Vaccines in general but mRNA in particular

My niece-in-law is seemingly, a healthy young woman that gave birth to a healthy baby boy a little over 1 year ago. When he was old enough, according to the people that should know, he started getting all the required infant inoculations where he suddenly developed a persistent rash that doctors could not, or would not explain, that lasted at least 3 months. He is over the rash and incessant itching now and seems to be perfectly fine at this point.

My nephew left the army close to 2 years ago, where he was a captain and Apache gunship pilot. He loves flying and wanted to continue in that profession out in the civilian environment as a med flight pilot but didn't have enough flying hours to qualify so he applied to the National Guard in this state to fly for them. For these reasons, he decided to go ahead and get the Covid vaccine, where his wife went along and got the jab as well, around 4 months ago.

She got pregnant again, sometime in November or early December.

She went for a prenatal checkup yesterday. No heartbeat.


Infant inoculations so soon after birth defy logic to me.

There is some research coming out of Europe that the vaccine is bad for pregnancies in some people, lots more miscarriages and disabilities in the babies compared to before.

Not much is going to come out of research like this though because so many top health agency elites have said this vaccine is safe and effective, they will fight everyone who challenges them. I have known heads of government agencies and they do not like to be challenged, they go on the defense immediately and attack anyone who says anything that makes their beliefs look bad. This is very common, not just something that occasionally happens, it also happens in many places of employment, not just in Government agencies. There are some times that this can be good, but what we are seeing in the pharmaceudical and chemical industry regulation lately is not good one bit.

a reply to: rickymouse

What's funny about this, if there is anything that CAN be funny about this, is his entire family, including his extended family, me included, have not and will not have anything to do with these mRNA vaccines.

originally posted by: Antisocialist
My niece-in-law is seemingly, a healthy young woman that gave birth to a healthy baby boy a little over 1 year ago. When he was old enough, according to the people that should know, he started getting all the required infant inoculations where he suddenly developed a persistent rash that doctors could not, or would not explain, that lasted at least 3 months. He is over the rash and incessant itching now and seems to be perfectly fine at this point.

My nephew left the army close to 2 years ago, where he was a captain and Apache gunship pilot. He loves flying and wanted to continue in that profession out in the civilian environment as a med flight pilot but didn't have enough flying hours to qualify so he applied to the National Guard in this state to fly for them. For these reasons, he decided to go ahead and get the Covid vaccine, where his wife went along and got the jab as well, around 4 months ago.

She got pregnant again, sometime in November or early December.

She went for a prenatal checkup yesterday. No heartbeat.

Infant inoculations so soon after birth defy logic to me.

You indicated this was not her first pregnancy. The medical term for a woman who has given birth before is "parous".

"Miscarriages are common among parous women; 43% of parous women report having experienced one or more first trimester spontaneous miscarriages, rising to 81% among women with 11 or more living children. One in every 17 parous women have three or more miscarriages. ..."

From:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Spontaneous miscarriages are a lot more common than most people think and have been that way since long before Covid or the vaccines.

a reply to: Antisocialist
You shouldn't mix up the traditional, well-established and extremely helpful vaccines (e.g. measles, polio, tetanus), with those newly developed covid jabs. Those jabs are no vaccines simply because they don't provide immunity against the pathogen.

The old-school vaccines are very good and have saved millions of lives over the decades (assuming good quality of the vaccine and not any cheap crap polluted with toxins). A healthy person should show no side effects against those. If there are side effects, then there is some underlying condition that needs to be investigated.

The new mRNA jabs, however, are a completely different beast. Maybe, in theory, they could work. The current ones are completely experimental, however, and very much rushed out bypassing any established and important safety protocols. Not safe at all!

originally posted by: Torlin
a reply to: Antisocialist
You shouldn't mix up the traditional, well-established and extremely helpful vaccines (e.g. measles, polio, tetanus), with those newly developed covid jabs.

Yeah, because the very same people that are lying through their teeth about everything to do with these jabs, and have been found guilty many times of lying and falsifying evidence in trials for any and all of t heir wares would never lie about those other vaccines, only about these new ones.

Honestly, considering everything we now know about these criminals, how anyone can continue to not at l;east question the other vaccines is beyond me.

a reply to: Antisocialist

I think in terms of any medical treatment-the risk benefit ratio needs to be taken into account. For instance, if you get bitten by a bat with rabies-taking the rabies vaccine, even with the possibility of side effects, is worth it because Rabies will kill you in a horrible and tortuous manner. 100%. I don’t know the risk/benefit ratio for all the vaccines given to children though I am sure most weigh more heavily on the benefit side (probably not all of them).

