Florida Health Department: Health Alert on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety

originally posted by: Asmodeus3


So I will ask you again

Can you find me another vaccine in the history of medicine and immunology that has been given into billions of people and has been fast-tracked? I.e all clinical phase trials to have been conducted in a little more than a year.

If you re talking about the HPV vaccine is something that will happen in the future as your text says. But that doesn't mean all clinical phase trials will be concluded in 12 months.

This will... The study was March 2020

The new trial, which is planned to begin in March, is an international endeavour expected to involve 15 hospitals in the UK and Belgium.

The team hopes to recruit 105 women aged 25 to 55 with a persistent high-risk HPV infection. While 73 will be given two shots of a particular dose of the vaccine, the rest receive a placebo. They will then be tested for the presence of HPV over a period of 12 months.

You are making no point by repeating the same question over and over because you don't like the answer.

I'm done talking about this again as I think you injected yourself about a dozen times now with the same BS I really don't care about like you do. So no, I'm not going to go research 400k trials to satisfy your questions.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3


So I will ask you again

Can you find me another vaccine in the history of medicine and immunology that has been given into billions of people and has been fast-tracked? I.e all clinical phase trials to have been conducted in a little more than a year.

If you re talking about the HPV vaccine is something that will happen in the future as your text says. But that doesn't mean all clinical phase trials will be concluded in 12 months.

This will... The study was March 2020

The new trial, which is planned to begin in March, is an international endeavour expected to involve 15 hospitals in the UK and Belgium.

The team hopes to recruit 105 women aged 25 to 55 with a persistent high-risk HPV infection. While 73 will be given two shots of a particular dose of the vaccine, the rest receive a placebo. They will then be tested for the presence of HPV over a period of 12 months.

You are making no point by repeating the same question over and over because you don't like the answer.

I'm done talking about this again as I think you injected yourself about a dozen times now with the same BS I really don't care about like you do. So no, I'm not going to go research 400k trials to satisfy your questions.

Still my question hasn't been answered and the question was the following

Can you find me another vaccine in the history of medicine and immunology that has been given into billions of people and has been fast-tracked? I.e all clinical phase trials to have been conducted in a little more than a year.

The answer is no. There hasn't been any experimental and untested product that has been presented and promoted as a vaccine, given to billions of people after being fast-tracked, and then mandated through political decisions.

It's neither safe nor effective and not a vaccine. That's why it has failed magnificently and that's why the UK is no longer giving it to the under 50s and that's why Florida is trying to suspend it and Idaho is trying to criminalise its administration. Many more to follow.

The comparisons with the HPV vaccine is rather unsuccessful. The HPV trials have started many years ago in other countries. There is nothing in common between these products and the mRNA products.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The UK is trying hard to exonerate those responsible by making the mRNA products not available to anyone under the age of 50. But it's too late for this.

Florida is trying to suspend these products issuing a major health alert and Idaho is trying to criminalise anyone who administers them in their state. Other states and countries have expressed concerns about these products.

Their fate will be similar to the vaccines by Astrazeneca and J & J

The whole project has failed. And it did fail as the vaccine clinical phase trials were accelerated to the point where safety and effectiveness was highly compromised. Actually there is no much of these clinical phase trials. They all happened at the speed of science.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The process has been the same, every drug was new at some point, every drug kills too, most much more than the vaccine. What we saw as a norm in the recent past dealing with all drugs is now some big evil event today with the vaccine. BTW what is relatively new in your view?

Bret Weinstein said in an interview with Dr Malhotra that the vaccine was too novel and decided to wait before taking it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That's trial is solely to look at the expression of HPV after vaccination, they mention nothing about studying long term sideeffects which ofcourse they can't because you can't observe long term over a single year.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Bret Weinstein said in an interview with Dr Malhotra that the vaccine was too novel and decided to wait before taking it.

Sounds good. I'm sure Bret based his decision on possible personal risk from the virus compared to possible personal risk of the vaccine. We also need to remember the virus was also novel and that is why the vaccine was needed for the high risk groups. We are seeing novel side effects based on the spike proteins for both the vaccine and virus, so as I said before pick your poison.

originally posted by: flice

That's trial is solely to look at the expression of HPV after vaccination, they mention nothing about studying long term sideeffects which ofcourse they can't because you can't observe long term over a single year.

What we need to understand is there is no such thing as long term study during the three phases in the trials. After a drug is approved then the 4th stage starts and that is the long term monitoring of the drug within the general population. The vast majority of side effects are recorded after a drug is approved. The COVID vaccine was no different other then they combined phase 1 and 2 while reducing phase 3 since they had 30,000 people in the study.

We can look at the Mumps that was under 3 years from thought to approval, and this was during a time when everything took a good deal more time in all processes of a trials.

