again, loads of exhausted vaccinators doing thousands of jabs a day, better safe than sorry, considering the dire consequences of a mistake.
Click to expand...
Not particularly arguing against, just wondering if we have data for 'dire consequences'?

RJM Corbet said:
This covid vaccine, like the flu vaccine, is intra-muscular. I meant I don't want intra-muscular vaccine injected into my bloodstream by mistake.
Click to expand...
No you don't, antibodies in the blood kill the vaccine before it has the chance to trigger the generation of antigens. Muscles are rich in the necessary cells to generate antigens, and have an ample blood supply which assists rapid distribution.
 
But let's not keep backing-and-forthing on this ...

It's a statistics game, really.

I'd need to see evidence of negative effect to convince me otherwise, and negative effect enough to outweigh the benefit.
 
Thomas said:
But let's not keep backing-and-forthing on this ...

It's a statistics game, really.

I'd need to see evidence of negative effect to convince me otherwise, and negative effect enough to outweigh the benefit.
Click to expand...
Whatever. The respected and experienced medical specialists in the video above believe that it entering a blood vessel can lead to serious harmful consequences to heart, lungs, liver, spleen and lymph nodes.

There's enough doubt to beg questions. The advice in Denmark now is to aspirate, taken from this professor's advice because he is a serious force. He's not a goof. It's not always a statistics game for a working individual who believes it might be harmful.

I want to add that IMO the argument that un-vaccinated under 50s are responsible for cancer deaths by causing ICU beds to be blocked to capacity by people dying of as opposed to with covid, is just a desperately pasted together paper aeroplane that doesn't fly very well.

Hopefully anyway this infectious but mild Omi variant will lead to a herd immunity that will enable covid to be dealt with from now on.

I don't want to say another word on IO about covid. I believe it's gone too far already, with talk of attempted murder and internment camps. I'm out of the covid discussion here. No offence meant to anybody

(I apologise for all the edits and deletions to this post)
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
But let's not keep backing-and-forthing on this ...

It's a statistics game, really.

I'd need to see evidence of negative effect to convince me otherwise, and negative effect enough to outweigh the benefit.
Click to expand...
Good luck getting that evidence. Pfizer has it locked up until 2025, whoever the company for Moderna has theirs locked up until 2023 and Johnson & Johnson has theirs locked until late 2022.

The same adverse effect reporting mechanism that will order contaminated foods off of store shelves over botulism or other contamination refuse to acknowledge the adverse effect reports due *directly* to the vaccine. Physicians with any semblance of conscience are bullied into silence for fear of losing their positions, and Senators (House of Lords) are vilified in the media for simply bringing these heart wrenching stories to light in some effort to make known that the vaccines are not without *serious* risks, including death and permanent disability.

Any actual "Science" is being subverted and perverted by "business," aka "Big Pharma." Pfizer has been up to this at least back to the swine flu, and this time around managed to get legal protection from lawsuits. The fund for compensating victims requires a legal hurdle so high it is essentially impossible, and the payout is so minimal ("de minimus" per the attorney in the roundtable discussion) as to be a non-option from a legal standpoint.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been denied (itself gross violation of Federal Law). Pfizer and the other pharma companies are full speed ahead with impunity.

And where before I was only guessing Fauci has "stock" in one or another, I recently read he is indeed a major shareholder in I think it was Moderna. Not to mention all of the lawmakers who jumped on that bandwagon with glee...

vaccine.png

This image per:
Aditi Bhargava, PhD
Professor
Director of Laboratory Research
Department of Ob/Gyn and the Center for Reproductive Sciences
University of California at San Francisco
 
juantoo3 said:
Good luck getting that evidence. Pfizer has it locked up until 2025, whoever the company for Moderna has theirs locked up until 2023 and Johnson & Johnson has theirs locked until late 2022.

The same adverse effect reporting mechanism that will order contaminated foods off of store shelves over botulism or other contamination refuse to acknowledge the adverse effect reports due *directly* to the vaccine. Physicians with any semblance of conscience are bullied into silence for fear of losing their positions, and Senators (House of Lords) are vilified in the media for simply bringing these heart wrenching stories to light in some effort to make known that the vaccines are not without *serious* risks, including death and permanent disability.

Any actual "Science" is being subverted and perverted by "business," aka "Big Pharma." Pfizer has been up to this at least back to the swine flu, and this time around managed to get legal protection from lawsuits. The fund for compensating victims requires a legal hurdle so high it is essentially impossible, and the payout is so minimal ("de minimus" per the attorney in the roundtable discussion) as to be a non-option from a legal standpoint.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been denied (itself gross violation of Federal Law). Pfizer and the other pharma companies are full speed ahead with impunity.

And where before I was only guessing Fauci has "stock" in one or another, I recently read he is indeed a major shareholder in I think it was Moderna. Not to mention all of the lawmakers who jumped on that bandwagon with glee...