Furthermore-not every health issue a vaccinated person suffers from is due to the covid vaccine. I am seeing unvaccinated people jumping on these with glee because it will mean finally they are proven right. Don’t give into confirmation bias.

originally posted by: AcrobaticDreams
a reply to: Antisocialist

I think in terms of any medical treatment-the risk benefit ratio needs to be taken into account. For instance, if you get bitten by a bat with rabies-taking the rabies vaccine, even with the possibility of side effects, is worth it because Rabies will kill you in a horrible and tortuous manner. 100%. I don’t know the risk/benefit ratio for all the vaccines given to children though I am sure most weigh more heavily on the benefit side (probably not all of them).

Furthermore-not every health issue a vaccinated person suffers from is due to the covid vaccine. I am seeing unvaccinated people jumping on these with glee because it will mean finally they are proven right. Don’t give into confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is a two way street. It is sometimes surprising how easy it is to get caught up in the game.

The same set of statistics can be used to prove or disprove the opposing issues.

The problem here, is that it has become an issue of sides. A case of the Stars upon thars.

All of it has become meaningless, and we are being used like chickens in a cock fight. Not realizing that none us chickens win. We all up in the pot as soup, after the entertainment is over.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

originally posted by: AcrobaticDreams
a reply to: Antisocialist

I think in terms of any medical treatment-the risk benefit ratio needs to be taken into account. For instance, if you get bitten by a bat with rabies-taking the rabies vaccine, even with the possibility of side effects, is worth it because Rabies will kill you in a horrible and tortuous manner. 100%. I don’t know the risk/benefit ratio for all the vaccines given to children though I am sure most weigh more heavily on the benefit side (probably not all of them).

Furthermore-not every health issue a vaccinated person suffers from is due to the covid vaccine. I am seeing unvaccinated people jumping on these with glee because it will mean finally they are proven right. Don’t give into confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is a two way street. It is sometimes surprising how easy it is to get caught up in the game.

The same set of statistics can be used to prove or disprove the opposing issues.

The problem here, is that it has become an issue of sides. A case of the Stars upon thars.

All of it has become meaningless, and we are being used like chickens in a cock fight. Not realizing that none us chickens win. We all up in the pot as soup, after the entertainment is over.

I guess if you give into the idea that life is not looking out for us and instead we are at the mercy of psychopathic and ingenious elites intent on using, abusing and killing-then that is true. Regardless of what your belief towards the situation is-being aware of confirmation bias is pivotal and may even be the purpose of it all.

a reply to: 1947boomer
But this wasn't a spontaneous miscarriage. This was a dead foetus at around 12 weeks I am assuming. Spontaneous miscarriage yet to happen and might not because now the lady will need medical intervention sadly.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

Correct! A dead fetus.

Because of the copious reports of myocardium and other heart related problems linked to this vax, I do suspect her condition is related to the mRNA vaccine.


If myocardium isn't the right term to use here, blame my stupidity and my spellcheck app.

a reply to: 1947boomer
indicated this was not her first pregnancy. The medical term for a woman who has given birth before is "parous".

"Miscarriages are common among parous women; 43% of parous women report having experienced one or more first trimester spontaneous miscarriages, rising to 81% among women with 11 or more living children. One in every 17 parous women have three or more miscarriages. ..."

From:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


What dose does a fetus get through the placenta of a single,double,booster dosed pregnant woman?

originally posted by: Lemon1234
a reply to: 1947boomer
indicated this was not her first pregnancy. The medical term for a woman who has given birth before is "parous".

"Miscarriages are common among parous women; 43% of parous women report having experienced one or more first trimester spontaneous miscarriages, rising to 81% among women with 11 or more living children. One in every 17 parous women have three or more miscarriages. ..."

From:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


What dose does a fetus get through the placenta of a single,double,booster dosed pregnant woman?

If she got the vaccine 4 months ago but didn’t get pregnant until 2 months ago or less, there would have been no vaccine left in her system to transfer to the fetus. Only antibodies, at that time.

a reply to: 1947boomer

What about women being recommended to get the vaccine at first ,second and third trimester?