The real issue was the mandates that they never should have push since it was a new vaccine, and yes there was no long term phase 4 accomplished at that point they started the mandates. Now we are seeing some of those adverse effects within the population that you just do not have the numbers in a trials to see them form. Myocarditis and blood clots were not really seen in the trials and most likely wouldn't even with longer periods to study when you are talking 300 to 3000 at best in the study. Now we see it with billions of shots administered.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: flice

That's trial is solely to look at the expression of HPV after vaccination, they mention nothing about studying long term sideeffects which ofcourse they can't because you can't observe long term over a single year.

What we need to understand is there is no such thing as long term study during the three phases in the trials. After a drug is approved then the 4th stage starts and that is the long term monitoring of the drug within the general population. The vast majority of side effects are recorded after a drug is approved. The COVID vaccine was no different other then they combined phase 1 and 2 while reducing phase 3 since they had 30,000 people in the study.

We can look at the Mumps that was under 3 years from thought to approval, and this was during a time when everything took a good deal more time in all processes of a trials.

The real issue was the mandates that they never should have push since it was a new vaccine, and yes there was no long term phase 4 accomplished at that point they started the mandates. Now we are seeing some of those adverse effects within the population that you just do not have the numbers in a trials to see them form. Myocarditis and blood clots were not really seen in the trials and most likely wouldn't even with longer periods to study when you are talking 300 to 3000 at best in the study. Now we see it with billions of shots administered.

Can you find me another vaccine that was approved in a similar manner? To make it more clear which vaccine that you know of had all three clinical phase trials squeezed in a little over a year and then was distributed to billions of people without knowing short, medium, and long term effects and without knowing the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups. It was also mandated on a number of occasions and it is now regarded as a vaccine after the definition of the vaccine changed so it could qualify as a vaccine...

The idea you are having that vaccines are fast-tracked and we don't need to know much about their adverse reactions is just completely false. Yes phase4 clinical trial may exist but the other three are not concluded in a year.

You forget that what they have done is called medical negligence not to say criminal negligence and it's obvious that Pfizer falsified data and deceived the public and authorities.

ehlinelaw.com...

The US District Court of Texas ordered FDA to release documents of clinical trials of the Covid-19 shots after getting sued by attorneys at Siri & Glimstad. The documents revealed Pfizer classifying adverse events as non-related to the vaccine.

Nothing was right with the production and distribution of these products. Clearly vaccines that are directed towards billions of people cannot have all clinical phase trials squeezed in a little over a year. There was no testing in a few words. The products went into the market as experimental and untested.

a reply to: Xtrozero
He was wary because they claimed it was safe......and he knew they could not know that for sure because it was too novel.......I thought you said you followed him?
He also talked about the 1 per 800 adverse effects in the trial data in the interview.
Have you not watched it?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Xtrozero
He was wary because they claimed it was safe......and he knew they could not know that for sure because it was too novel.......I thought you said you followed him?
He also talked about the 1 per 800 adverse effects in the trial data in the interview.
Have you not watched it?

Who talked about the 1 per 800, and why is that a point here when it was posted in the study 12.5 per 10,000? I'm not really sure your question here, but Bret interviews a lot of people.

a reply to: Xtrozero
My question was.....Have you not watched the interview?

Bret Weinstein and Dr Aseem Malhotra discussed the 1 per 800 serious adverse events in the interview.
They said 1 in 800 was in the trial and it only covered a 2 month period.
It's early on in the interview.....go to 17.30 mind and start listening.....Bret talks about his enthusiasm about traditional vaccines and then talks about the new novel vaccine.

You really should go and listen to the interview (it's 2 hours long)......I only sought out Bret after you sang his praises......I wanted to know if he talked both sides like you said he did.
My point is that you appear to regard Bret Weinstein as someone that you might listen to and take notice of.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

My question was.....Have you not watched the interview?

Yes

Bret Weinstein and Dr Aseem Malhotra discussed the 1 per 800 serious adverse events in the interview.
They said 1 in 800 was in the trial and it only covered a 2 month period.

Dr Aseem did... Bret listened. They did talk about not knowing the long term later in the interview. Dr. Aseem does apply a lot of assumptions that I don't typically agree with all of them. I think as we move father down the path of the vaccine being released then the trials soon become not the underlining data to look at as we have 2 years soon of 13 billion data points. Bret does say a number of times we need to keep asking questions as real world data comes in.

You really should go and listen to the interview (it's 2 hours long)......I only sought out Bret after you sang his praises......I wanted to know if he talked both sides like you said he did.
My point is that you regard Bret Weinstein as someone you might take notice of.

I do take notice of him as I said, but I feel you are beating around the bush to the real question(s) you want to ask me. I'm fully aware of the 12.5 per 10,000 from the studies as it was in the study results.

