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

a reply to: Kurokage

Please post where I go on about severity.

Unlike you I remember who I'm talking to and the things they actually said. I don't know why you think saying true statements you don't like is ranting.

You talk about my ego but I'm not the one telling you I know better than medical science

I know the impact that covid had on people and the infrastructure of the NHS from family that work in that enviroment and it was more than just a simple "flu" for lots of people and the "jab" helped contain some of that mess.

Your most recent reference to it.

Shall we ignore that you used hearsay while saying "I know"? I guess your love of peer review is on hold when you have anecdotal personal evidence? Shall we ignore that you falsely implied I made some claim about it being the flu, which it now actually is like for most people? Shall we ignore you got it from workers who themselves are taking the word of others or are heavily biased by dealing with the worst .5% of the worst symptomatic cases? Shall we ignore the whole flattening the curve narrative and ICUs being overwhelmed for extended periods was debunked widely in the US? COVID care was intentionally and sometimes unnecessarily concentrated. The high risk demographics were already thinned by the more deadly initial variant and healthy people under 60 were never flooding the entire medical system for extended periods, contrary to what you would like us to believe. Much of it was inflated by bots and paid media campaigns.

The whole COVID narrative hinges on the lies about mortality and frequency of infection started almost three years ago, so you absolutely do go on about it. You just don't understand your own position well enough to understand that. You cannot justify vaccinating young people on an emergency basis and violating human rights without ignoring demographic disparities in mortality, ignoring the lies of efficacy, ignoring the lies about transmission, and completely ignoring medical ethics. Since I have actually engaged in public health epidemiology and disease prevention, the precious medical science you love from a distance through family and friends, I find these things important. More important than what paid pharma shills tell me on the television, in media, and through sponsored studies that have biased pro-vax assumptions baked into their methodology/conclusions.

That you don't understand how they built their narrative on manipulating data and flat out lying isn't my problem to fix. That you don't understand that your position is one that is built on that series of lies isn't something I can correct. That you think that some perceived benefit you connect to the vaccine with no proof, from 2021 no less, is a valid reason to defend the vaccine for all purposes and against all criticism is not something I can cure you of. My answer isn't going to change, because your opinion never will.

If you knew enough to form your own opinion based on facts this shouldn't be something you need me to give you links to or explain. It's self-evident. Even if you quibbled over the details you would understand the issues and be able to explain why you believe all of those lies used to prove the necessity of the vaccine are still valid in the big picture. Subsequently, if you understood the issues you would be capable of adapting your opinion as various aspects of vaccine efficacy and risk information change. It is not a binary decision. Vax good is not science if you can't articulate why the risks of COVID and the mitigation the vaccine provides (which is mostly qualitative nonsense about severity) are worth the risks of the vaccines, including the potential future risks which you refuse to even acknowledge are an inevitable outcome with an entirely new class of drug. It's a holistic and multi-faceted decision tree, which pharma and those that benefit from pharma have completely corrupted for this insanity.

I'm just going to point out when you make dumb anti-science comments in your posts because you appointed yourself fact-checker and disinformation crusader. You disrupt threads because you're puffed up on false-confidence from a massive advertising campaign that used incomplete data or lies that they told you were all you needed to be informed. You are as much of an authority as any of the people posting anti-vax information, but they aren't running around disrupting the -non-existent- good news about vaccines.

a reply to: Kurokage



Some people just don't realise when they're outmatched. May i suggest you pick on another member before you get demolished.

EDIT: Just seen i was too late.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a result of the vaccines or a reduction in testing?

Is there anything those signature links can't explain.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a result of the vaccines or a reduction in testing?

Is there anything those signature links can't explain.

Actually the links in the signature are self-refuting and not of a great help.


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

Furthermore if you have misinterpreted what they say you may come up with the wrong conclusions. It reminds me of the claim made a few days ago that when you get a cold you have a solid chance of developing myocarditis...... There is a huge difference between solid and rare.... But it looks like the links don't help at all.

Getting myocarditis from a cold it's something which doesn't have a solid chance as well all know. Getting myocarditis after injected with these products seems to be not that 'rare'.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Kurokage

Please post where I go on about severity.

Unlike you I remember who I'm talking to and the things they actually said. I don't know why you think saying true statements you don't like is ranting.

