Woman dies in her 20s due to Moderna's booster vaccine

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Their data only stacks up if you include mild flu like symptoms in the harm category, and presume that the person has a low infection risk.

The risk of serious harm is less than 0.002 per percent.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Their data only stacks up if you include mild flu like symptoms in the harm category, and presume that the person has a low infection risk.

The risk of serious harm is less than 0.002 per percent.

Your own source refutes your claims.

papers.ssrn.com...

We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Ksihkehe
So you think you can tell me how I should think and what my opinions should be on a public forum?? A bit arrogant of you, don't you think?

LOL

Anybody that's read your posts over the past two years will find your feigned indignation laughable. Using this 100% certain nonsense is fully deserving of whatever ridicule is heaped up on you. You keep going on about the severity of COVID in these threads while ignoring the average of five comorbidities and the cases counted as deaths that merely tested positive without having the disease. Then you make an asinine comment about 100% certainty like that's ever been a medical standard.

These contradictions in how you weigh COVID data versus the vaccine data are because you're ignorant of how public health science and epidemiology work.

I didn't tell you how you should think. I'm just suggesting you give it a try sometime.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Kurokage

So the vaccines are a double whammy risk considering they don’t stop transmission or infection from Covid.

This is too easy pal, at least try and cover the gaping wounds in your logic before posting.

Sources in my signature show

I know I speak for everybody in saying, just cut that sh!t out already! Nobody is interested in digging through your stale pile of "sources".
Honestly, why do you think you are above everyone else? THEY have the courtesy to link SPECIFIC sources when they make a SPECIFIC claim. Stop being a lazy A-hole.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Ksihkehe
So you think you can tell me how I should think and what my opinions should be on a public forum?? A bit arrogant of you, don't you think?

LOL

Anybody that's read your posts over the past two years will find your feigned indignation laughable. Using this 100% certain nonsense is fully deserving of whatever ridicule is heaped up on you. You keep going on about the severity of COVID in these threads while ignoring the average of five comorbidities and the cases counted as deaths that merely tested positive without having the disease. Then you make an asinine comment about 100% certainty like that's ever been a medical standard.

These contradictions in how you weigh COVID data versus the vaccine data are because you're ignorant of how public health science and epidemiology work.

I didn't tell you how you should think. I'm just suggesting you give it a try sometime.

I believe that a few days ago there was a claim by the same member that 12.87 billion people have been vaccinated. The planet having only 8 billion people in total. Then some mathematics were produced on the basis of that.

When it was pointed out that the population of the planet is much less than this, then it changed to vaccinatations rather than people. And new mathematics came into play.

No talk yet about the person who died from the vaccine. I think the member questions it and another one said it was fake...

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Anybody that's read your posts over the past two years will find your feigned indignation laughable. Using this 100% certain nonsense is fully deserving of whatever ridicule is heaped up on you. You keep going on about the severity of COVID in these threads while ignoring the average of five comorbidities and the cases counted as deaths that merely tested positive without having the disease. Then you make an asinine comment about 100% certainty like that's ever been a medical standard.

I find your post laughable when reading them so we're even!!
Please post where I go on about severity. The only time I've spoken of severity is for people who are either old or ill, I only posted what was linked to in the OP that the poster "missed" if you find that incorrect them may be take it up with them and the Aussie government?
I see like all your other posts, you have your little rant and don't bother posting any evidence to back up any of your claims.
The covid and vaccine data tends to be in peer reviewed or offical papers whilst most of those against tend to be none peer reviewed with poster thinking or claiming they are or worse, opinion peices.
You're just another anti-vaxer putting words into peoples mouths to suit your opinion and bias here. You should try taking off the blinkers, it may help you see properly.

but acknowledged there were several other complicating factors that may have contributed to her death.

That is what was written in the article. When someone has died from the vaccination, it's posted and reported as such.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
The data I posted was correct, I just typed people instead of vaccines in one post, I've seen enough of your mistakes but I'm not petty enough to point them out every time!
Some of us have things like jobs and life and will quickly throw up a responce when they have a spare second.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The data I posted was correct, I just typed people instead of vaccines in one post, I've seen enough of your mistakes but I'm not petty enough to point them out every time!
Some of us have things like jobs and life and will quickly throw up a responce when they have time.