View attachment 2557
This image per:
Aditi Bhargava, PhD
Professor
Director of Laboratory Research
Department of Ob/Gyn and the Center for Reproductive Sciences
University of California at San Francisco
Click to expand...
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19385/page-24#post-353764

RJM Corbet said:
Seems we are going to have to wait until 2096 before being allowed to view the entirety of the half-a-million pages of Pfizer safety information around the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine ...
It is the first part of the article below that is important, imo, and not the figures of numbers deaths etc, posted without statistically linking them to the number of jabs:

https://trialsitenews.com/fdas-forced-hand-drops-pfizers-bombshell-safety-document/

FDA’s forced hand drops Pfizer’s Bombshell Safety Document
SoniaElijah
December 14, 2021

The highly confidential Pfizer documents, which have been synonymous with the extreme lack of transparency revealed by the actions of pivotal governmental agencies, over the past 20 months, lead critics of the official narrative to demand “show us the data,” is finally being revealed–well sort of, the first few hundred redacted pages out of a trove of 451,000.

What led to the disclosure?

The crack in Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) iron dome-style data safeguarding, arrived in the form of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release with the request filed on August 27, 2021, to access all the Pfizer documentation that the FDA had relied on to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use authorization. An agency that has received a FOIA request is required to ‘determine within 20 business days after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request,’ as set out by the 1967 FOIA law. It took the FDA though three months to release the first 91 redacted pages, on November 20.

The FOIA request was issued by a group of over 30 scientists and academics who filed a civil action lawsuit against the agency because they failed to fully comply with the request, since less than 1% of the documentation was released and with the FDA taking the position that all the data would be shared by 2076. Subsequently, the governmental agency had the audacity to push the date back even further to 2096. This was due to their recent disclosure of the existence of thousands of additional pages, totalling 451,000 versus the originally stated 320,000 pages. However, the rate at which the FDA is willing to release the documentation has not changed and remains at 500 pages a month. It’s worth noting that it took the FDA only 108 days to review all of Pfizer’s documentation before authorizing the Pfizer BNT162B2 vaccine for emergency authorization use on December 1, 2020.

The scientists, public health officials, and academics, led by Dr. Peter McCullough, formed the plaintiff group, PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency), and are being represented by the law firm of Aaron Siri, of Siri & Glimstad LLP.

In an exclusive interview with Trial Site News, Aaron Siri, managing partner of the firm, who has extensive civil litigation experience, stated:

“The court has not ordered a single page to be produced yet. For the most part, when our firm submits a FOIA request, they [the agency] will produce documents but the FDA wants to do it at a pace that’s incredibly slow, not commensurate with the needs of the request. The fight is not whether they’ll produce it -- they’ll produce it. The fight is how long it will take and then the fight once we get it will be the redactions they put in.“

When I asked him whether FOIA requests will be made to obtain Moderna and Janssen’s (a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson) documentation supplied to the FDA to secure emergency use authorization, he responded:

“You can’t make a request until a vaccine has been licensed. Authorization for emergency use is not the same as licensure or approval. The Pfizer vaccine is the only vaccine that’s been licensed/approved as “safe and effective” according to the FDA on August 23rd 2021.”

The first several hundred pages of the newly released Pfizer documents were shared on the PHMPT’s website.

The focus of this investigative report centres on the 38-page document, entitled, “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28 February 2021.” The report was prepared by Pfizer, between the time of December 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021. The adverse events reports originate in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, and ‘56 other countries.‘

It’s interesting to note that the artifact represents an amended analysis provided by Pfizer, a response to their failings associated with the incomplete submittal of a safety data package to the FDA, which the agency commented on. A reference is made to the FDA’s March 9th request to Pfizer ‘We are most interested in a cumulative analysis of post-authorization safety data to support your future BLA submission. Please submit an integrated analysis of your cumulative post-authorization safety data, including U.S. and foreign post-authorization experience, in your upcoming BLA submission.

Please include a cumulative analysis of the Important Identified Risks, Important Potential Risks, and areas of Important Missing Information identified in your Pharmacovigilance Plan, as well as adverse events of special interest and vaccine administration errors (whether or not associated with an adverse event). Please also include distribution data and an analysis of the most common adverse events. In addition, please submit your updated Pharmacovigilance Plan with your BLA submission.’

The many unknowns

In the short three-month period in which the data was ‘reported spontaneously to Pfizer,’ 42,086 cases were recorded with 158,893 events. According to the data, one can interpret that the average person (case) would have suffered from just under four symptoms (events). Particularly troubling, the FDA opted to protect Pfizer’s interests by redacting the total number of doses to (b) (4), hindering the ability to calculate the incidence rates and provide a meaningful analysis of the data.

Another deeply concerning fact centres on important limitations cited by Pfizer: ‘the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.’ In relation to this topic, investigators leading a prominent Harvard study conducted from 2007-2010, discovered that ‘less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the FDA.’ Assuming this math is correct, we can conclude that the 42,086 cases represent a staggeringly underreported amount.

Other significant ‘unknowns’ peppered throughout Pfizer’s analysis are:
2990 cases where the gender is unknown
6876 cases where the age is unknown
9440 cases where the outcomes are unknown

Another anomaly that stands out is that for case outcomes, Pfizer has chosen to include those recovering from adverse events in the same category with those recovered, under the label, ‘Recovered/Recovering’. This move alone seems questionable.

