40% Of Rheumatologist's Vaccinated Patients Have Severe Vaccine Injuries

Rheumatologist's commonly deal with patients who have chronic conditions such as auto immune diseases. These diseases often involve dysfunctional immune systems and it's very easy to see how introducing an experimental drug that produces trillions of antigens in the form of spike proteins is like pouring gasoline on the fire. In fact, in a leaked video from December 2020, the CEO of AstraZeneca explained that millions of immunocompromised people cannot be vaccinated. It seems as though these people would be at a much higher risk from an adverse event when you consider the evidence presented and variables involved.

Dr. Robert Jackson recently sat down with Steve Kirsch to discuss the effects of vaccines on his 5 thousand patients. Dr. Jackson has practiced medicine for 35 years and has experience with how normal vaccines affect his patients and the difference between them and the experimental mRNA vaccines. He also saw the onset of new autoimmune diseases in 5% of these patients as well, but it's likely much higher in the unscreened patients.

The doctor also admits he advised his patients to get vaccinated in the first few months of 2021, but after he saw all the issues he changed his approach, and is now able to give more accurate informed consent. The doctor is extremely pro-vaccine and got vaccinated himself. This is an example of a doctor not being afraid to share his experience with the covid vaccines, and how they are causing a huge problem for his patients.



VIDEO INTERVIEW

SOURCE

They mentioned that people with autoimmune diseases might have issues when this vaccine was released. But later they found some research group to say it was safe for people with autoimmune diseases to take the vaccine...just one research was done on this from what I looked for at the time. This was pushed on the public as scientific fact, yet I did not find proper evidence to accept their conclusions in the research when I scanned it.

I will not accept one research article paid for by the company pushing it as evidence of safety. That would be like the fox guarding the henhouse.

So I have not said much about that research summary of it being safe for those with autoimmune problems...because it seemed to sketchy to me...the evidence to back up their claims was not there.

This could be a plausible problem for people with autoimmune disease, but I cannot say it is true that it causes long term problems but can see that it could possibly cause short term problems in many with autoimmune diseases. They have been limiting free access to lots of these research articles with specifics now...and I am not going to start paying to get them when taxpayer money paid to have them done.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Immunocompromised people can be vaccinated, it's just that it doesn't do anything, because their immune system will never mount a functional immune response.

That is what being immunocompromised means.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Immunocompromised people can be vaccinated, it's just that it doesn't do anything, because their immune system will never mount a functional immune response.

That is what being immunocompromised means.

Actually that's incorrect because it's such an oversimplification. They can be considered immunompromised because their immune system is dysfunctional and doesn't react properly to most antigens, but it could be overreactive in other situations such as with autoimmunity. There is a TH1/TH2 balance between macrophages and antibodies. Having your immune system attempting to deal with the onslaught of inflammatory spike proteins isn't going to help it. Funny how they still recommend everyone gets it.


But cool story bro, I see you didn't watch the video and have zero relevant feedback as usual.

originally posted by: rickymouse
They mentioned that people with autoimmune diseases might have issues when this vaccine was released. But later they found some research group to say it was safe for people with autoimmune diseases to take the vaccine...just one research was done on this from what I looked for at the time. This was pushed on the public as scientific fact, yet I did not find proper evidence to accept their conclusions in the research when I scanned it.

I will not accept one research article paid for by the company pushing it as evidence of safety. That would be like the fox guarding the henhouse.

So I have not said much about that research summary of it being safe for those with autoimmune problems...because it seemed to sketchy to me...the evidence to back up their claims was not there.

This could be a plausible problem for people with autoimmune disease, but I cannot say it is true that it causes long term problems but can see that it could possibly cause short term problems in many with autoimmune diseases. They have been limiting free access to lots of these research articles with specifics now...and I am not going to start paying to get them when taxpayer money paid to have them done.

LOL.

Immunocompromised people don't have a proper immune response. So giving them a vaccine doesn't work because they have no immune system to 'train-up' against the disease.

It is just safe to give the vaccines to an immunocompromised person, as it is to give to any other person.

But the vaccine could never be expected to work in someone without a properly functioning immune system.

Again, LOL.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rickymouse
They mentioned that people with autoimmune diseases might have issues when this vaccine was released. But later they found some research group to say it was safe for people with autoimmune diseases to take the vaccine...just one research was done on this from what I looked for at the time. This was pushed on the public as scientific fact, yet I did not find proper evidence to accept their conclusions in the research when I scanned it.

I will not accept one research article paid for by the company pushing it as evidence of safety. That would be like the fox guarding the henhouse.

So I have not said much about that research summary of it being safe for those with autoimmune problems...because it seemed to sketchy to me...the evidence to back up their claims was not there.

This could be a plausible problem for people with autoimmune disease, but I cannot say it is true that it causes long term problems but can see that it could possibly cause short term problems in many with autoimmune diseases. They have been limiting free access to lots of these research articles with specifics now...and I am not going to start paying to get them when taxpayer money paid to have them done.