No it wasn't correct. You were going about the same matter unchallenged and you produced mathematics based on this. Then you changed your post and your calculations...

Yes, it's only you who sees mistakes in my posts as it seems. Or pretends to see mistakes.

The fact is that you try to question the death of someone who has died from the vaccine and then you point out that this a a government site that I am referencing. I am not referencing the Government of Australia and nobody can trust Governments and their narratives when it comes to Covid. I am pointing out to the death caused by the vaccine regardless of the attempts to downplay the issue by claiming that vaccines save lives and the rest of the story...

Any claim made has to be independently verified. None of us here trust Government sources when it comes to vaccine safety and effectiveness.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Anybody that's read your posts over the past two years will find your feigned indignation laughable. Using this 100% certain nonsense is fully deserving of whatever ridicule is heaped up on you. You keep going on about the severity of COVID in these threads while ignoring the average of five comorbidities and the cases counted as deaths that merely tested positive without having the disease. Then you make an asinine comment about 100% certainty like that's ever been a medical standard.

I find your post laughable when reading them so we're even!!
Please post where I go on about severity. The only time I've spoken of severity is for people who are either old or ill, I only posted what was linked to in the OP that the poster "missed" if you find that incorrect them may be take it up with them and the Aussie government?
I see like all your other posts, you have your little rant and don't bother posting any evidence to back up any of your claims.
The covid and vaccine data tends to be in peer reviewed or offical papers whilst most of those against tend to be none peer reviewed with poster thinking or claiming they are or worse, opinion peices.
You're just another anti-vaxer putting words into peoples mouths to suit your opinion and bias here. You should try taking off the blinkers, it may help you see properly.

but acknowledged there were several other complicating factors that may have contributed to her death.

That is what was written in the article. When someone has died from the vaccination, it's posted and reported as such.

If they take a look at your claims you will see that the evidence is missing from your posts.

Not even a word about the death of the person who died from the vaccine.

Your argument about peer-reviewed papers as being the arbiters of truth is just so flawed and explained many times by several members. Nothing that comes from non independent sources can be trusted.

Unless you claim that the peer review process when it comes to covid and vaccines isn't politicalized and highly influenced by politics and financial interests. Do you say the process hadn't been corrupted?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I never changed my post so that's an out right lie on your part.
Have you found your qualifications yet I wonder??

The fact is that you try to question the death of someone who has died from the vaccine

I don't question it, I question why you left out parts of the story you posted like this comment...

but acknowledged there were several other complicating factors that may have contributed to her death.

You cherry picked comments to post to show a certain bias that you prefer.
The site you linked to is newsGP and is the RACGP’s news hub, designed to keep Australian GPs informed about the latest in general practice. It is the The Royal Australian College of General Practioners (Which will be link to the goverment) and within the story was a link to the actual report spoken about in the article.

Your argument about peer-reviewed papers as being the arbiters of truth is just so flawed and explained many times by several members. Nothing that comes from non independent sources can be trusted.

Peer review is a tried and tested way of providing proven evidence for publication, I notice most of the anti-vaccine articles are just opinion and unproven data, which is mostly whats posted to these kinds of threads as evidence, which is laughable.

I am not referencing the Government of Australia and nobody can trust Governments and their narratives when it comes to Covid.

Thats just your opinion here and you've shown no evidence that the Aussie government can't be trusted!!! Just the usual Doom Porn.....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't question it, I question why you left out parts of the story you posted like this comment...

but acknowledged there were several other complicating factors that may have contributed to her death.

That is right there in the OP. Read the OP and you will read this quote:

The panel acknowledged that there could be other factors to that may have contributed to her death.

I wonder if what's driving some of this debate is a reading comprehension issue?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I never changed my post so that's an out right lie on your part.
Have you found your qualifications yet I wonder??

The fact is that you try to question the death of someone who has died from the vaccine

I don't question it, I question why you left out parts of the story you posted like this comment...

but acknowledged there were several other complicating factors that may have contributed to her death.

You cherry picked comments to post to show a certain bias that you prefer.
The site you linked to is newsGP and is the RACGP’s news hub, designed to keep Australian GPs informed about the latest in general practice. It is the The Royal Australian College of General Practioners and within the story was a link to the actual report spoken about in the article.

Your argument about peer-reviewed papers as being the arbiters of truth is just so flawed and explained many times by several members. Nothing that comes from non independent sources can be trusted.

