First case of postmortem study in a patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2

a reply to: chr0naut

That sounds like 90% of the population and I don't know anyone
who got vaccinated. But hey numbers again right? I'm sure they'll
have to revise the numbers at some point right? What are numbers
for anyway. What's kooky is the gov. is giving people dope to get it.
But that's likely the new normal as far as you're concerned. Lordy!

Stop listening to the CNN lies and quit playing their numbers game.
Use your own head look and see.

Are the magnets really sticking to people or not?
If they then everyone who got the shot is ready for the mark IMO.
That's prolly what Biden meant with his stupid threat to the
unvaccinated.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One case means vaccines are danger yet the millions around the world without any Ill effects are disregarded?

Ummm... it isn't one case, it is tens of thousands, many of whom are 'young and healthy' - meaning, no symptoms of any problems.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

It's tough to tell what the motivation behind the vaccines are.
I sure don't like the effects it has on magnets AND metal.
There's hours of people discovering this and an active debunk campaign going on.
We are in a wild timeline right now.
These videos are everywhere..heres an hour and a half one..there's a ton more.
Creeeeeeepy
magnetic vaccinated

Yeah and the usual suspects,(who are in this thread as the state sanctioned debunkers)ridiculed you when you posted about this months back.
Seems to be a re-occuring theme the same posters denying some findings about the vaccine which turns out to be true.
The only reason I can think of why these same few posters so want no negative talk of the vaccine is that someone,somewhere is paying them to defend it at all costs.
They haven't cottoned on to the fact that ''the women protest too much'' just makes others think there definitely is something far wrong with the whole covid 19 and it's so called vaccine.

originally posted by: glen200376

I WISH I was getting paid for this.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One case means vaccines are danger yet the millions around the world without any Ill effects are disregarded?

Talk about an outlier...

This is coming from you, a person who continues to big talk specific scenarios about the doom and gloom of humanity and pin it on a specific cause or reason. Typical.

This isn't just one case... It is the first post-mortem report from a man that died of COVID-19 even though he was vaccinated... The report shows that even thou he was vaccinated the spike protein of CoV-2 was found in nearly all of his organs, the vaccine caused blood clots and the man died of COVID-19... Stop your propaganda and lies...

Just to be clear, he wasn't fully vaccinated - just the first dose.

Reading their conclusion, it sounds like the guy had a slew of pre-existing conditions, including anemia, dementia, venous insufficiency, and carcinoma - the colitis and renal failure were pre-existing conditions, detected in the hospital.

It sounds like he developed a nosocomial Covid infection and bacterial pneumonia (probably pre-existing b/c of the abscesses but could also be nosocomial - a common hospital complication.)

I think the conclusion of the study was actually declaring a positive result:

Our findings are in line with previous evidence from animal models that immunization against SARS-CoV-2 by vaccination appeared to reduce the severity of pathogenesis, especially with regard to severe lung disease, while viral RNA persisted in nasal swabs (Van Doremalen et al., 2020, Vogel et al., 2021). Recently, Amit et al. (2021) published results on a clinical trial on healthcare workers using vaccine BNT162b2 that demonstrated substantial early reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 rates following administration of the first vaccine dose.

Their finding was that the 1st dose of vaccine probably prevented the nosocomial infection of Covid from being worse. (for god's sake, no one has ever said vaccines provide 100% immunity - especially after 1 dose. Stop using this strawman.)

Going into the hospital in precarious health often kills people - and that's what happened here. Covid didn't kill him, bacterial pneumonia and renal failure did.

Because our patient died approximately 2 days after his first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, we suppose that the molecular mapping data reflects an early stage of viral infection. An early stage of infection might also explain why different regions such as the olfactory bulb and liver were not (yet) affected by systemic viral spread.

We did not find any typical signs of diffuse alveolar damage in the lungs, but we identified extensive acute bronchopneumonia, possibly of bacterial origin. We concluded that the patient died from bronchopneumonia and acute renal failure.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's your sources? A bunch of random Youtube videos of doctors telling people to down anti parasite and malaria drugs with zero links to any studies at all.

Like these ones:

www.eurekalert.org...

www.statnews.com...

www.nejm.org...

jamanetwork.com...

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0242184

Furthermore Ivemectin is basically useless against someone who will develop a bad case of COVID or any other SARS or upper respiratory virus. There's just not enough evidence to start ramping up production to give everyone inhalers, nor was there even time to do a proper study. All those dozens of doctors could have all collaborated together spent their own money to fund a research pilot project, but they didn't did they? No, they were playing snake oil salesman that's why.

a reply to: strongfp

Of course, when doctors worldwide use Ivermectin and Hydrochloroquine and saved lives you want to dismiss such evidence. Instead you post pro-big pharma LIES meanwhile ignoring the other research which disproves your claims...

If doctors throughout the world have used Ivermectin, Hydrochloroquine, etc and these treatments have been effective that is proof those treatments are effective against COVID-19.

But people like you want to trust those whom have lied since day one about CoV2/COVID-19, and you still want to trust these liars for some unexplained reason...

...
Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
...