The large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports

Alarmingly, the analysis makes note of the fact that there has been such a large volume of adverse events, classified as ‘serious cases’ in that short period of time, that Pfizer has had to take on more full-time employees and make significant technology changes to cope with the processing of the voluminous reports while also meeting regulatory reporting timelines. As recorded in the document:

‘Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritized the processing of serious cases, to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity.’ The report went on to state how Pfizer has dealt with these large numbers of adverse event reports.

‘Pfizer has also taken multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues. To date, Pfizer has onboarded additional b4 full-time employees (FTEs) ...’

(*b4 is a redacted term)

The 1228 Deaths

Within Pfizer’s self-generated document, a serious red flag surfaces: 1228 people were recorded to have died within three months after taking the vaccine, while no record accounts for the gender of the study participants who died. This data, which has significant safety implications, was known to Pfizer by end of February, yet on April 12, Dr. Mace Rothenberg, former Pfizer Chief Medical Officer, when talking to the Washington Journal about the development of the Pfizer vaccine said “I can tell you that no corners were cut” and “there have been no deaths that have occurred directly as a result of the vaccine alone.”

Those defending the safety of the Pfizer vaccine have raised the argument that ‘correlation does not imply causation, in which two events occurring together does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship.’

Page 10 of the Pfizer analysis presents an important identified risk of anaphylaxis with nine reported fatalities. Four out of the nine occurred on the same day the individuals were vaccinated (see below).

Pfizer emphasized that these individuals had underlying medical conditions, but for all four of them to die on the same day that they were received the vaccine, suggests potential vaccinal death causality.

In Table 7 of pages 16-17, 1403 cases of Cardiovascular AESIs (Adverse Event of Specific Interest) were reported and segmented by the following: Arrhythmia; Cardiac Failure; Cardiac failure acute; Cardiogenic shock; Coronary artery disease; Myocardial infarction; Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; Stress cardiomyopathy; Tachycardia.

The relevant event onset latency ranged from less than 24 hours to 21 days. This means that relevant events occurred from any time less than 24 hours up to 21 days of receiving the vaccine, with a median of less than 24 hours. 136 relevant event outcomes were fatal. Therefore, 50% of these relevant outcomes (including deaths) occurred less than 24 hours after receiving the vaccine. This points again to vaccine death causality.

Yet, Pfizer somehow concludes: ‘This cumulative case review does not raise any new safety issues. Surveillance will continue.’

When looking at the category ‘Immune-mediated/Autoimmune AESIs’, 1050 cases were reported, with just over three times more females affected than males- there were 12 fatal outcomes. The median of the relevant event onset latency was less than 24 hours, which again suggests vaccine death causality.

The seriousness of the cases

Looking at the graph below, a significant portion of cases are reported as serious compared to non-serious with the highest number of serious cases in the ‘general disorders’ category. A serious case is one that is medically significant resulting in either hospitalization or that has a life-threatening consequence or death. It’s interesting to note that for cardiac, immune, vascular, and infections, serious cases dominate and for immune cases, all are classified as serious …

etc…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Omicron comes in. Some 300 cases. Mumbai an Delhi being the epicenters (people coming in from other countries). State and Central governments tightening screws. Death toll remains high, Kerala leading (383 out of 434; W. Bengal, Tamilnadu amd Maharashtra with 8 each).
 
CDC sued for vaccine safety app data after multiple refusals
Lawsuit surrounds data from 'V-Safe' system used by CDC

A nonprofit that is critical of vaccines is suing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after the agency declined to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for data on the effects of the coronavirus vaccine.

Announced Thursday, the lawsuit surrounds data from the "V-Safe" system used by the CDC to track patients' health after receiving the coronavirus vaccination. The group says the CDC has already provided Oracle, a government contractor, with the data in a deidentified form – or lacking personal information.

The CDC also tracks safety through its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and continues to say that the approved and authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

Aaron Siri said:
FDA wants to hide PRE-licensure data until you’re dead and now CDC wants to hide POST-licensure safety data. So, just sued CDC on behalf of @ICANdecide for this data. Can't say no + can't sue for harm + can't see pre-OR-post license safety data = America?
Click to expand...

"V-safe data will be collected, managed, and housed on a secure server by Oracle," according to a CDC document.

Attorney Aaron Siri, who represents the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), said that the CDC initially refused to provide app data because it purportedly wasn't "deidentified" or stripped of personal information. When ICAN followed with a request for "all data submitted to v-safe and subsequently deidentified," the CDC rejected the request as duplicative of the original.

"If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is," said Siri. "The public should be outraged by the CDC’s games."

ICAN's lawsuit notes that the CDC said V-Safe was part of "the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history."

Siri, on behalf of another group, previously sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more than 400,000 pages of information on the approval process for Pfizer-BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine. The FDA had offered to release 12,000 documents by January and a minimum of 500 pages a month, which could mean it would be decades before all the documents would become public.

The CDC and Oracle did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.

"The federal government is thereby not only failing to provide the transparency necessary to earn the American people’s trust regarding these vaccines but is also failing to comply with FOIA," the lawsuit reads.

CDC sued for vaccine safety app data after multiple refusals | Fox News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top