Peer review is a tried and tested way of providing proven evidence for publication, I notice most of the ant-vaccine articles are just opinion and unproven data, which is mostly whats posted to these kinds of threads as evidence, which laughable.

I am not referencing the Government of Australia and nobody can trust Governments and their narratives when it comes to Covid.

Thats just your opinion here and you've shown no evidence that the Aussie government can't be trusted!!! Just the usual Doom Porn.....

No I don't provide random articles.
Anyone can see my links. Most links are references to scientific papers just as the one that I posted above which shows that these vaccines may not be safe and effective.

papers.ssrn.com...

We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable

So not safe and effective.

I don't remember leaving part of the story...
The story is simple. The death of a young person from the vaccine.

I am not the one who has to provide evidence for the credibillity and reliability of the Australian Government. The onus is on them to prove they are reliable and credible. I haven't seen such evidence yet unless you want to tell us how good they are.

Yes we know what peer review is. How credible this peer review is when it comes to Covid and vaccines given that the narrative is controlled. Or do you claim that the process hadn't been corrupted by the pharmaceuticals? If you do, then prove it.


And of course you changed your post as you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Do you claim to have qualifications in medicine or science?

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't question it, I question why you left out parts of the story you posted like this comment...

but acknowledged there were several other complicating factors that may have contributed to her death.

That is right there in the OP. Read the OP and you will read this quote:

The panel acknowledged that there could be other factors to that may have contributed to her death.

I wonder if what's driving some of this debate is a reading comprehension issue?

He hasn't read the OP. The arguments presented are in a turmoil.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Almost anyone can write and post a paper to the websites you link to, so you can post a "scientific paper" but then peer review is is not crediable, how is that scientific??

You seemed to have missed this part of the article??

It is the first death in Australia that has been officially linked to an mRNA vaccine. The death is being reviewed by a state coroner.
The TGA says that the expert group stressed the overall benefits of vaccination ‘continue to far outweigh the risks for the mRNA vaccines’.
There have been 14 COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths reported since the rollout began early last year.
As of 12 October, a total of 63,807,197 vaccine doses had been administered in Australia since the rollout began last year.

There hasn't even been an autopsy yet!!

I am not the one who has to provide evidence for the credibillity and reliability of the Australian Government.

You do if it's you making accusations about their credibilty to back up your claims and bias.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Almost anyone can write and post a paper to the websites you link to, so you can post a "scientific paper" but then peer review is is not crediable, how is that scientific??

You seemed to have missed this part of the article??

It is the first death in Australia that has been officially linked to an mRNA vaccine. The death is being reviewed by a state coroner.
The TGA says that the expert group stressed the overall benefits of vaccination ‘continue to far outweigh the risks for the mRNA vaccines’.
There have been 14 COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths reported since the rollout began early last year.
As of 12 October, a total of 63,807,197 vaccine doses had been administered in Australia since the rollout began last year.

I am not the one who has to provide evidence for the credibillity and reliability of the Australian Government.

You do if it's you making accusations about their credibilty.

You may have not have realised that you don't put the entire article up as it is against the rules. You put a few paragraphs and then anyone car read the rest.

Your first paragraph is just word salad and doesn't make any sense.

Try to read the paper I linked above which shows that booster mandates may cause a net harm. Given that the person who died received her booster vaccine....

If you read the article further down you will see something more revealing

There have been 14 COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths reported since the rollout began early last year.

And not just one... But myself and others here are very doubtful if it's 14 deaths related to the vaccines.... If you have seen also the other papers that I have posted. The death above is the only one officially linked to the mRNA vaccines. Whatever this means...

So no... You arguments are not good enough. For once more.

www.medrxiv.org...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I've been posting for 16 years, I know how to post.
You just missed out the pertinent bits that didn't suit your own bias.
Like this...

It is the first death in Australia that has been officially linked to an mRNA vaccine. The death is being reviewed by a state coroner.

Also

Your first paragraph is just word salad and doesn't make any sense.

You may have comprehension problems but as I stated the websites you claim as "scientific" proof are just hosting sites and the paper will state if it's peer reviewed and not just a paper waiting to be reviewed or worse, just posted to the site unreviewed, but you know that.

