Lab Founder Shows "Vaccine" Spike Protein Damages Vital Organs

a reply to: Jimy718

Visit the site and you will see that it has always been the same requirements.

It was not until the EUA for the vaccines was issued that it was required that adverse events be reported.

Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by FDA:

www.cdc.gov...

Or can you provide another example of it being required?

regardless of causality

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Jimy718

Visit the site and you will see that it has always been the same requirements.

It was not until the EUA for the vaccines was issued that it was required that adverse events be reported.

Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by FDA:

www.cdc.gov...

Or can you provide another example of it being required?

regardless of causality

Well, no, I can't provide any example of it being required...ever.

I did a quick search; all I could find is the CDC saying it's "required by law", but there is no citation of law. SO, unless someone knows when congress passed that law, you're out of luck. I was under the impression, gained from CDC documents, that the reporting was optional, and, could be made by anyone who wishes.

Still, nearly half a million adverse events seems way too high for something that is safe(?) and effective.

a reply to: Jimy718

all I could find is the CDC saying it's "required by law"

What I can find is that it is a condition of the EUAs. You can dig through that law if you wish.

I was under the impression, gained from CDC documents, that the reporting was optional, and, could be made by anyone who wishes.

Anyone can report, but providers must report severe adverse events under the EUAs. Death is rather severe, don't you think?

regardless of causality

I had a headache the next day. Does that count? Should I have reported it? Do you think some folks might have just reported stuff for the hell of it? Maybe? Maybe if they hadn't even been vaccinated?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Jimy718

all I could find is the CDC saying it's "required by law"

What I can find is that it is a condition of the EUAs. You can dig through that law if you wish.

Actually, applying a wee bit of logic; Providers of the vax can't report adverse events they are never aware of. Most shots occurred at giant drive through events where 'mass injection' was employed. They are the providers, and the patient's own PC will be the one reporting. So, such a "law" is unenforceable.

If I decided to get the vax, it would be at a Walmart, CVS, or some other pharmacy; that pharmacy would be the provider, my PCP would be the one to report any adverse affect. IF I got the shot at my local VA, then and only then would such a "law" become enforceable.

I had a headache the next day. Does that count? Should I have reported it? Do you think some folks might have just reported stuff for the hell of it? Maybe? Maybe if they hadn't even been vaccinated?

From the database: headaches are common, as are the sore arm, red, slightly swollen injection site, loss of energy, and some others.

We have a similar system in the UK.

I had what I'd describe as symptoms similar to a ten beer hangover, bit of a headache, very tired and a bit achey.

All my symptoms were clearly stated as known common side effects that affect around one in ten people so I did not report it.

As I understand it's for reporting adverse effects but as they clearly explain these are likely it seemed pointless to report known minor issues.



a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Mysterychic88

A dear friend of mine came with the argument...some more than 4 billion people took the vaccination...dont you think it must be safe if all these people agreed to take the shot? I replied...if 4 billion people jump of a bridge would you follow them because so many decided to jump?

Really insane times we live in..

I'd say if four billion people jumped off a bridge there's probably a good reason to jump don't you?

It's a dumb saying without some context.

If someone told me jump of a bridge would I? Maybe I would.

Is the bridge on fire? Terrorist with a bomb on the bridge? Huge truck coming towards me at high speed?

There's loads of valid reasons to jump from a bridge into the water, a lot more than you'd think and given most bridges are not that high and water is relatively safe to jump into then it's possibly the right thing to do.



a reply to: zatara

a reply to: nonspecific

Now that is a scary thing to hear said.

The saying "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?" is not literal. It is a saying, based on the fact that suicide was at one time often committed by jumping from a high bridge, that suggests one should think for themselves before blindly following crowd logic. One could also say "if everyone killed themselves, would you do the same?"

And you just tried to reason a way to answer "yes."

Not only did you miss the point, but you just indicated that you will not think for yourself because you value complacency and obedience to following a crowd over actually thinking for yourself. I strongly urge you to re-evaluate your position. The future results of such a mentality could be quite undesirable.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Mysterychic88

A dear friend of mine came with the argument...some more than 4 billion people took the vaccination...dont you think it must be safe if all these people agreed to take the shot? I replied...if 4 billion people jump of a bridge would you follow them because so many decided to jump?

Really insane times we live in..

Lemmings come to mind.

originally posted by: Jimy718

That would be: VAERS site
It's part of the CDC... scroll to bottom of page for next link.

BTW: there is a 928.8% increase of adverse events this year over last year, and 2021 accounts for 38,87% of the database.