LOL.


Again, LOL.

Do you think this is a productive way to discuss things with people--laughing at them when they are wrong? Do you think that's going to convince anyone or be helpful in any way? And also using little mocking emojis? Do you think anyone actually believes you are trying to be helpful and not just troll every thread while ALWAYS adhering to the mainstream narrative?

a reply to: chr0naut

I find that it varies. While some do not experience an immune response, others can make great antibodies. I'd try to draw conclusions, but I have two RA patients on the same meds amd similar bloodwork relative to their RA treatment. One does not have an immune response to the vaccine, while the other gains above average protection each time.

a reply to: chr0naut

It seems that totally unvaccinated people are a lot healthier than those that have all the shots that were advised. However, some vaccinations seem ok. I wonder how many are potential killers. Hiding with the bad ones. With this Covid vax we can see how easy it is to hide bad data that would upset the money flow.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It only makes sense that somebody with auto immune diseases will no be able to have a good outcome after been injected, just like the elderly having problems too after the jab.

Only those pushing for this injection will tell you is all good.

I'm sure glad I'm not one of those 40%, I simply don't rush into treatments now that involve synthetic and experimental elements that haven't stood the test of time, or stand to make some drug company another 5b profits that quarter.

My late grandfather was a WWII neuro surgeon who once showed me the big fat drug bible that they are taught to use to prescribe meds quickly based on the drug companies recommendations. He was a brain surgeon back in the days when they were just figuring it out, and he was not a huge fan of taking untested treatments.

I'm not taking the koolaid jab, but don't let me stop you

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rickymouse
They mentioned that people with autoimmune diseases might have issues when this vaccine was released. But later they found some research group to say it was safe for people with autoimmune diseases to take the vaccine...just one research was done on this from what I looked for at the time. This was pushed on the public as scientific fact, yet I did not find proper evidence to accept their conclusions in the research when I scanned it.

I will not accept one research article paid for by the company pushing it as evidence of safety. That would be like the fox guarding the henhouse.

So I have not said much about that research summary of it being safe for those with autoimmune problems...because it seemed to sketchy to me...the evidence to back up their claims was not there.

This could be a plausible problem for people with autoimmune disease, but I cannot say it is true that it causes long term problems but can see that it could possibly cause short term problems in many with autoimmune diseases. They have been limiting free access to lots of these research articles with specifics now...and I am not going to start paying to get them when taxpayer money paid to have them done.

LOL.

Again, LOL.

Do you think this is a productive way to discuss things with people--laughing at them when they are wrong? Do you think that's going to convince anyone or be helpful in any way? And also using little mocking emojis? Do you think anyone actually believes you are trying to be helpful and not just troll every thread while ALWAYS adhering to the mainstream narrative?

Do you think it is productive to post serially, nearly every day, posts urging people to not take any effective precautions (no masks, no lock-downs, no vaccines) against a disease that is killing people (like the 306 people who died of COVID-19 just last week in the US).

I think that sort of propagandizing for people to take fatal risks is downright evil.

a reply to: anonentity

The statistics don't support that.

It's important to remember that the highest vaxxed groups in most Western countries are the groups that are most at risk. For example seniors with multiple comorbidity. If you look at the curve and take things like this into account what you're actually seeing isn't that the unvaxxed are generally healthier, it's that the most vulnerable are more highly vaxxed.

This is one of the reasons that data is often given as a ... per X of a given population, rather than as a raw percentage per total population.

A good example of this is with countries that don't routinely vax children unless they have comorbidity or other defining characteristics. You could say that the unvaxxed have a lower rate of serious sickness, and apparently demonstrate this statistically by fudging the numbers to disguise the fact that you're including the group with both the lowest rate of vaxxing and the lowest rate of serious sickness.

It's like saying that people who are afraid of flying are the least likely to die in plane wrecks, and then claiming that a fear of flying gives you psychic powers to avoid dangerous airlines.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

But what does common sense say on the matter? and what are the consequences of ignoring all the red flags and getting the shot. I would suggest denying the facts because you don't like them is also a choice with consequences.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

It seems that totally unvaccinated people are a lot healthier than those that have all the shots that were advised. However, some vaccinations seem ok. I wonder how many are potential killers. Hiding with the bad ones. With this Covid vax we can see how easy it is to hide bad data that would upset the money flow.

Vaccines have a definite positive impact in regard to the diseases that they work against.

Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first five years of life - PubMed

However, this myth of unvaccinated healthy people is easily dispersed by historical data from before any vaccines existed and show very short average life spans, horrific disease, and chronic ongoing health issues due to disease. In a world of unvaccinated people, there was massively more disease and death. The unvaccinated just aren't healthier.

In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the unvaccinated are more than twenty times as likely to die of COVID-19: Who is dying of COVID amid omicron surge and widespread vaccine availability?