And not just one... But myself and others here are very doubtful if it's 14 deaths related to the vaccines.... If you have seen also the other papers that I have posted. The death above is the only one officially linked to the mRNA vaccines. Whatever this means...

And that's just your biased opinion because of fear or something similar.
PDF Chart-Risk of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination vs after COVID-19 infection Estimated cases of myocarditis by age, sex and vaccination status Australia, October 2022

ATTENTION

I don't know how it is that people can't understand that opinions of each other are not the topic on ATS - EVER - but it's close to time to start issuing Posting Bans to those who ignore this.

BE WARNED IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE POSTING BANNED!

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it.

The topic is Woman dies in her 20s due to Moderna's booster vaccine

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Tortuga
If the cure/vaccine kills more than the disease/virus then which one is really the disease/virus?

A friend of mine in his mid 70s has recently had his 4th jab, along with his wife. They have some extra risks (even from the flu) so in many ways it makes some sense as they are in a higher risk group. I am in my 50s and will not be taking up the invite I received yesterday to have a 4th jab, not now knowing what I know.

I get that you have already been vaccinated and have received three doses but I understand why yo don't want to continue.

It is true that the infection fatality rates are very low for the young age groups and higher for the over 60s. Still the overall infection fatality rate of Covid-19 is very low and it's around 0.15%

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

One of the few people I know who got covid only found out because he was hospitalized for a lung infection that had a different origin. He was high risk because of his past heart surgeries yet was isolated in a covid ward which didn't make sense to me. A

nyhow, the covid only came to light due to the testing and was incidental to his infection. Because of this, I feel there must be a genetic component to our susceptibility to all diseases as I was surprised he was out of hospital in a few days, on antibiotics for his lungs but in home isolation a further fourteen days due to having tested positive for covid.

Co-morbidities up risk but even with them people can often be fine. My friend, who has copd and other stuff, was utterly freaked out by covid and insisting she'd die if she got it. Then when she did, she experienced nothing more than a cold. Of course, not the case for everyone, but it's not a guaranteed death sentence for most.

Yes, this was off topic. Woman in 20's likely didn't need the vaccine due to being young and in an age range where covid is likely mild.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I've been posting for 16 years, I know how to post.
You just missed out the pertinent bits that didn't suit your own bias.
Like this...

It is the first death in Australia that has been officially linked to an mRNA vaccine. The death is being reviewed by a state coroner.

Also

Your first paragraph is just word salad and doesn't make any sense.

You may have comprehension problems but as I stated the websites you claim as "scientific" proof are just hosting sites and the paper will state if it's peer reviewed and not just a paper waiting to be reviewed or worse, just posted to the site unreviewed, but you know that.

And not just one... But myself and others here are very doubtful if it's 14 deaths related to the vaccines.... If you have seen also the other papers that I have posted. The death above is the only one officially linked to the mRNA vaccines. Whatever this means...

And that's just your biased opinion because of fear or something similar.
PDF Chart-Risk of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination vs after COVID-19 infection Estimated cases of myocarditis by age, sex and vaccination status Australia, October 2022

I am afraid what you are saying is not true for once more especially for someone who posts 16 years as you say and makes claims that 12.87 billion people have been vaccinated when there are only 8 billion of us on this planet.

This is what you have said

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's more biased unqualified propaganda against the vaccine than for it and like I've stated its now more than 12.87 billion people vaxed and the dead aren't laying every where like some posters have commented, I mean it should be 40% of the UK dead by now.

Then again on another post you repeat this flawed argument by making calculations

There is no disputing that 12.87 billion people have been vaccinated..... If you take in consideration 12.8 billion people have been vaccinated, then if even 0.01% died from the side effects of the jab, that would still equate to 1,300,000 people and sadly some people have died from it.

You seem to think that there are 12.87 billion people on this planet given also your calculations. You have claimed that you have made a mistake...


Then again you make some claims that I have intentionally not included all parts of the article. That's false too. It is against the rules to include the entire article. Only a few paragraphs are allowed.

I included the main story i.e the death of this woman due to the Covid vaccine.

I didn't include this part either

There have been 14 COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths reported since the rollout began early last year.

Some of the papers are peer reviewed, others are pre-prints. Since when pre-prints are non valid?!?! They maybe non valid when they don't fit your narrative and ideas. I get that.