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

...
Results: Two hundred eighty patients, 173 treated with ivermectin and 107 without ivermectin, were reviewed. Most patients in both groups also received hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both. Univariate analysis showed lower mortality in the ivermectin group (15.0% vs 25.2%; OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.96; P = .03). Mortality also was lower among ivermectin-treated patients with severe pulmonary involvement (38.8% vs 80.7%; OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.47; P = .001). No significant differences were found in extubation rates (36.1% vs 15.4%; OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 0.88-11.00; P = .07) or length of stay. After multivariate adjustment for confounders and mortality risks, the mortality difference remained significant (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.80; P = .03). One hundred ninety-six patients were included in the propensity-matched cohort. Mortality was significantly lower in the ivermectin group (13.3% vs 24.5%; OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P < .05), an 11.2% (95% CI, 0.38%-22.1%) absolute risk reduction, with a number needed to treat of 8.9 (95% CI, 4.5-263).

Interpretation: Ivermectin treatment was associated with lower mortality during treatment of COVID-19, especially in patients with severe pulmonary involvement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
...

Use of Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID Nineteen Study

...

Abstract

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe.

Keywords: Azithromycin; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; hydroxychloroquine; outpatient.
...

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients

Go suckle on the tit of big pharma, non-dr Death Fauci, China and WHO all you want... The world knows the truth you don't want to accept.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

All your studies you linked are probable, and half finished studies that don't prove anything beyond it can alleviate symptoms. So what does that tell me? That it's ultimately a healthy persons immune system that fights off the virus, like it should.

But how many people does it keep out of the ICU and hospital? That's the real question, it would take more than a few months to conclude such a study, it would take years. But this is the real kicker, that's why we have never, ever found a 'cure' for the common cold or the flu virus, because it changes constantly. Until we were forced to use vaccines that were put on the back burner until now, and well, well, they seem to work.

a reply to: strongfp

And the effective use of these treatments worldwide to cure and treat COVID-19 successfully are far better evidence than all the lies written to support big pharma and their lies...

Give it up. You are another tool whom wants to ignore facts. The effective use of these treatments will always be far better evidence than the lies written on paper to support your big-pharma crush.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's not a cure. The only cure is our immune system taking it on. Drugs only alleviate the symptoms to better our chance of survival.

And those two supposed miracle drugs don't keep people put of the hospital. They're a placebo for healthy people.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

All your studies you linked are probable, and half finished studies that don't prove anything beyond it can alleviate symptoms. So what does that tell me? That it's ultimately a healthy persons immune system that fights off the virus, like it should.

This is the vaccine that you are referring to here?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

June 14, 2021

The frequency of heart Problems in those under age 30 who get vaccinated, are alarming the CDC.

Potential action/guidance incoming: mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: NorthOfStuffx2

No.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One case means vaccines are danger yet the millions around the world without any Ill effects are disregarded?

Talk about an outlier...

This is coming from you, a person who continues to big talk specific scenarios about the doom and gloom of humanity and pin it on a specific cause or reason. Typical.

What seems to have eluded you is that this is the first case on record of a fully injected person having an autopsy conducted on their body. It shows he was infested with the spike protein, the bioweapon.

So far, it appears, no others have had autopsies conducted.

This is a glimpse into the body and its organs after being injected with mRNA shots.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Wow...poor old man... So it seems that this man was vaccinated with the "BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine." He developed ulcerative colitis due to blood clots from the vaccine, was hospitalized next to a man that was asymptomatic but had COVID-19, and the old man died of COVID-19 4 days later.

His post mortem report states that he had the spike proteins of CoV-2 in, actually most of the organs in his body and the vaccine did not stop him from actually getting infected but made him worse due to the blood clots the vaccine caused.

Do you have a background in medical research? Because it doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.

The report stated that he had "spike protein (S1) antigen-binding immunoglobulin (Ig) G." That's the antibody, not the spike protein. Nothing in the autopsy suggests that the vaccine caused these issues. He had atherosclerosis in his kidneys, brain damage from a previous infarction, and bilateral bronchopneumonia with abscesses.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Treatments such as Ivermectin, and Hydrochloroquine have been found to be effective in curing and as preventative measures against COVID-19 a

No, they haven't. Stop lying.

He is not lying, he is telling the simple truth about Ivermectin and HCQ.

For those with vested interests, the truth about the efficacy of those drugs must be suppressed. You demonstrate that their efforts were not wasted.

Electric Universe

As a layman I can only conjecture. If the tongue and liver were free of coronavirus, is it possible that it's ultimately the result of altering DNA? Maybe those 2 organs were not infected because of unintended consequences in the gene altering mechanism?

I always enjoy your posts

a reply to: joejack1949

Even if it were the antibodies as you say, they wouldn't be there, their number would not be so great, but for the overstimulation resulting from the drug.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: joejack1949

Even if it were the antibodies as you say, they wouldn't be there, their number would not be so great, but for the overstimulation resulting from the drug.

Do you have any medical qualifications? Just wondering what weight I should give to your opinion.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I expect you will give it no weight, as your mind appears closed.

But please understand that I do not care what you think. That is, you carry no weight with me.

It's ideas and notions that I like, not so much personalities.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I expect you will give it no weight, as your mind appears closed.

But please understand that I do not care what you think. That is, you carry no weight with me.

It's ideas and notions that I like, not so much personalities.

Or actual facts or science, apparently? Ideas and notions are great. Except utter nonsense, of course.