And the primary load on the health system in regard to COVID-19 is from the unvaccinated: The unvaccinated and their impact on the health care system

The additional possibility that there might be other health effects from the vaccines, is massively reduced in the case of mRNA vaccines which are very specific in their actions and effects, compared with other vaccines and exposures to pathogens 'in the wild'.

None the less, anti vaxxers have long implied that all sorts of vaccines cause all sorts of other unforeseen immune related problems, and have called for comparative double-blind studies of the long term effects of vaccination. Firstly, this implies that a million-fold more data is not already available from real-world clinical records, and which is being examined on an ongoing basis, and secondly that doing so would be highly unethical, exposing 50% of trial participants to known preventable threat of fatal disease or maiming.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: AaarghZombies

But what does common sense say on the matter? and what are the consequences of ignoring all the red flags and getting the shot. I would suggest denying the facts because you don't like them is also a choice with consequences.

Are you implying that your opinion is common sense?

I think common sense is to evaluate risks and advantages based on the best and most comprehensive information we have (and a few testimonials or opinions are NOT the best or most comprehensive information we have).

a reply to: chr0naut

That's your opinion, I respect it. But don't have to agree with it. I would just add, that you might be right that some vaccines do what they were designed to do with respect to a certain disease. But we also have to consider do they cause a weakness in the immune system which will give another condition an advantage. The rise of unrelated conditions in the modern world suggests more studies must be done. Every action has consequences. We are not a particularly very healthy society, which would not be the case if modern medicine in its present form actually worked.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

That's your opinion, I respect it. But don't have to agree with it. I would just add, that you might be right that some vaccines do what they were designed to do with respect to a certain disease. But we also have to consider do they cause a weakness in the immune system which will give another condition an advantage. The rise of unrelated conditions in the modern world suggests more studies must be done. Every action has consequences. We are not a particularly very healthy society, which would not be the case if modern medicine in its present form actually worked.

Please provide definitive studies that shows that vaccines reduce overall immune response.

In a natural environment, humans are assailed with multiple pathogens simultaneously. They don't all line up in sequence to affect us one after the other. Our immune systems respond to that and we don't sicken with every other disease just because we recently got over another.

The whole VAIDS myth is based upon the mistaken idea that promoting one immune response somehow attenuates all others, making us immune compromised in regard to every other disease. Common sense, elementary biology, and human history disproves that.

The term VAIDS in the context of disease did not seem exist prior to December 2021. Just go onto Google Scholar and search for the term "VAIDS", and see how many results you get for some sort of medical condition (you will get quite a few for the Nigerian Voluntary Assets and Income Declaration Scheme). It is not a real medical syndrome.

AIDS is a condition caused by a retrovirus (HIV, a lentivirus) that specifically attacks cells of the immune system and is entirely unrelated to any coronavirus disease, just as it is unrelated to the individual components of coronaviruses (like the spike protein, or the mRNA that codes for it), used in vaccines against COVID-19.

a reply to: chr0naut

Here is one relevant to excess mortality for your neck of the woods. If you cant see something is very wrong you simply don't want to.No another graph will do, because it can be lawyer talked until the parties are blue in the face. Does the mortality rate go up when the vaccinations are administered apparently they do, www.bitchute.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: chr0naut

Here is one relevant to excess mortality for your neck of the woods. If you cant see something is very wrong you simply don't want to.No another graph will do, because it can be lawyer talked until the parties are blue in the face. Does the mortality rate go up when the vaccinations are administered apparently they do, www.bitchute.com...

A bullchute video, by someone called TexasLindsay?

But entirely explicable by the fact that, in New Zealand, we three times eliminated community transmission of the virus after individual outbreaks. This kept previous COVID-19 mortality very, very low.

However, with the outbreak of the Delta strain, and then the Omicron strains, infectiousness rose to the point where the previous mitigations were no longer effective enough to quickly eliminate the outbreak.

As well as this, large protests were staged for a little less than one month, where no precautions were being taken by the protestors. Prior to these super-spreader protests, the outbreaks were limited to about 100 people, nationwide. In the week after the protests, there were 10,000+ new infections per day, and many of the protestors leaving the protests were stopping off in small country towns seeking medical assistance, which spread the virus into even isolated rural communities, very rapidly.

After the rise in new daily infections, the rise in mortality followed about 12-14 days behind the daily new case curve, as all the epidemiologists had expected would happen.

Vaccination coverage in New Zealand also initially lagged behind other countries, but with the rise in new daily infections, and the rise in deaths from COVID-19, there was a strong push to vaccinate as many as possible, into all areas of society. I think if you break down the timeline of excess mortality, it probably precedes the highest rate of vaccine take-up, by a few days, showing that vaccination was not a cause of excess mortality, but was either correspondent to it, or that vaccination was subsequent to higher rates of infection and mortality, which motivated people to get vaccinated.