The interesting thing with VAERS is anyone can report on it. I dug into the reporting a while back and looked at 100 or so reports and almost everyone read like a horror story as to the preexisting conditions and other meds the person was on before their deaths while something as small as a sore arm is also reported. If you are interested go in and actually look at the reports and not just think oh 928% is something meaningful.

We also had like 150 million people vaccinated this year over last, so how many reports would be needed to push 1000%, not many.

With most likely 250 million vaccinated by year's end do you think the total death count will be much more than previous years?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Lemmings come to mind.

We are all lemmings one way or another. Unvacced doesn't make someone an independent thinker as they are going over their unvacc cliff all together too. So pick your cliff or roll your dice no matter what you choose.

originally posted by: zatara

A dear friend of mine came with the argument...some more than 4 billion people took the vaccination...dont you think it must be safe if all these people agreed to take the shot? I replied...if 4 billion people jump of a bridge would you follow them because so many decided to jump?

Really insane times we live in..

If 4 billion took the vaccine and the side effects were less over all than a typical flu shot what do you call that? There is two parts to all this as in the total number of a massive amount of people and a monitoring/reporting system never really seen before.

We should be seeing waves of official reports from around the world of people dying or having massive reactions and not just fringe stories. We can all debate this all we want, but by years end we should see something one way or the other, do you agree?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think trillions of spike proteins is a small number. Several thousand protein spikes are produced from a single mRNA packet.

Not at all.

What seems crazy to me is the idea that one should never jump off a bridge.

I admit that jumping off a bridge may seem dangerous or foolish, maybe even deadly but there is always a need to base a situation on the evidence at hand on that particular circumstance.

The answer to the question if someone told you to jump off a bridge would you is no different.

The answer is that it depends on the circumstances.




a reply to: TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: nonspecific

Now that is a scary thing to hear said.

The saying "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?" is not literal. It is a saying, based on the fact that suicide was at one time often committed by jumping from a high bridge, that suggests one should think for themselves before blindly following crowd logic. One could also say "if everyone killed themselves, would you do the same?"

And you just tried to reason a way to answer "yes."

Not only did you miss the point, but you just indicated that you will not think for yourself because you value complacency and obedience to following a crowd over actually thinking for yourself. I strongly urge you to re-evaluate your position. The future results of such a mentality could be quite undesirable.

TheRedneck

But, it's a logical fallacy.

It's not the same thing at all.

What is the point of this analogy?

The real point is that 4 billion or so have been vaccinated and despite all the doom porn the bodies are not exactly piling up in the streets.

a reply to: nonspecific
It called risk assessment.

Yes it is.

And in risk assessment you look at all the available information look at what we know historically that could be deemed relavant. Then we determine what we believe to be be the best decision based on the situation and act accordingly.



a reply to: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think trillions of spike proteins is a small number. Several thousand protein spikes are produced from a single mRNA packet.

You do know RNA is a molecule, right...lol

What is a trillion when dealing with something so small?

The accepted average volume of a drop of water is exactly 0.05 mL (20 drops per milliliter ). It turns out there are over 1.5 sextillion molecules in a drop of water and more than 5 sextillion atoms per droplet.

That is 1.5 billion trillions, so divide that water drop into 1.5 billion equal parts and there you have 1 trillion water molecules in just one of those parts.

Now RNA or protein is bigger, but you get the point....

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: IAMTAT
I'm going to ask this very carefully and politely to avoid any more friction but...

Whilst I cannot or will not comment on this particular doctor and his findings I'd like to ask the gang in general why the medical insurance companies are not saying anything about all this?

If the above is true then do the insurance companies not have scientists and doctors who will be looking at these types of claims?

Surely if this turns out to he true it will be the end of these companies as there's no way they could payout non such massive healthcare bills on this kind of scale?

a) Insurance companies are just alter egos for big pharma, and

b) This is, imnsho, all just a big ploy to usher in single payer government dictatorship of all 'health'care

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: IAMTAT
I'm going to ask this very carefully and politely to avoid any more friction but...

Whilst I cannot or will not comment on this particular doctor and his findings I'd like to ask the gang in general why the medical insurance companies are not saying anything about all this?

If the above is true then do the insurance companies not have scientists and doctors who will be looking at these types of claims?

Surely if this turns out to he true it will be the end of these companies as there's no way they could payout non such massive healthcare bills on this kind of scale?

a) Insurance companies are just alter egos for big pharma, and

b) This is, imnsho, all just a big ploy to usher in single payer government dictatorship of all 'health'care

(a) are you sure about that?