I think you mistaken what I meant by both sides... I didn't mean Big Pharma as one of those sides. I meant he takes these studies and applies a logical common sense approach to them. My both sides is common sense on one side and hyperbole fear porn on the other.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I asked you if Bret was pro vax.

You said he talks both sides.

I asked which way did he walk.

If you knew he had not taken the vaccine......

Why didn't you call him an antivaccer?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Why did you not call him an antivaccer?

Should I? I guess we would need to define the term anti vaccer. I'm sure my definition is different than yours. I don't typically use the term or use the term vaccine hesitant other than to apply to a larger group of people with like beliefs. I wouldn't say Bret the anti vaccer, I would say the "anti vaccers" as an over all naming scheme of a group with COVID vaccine hesitancy. I don't view my self as either anti or pro vaccine, I float in the middle, and have said many times the risk of the vaccine needs to be weighted against the risk of the virus.

I also said I like to listen to a good number of people and that doesn't mean everyone on one side of a narrative as many here seem to do. I would say zdoggmd is more pro-vaccine, but anti big pharma and anti big hospital bureaucracy, as example.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You stated in the other thread that he followed 'true science'.....how is that different from 'the science'?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Why did you not call him an antivaccer?

Should I? I guess we would need to define the term anti vaccer. I'm sure my definition is different than yours. I don't typically use the term or use the term vaccine hesitant other than to apply to a larger group of people with like beliefs. I wouldn't say Bret the anti vaccer, I would say the "anti vaccers" as an over all naming scheme of a group with COVID vaccine hesitancy. I don't view my self as either anti or pro vaccine, I float in the middle, and have said many times the risk of the vaccine needs to be weighted against the risk of the virus.

I also said I like to listen to a good number of people and that doesn't mean everyone on one side of a narrative as many here seem to do. I would say zdoggmd is more pro-vaccine, but anti big pharma and anti big hospital bureaucracy, as example.

There are other terms that are much more applicable such as vaccine apologist, defenders of the pharmaceuticals and denialists. And a term called the vaccine ideology just as the transgender ideology. They are both equally legitimate...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Xtrozero
My question was.....Have you not watched the interview?

Bret Weinstein and Dr Aseem Malhotra discussed the 1 per 800 serious adverse events in the interview.
They said 1 in 800 was in the trial and it only covered a 2 month period.
It's early on in the interview.....go to 17.30 mind and start listening.....Bret talks about his enthusiasm about traditional vaccines and then talks about the new novel vaccine.

You really should go and listen to the interview (it's 2 hours long)......I only sought out Bret after you sang his praises......I wanted to know if he talked both sides like you said he did.
My point is that you appear to regard Bret Weinstein as someone that you might listen to and take notice of.

At least 1 in 800 which is a massive figure. Bearing in mind that pregnant women for example were not included in the trials and that Pfizer classified adverse reactions as non-related to the 'vaccines'. Surely the most failed medical product in history and the greatest medical scandal in history.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
There are other terms that are much more applicable such as vaccine apologist, defenders of the pharmaceuticals and denialists. And a term called the vaccine ideology just as the transgender ideology. They are both equally legitimate...

Ya I know your side has like a dozen of labels you use as slurs for anyone not in total lock step with you.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

You stated in the other thread that he followed 'true science'.....how is that different from 'the science'?

The science is not my term, why do you care what I think on this anyways. I have said many times Fauci and crew were/are totally f''ed up, so I guess that would be "the science".

Not sure where you are getting at with your one line quetions...get to the point if you have one.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
There are other terms that are much more applicable such as vaccine apologist, defenders of the pharmaceuticals and denialists. And a term called the vaccine ideology just as the transgender ideology. They are both equally legitimate...

Ya I know your side has like a dozen of labels you use as slurs for anyone not in total lock step with you.

I don't think anyone else has been using them prior to my appearance on this site. The term vaccine apologist has been introduced on this site and describes perfectly those who have been indoctrinated to believe that all vaccines are safe and effective and will do everything to defend these medical interventions in the absence of any evidence and in the face of ignorance.

It looks like the Department of Health in Florida and the State Surgeon General are very sensible and they, along with others, have spotted the problem long time ago which started a little after the mass vaccination program.

twitter.com...

Dr Joseph Ladapo

Don’t let the CDC and their minions confuse you with spin. In Florida, total vaccines administered increased by 400% after mRNA COVID-19 vax was introduced, while adverse events increased by 1700%.

Florida saw a 1,700% increase in adverse event reports after COVID-19 vaccinations. Does that sound safe and effective? I didn’t think so either. That’s why we released this health alert.

Just because “correlation ≠ causation” doesn’t mean we should abandon common sense.