You talk about my ego but I'm not the one telling you I know better than medical science

I know the impact that covid had on people and the infrastructure of the NHS from family that work in that enviroment and it was more than just a simple "flu" for lots of people and the "jab" helped contain some of that mess.

Your most recent reference to it.

Shall we ignore that you used hearsay while saying "I know"? I guess your love of peer review is on hold when you have anecdotal personal evidence? Shall we ignore that you falsely implied I made some claim about it being the flu, which it now actually is like for most people? Shall we ignore you got it from workers who themselves are taking the word of others or are heavily biased by dealing with the worst .5% of the worst symptomatic cases? Shall we ignore the whole flattening the curve narrative and ICUs being overwhelmed for extended periods was debunked widely in the US? COVID care was intentionally and sometimes unnecessarily concentrated. The high risk demographics were already thinned by the more deadly initial variant and healthy people under 60 were never flooding the entire medical system for extended periods, contrary to what you would like us to believe. Much of it was inflated by bots and paid media campaigns.

The whole COVID narrative hinges on the lies about mortality and frequency of infection started almost three years ago, so you absolutely do go on about it. You just don't understand your own position well enough to understand that. You cannot justify vaccinating young people on an emergency basis and violating human rights without ignoring demographic disparities in mortality, ignoring the lies of efficacy, ignoring the lies about transmission, and completely ignoring medical ethics. Since I have actually engaged in public health epidemiology and disease prevention, the precious medical science you love from a distance through family and friends, I find these things important. More important than what paid pharma shills tell me on the television, in media, and through sponsored studies that have biased pro-vax assumptions baked into their methodology/conclusions.

That you don't understand how they built their narrative on manipulating data and flat out lying isn't my problem to fix. That you don't understand that your position is one that is built on that series of lies isn't something I can correct. That you think that some perceived benefit you connect to the vaccine with no proof, from 2021 no less, is a valid reason to defend the vaccine for all purposes and against all criticism is not something I can cure you of. My answer isn't going to change, because your opinion never will.

If you knew enough to form your own opinion based on facts this shouldn't be something you need me to give you links to or explain. It's self-evident. Even if you quibbled over the details you would understand the issues and be able to explain why you believe all of those lies used to prove the necessity of the vaccine are still valid in the big picture. Subsequently, if you understood the issues you would be capable of adapting your opinion as various aspects of vaccine efficacy and risk information change. It is not a binary decision. Vax good is not science if you can't articulate why the risks of COVID and the mitigation the vaccine provides (which is mostly qualitative nonsense about severity) are worth the risks of the vaccines, including the potential future risks which you refuse to even acknowledge are an inevitable outcome with an entirely new class of drug. It's a holistic and multi-faceted decision tree, which pharma and those that benefit from pharma have completely corrupted for this insanity.

I'm just going to point out when you make dumb anti-science comments in your posts because you appointed yourself fact-checker and disinformation crusader. You disrupt threads because you're puffed up on false-confidence from a massive advertising campaign that used incomplete data or lies that they told you were all you needed to be informed. You are as much of an authority as any of the people posting anti-vax information, but they aren't running around disrupting the -non-existent- good news about vaccines.

Not only the entire Covid narrative relies upon fabricated risks which have no basis in reality and claims about how these products stop transmission and infection in an attempt to pressure as many as possible to get vaccinated but it seems that the member has discovered a new way of estimating deaths from the vaccine by inflating the population of the planet to 12.87 billion.


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 a repeat of this flawed argument by making calculations based on it

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.

Let's look at the argument again. There population has been inflated to 12.87 billion, instead of 8 billion... In addition the member claims that the entire planet had been vaccinated! As 'there is no disputing' about this...If we apply a 0.01% fatality rate from the vaccines then we get, which I don't know how it is derived, then we get 1,300,000 deaths.


There is no word about the young woman who has died because of the vaccine or the fact that she was only in her 20s and people in her age group have a miniscule chances of getting seriously sick or die from Covid.

In addition there is no mentioning about the fact that she died a few weeks after receiving the booster shot. And without any reference to the already known research which is even on the signature of some other users which says


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

I don't think the arguments presented by the other member show any understanding of how science works and how ones construct a reasonably convincing argument.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: AaarghZombies

As a result of the vaccines or a reduction in testing?

Is there anything those signature links can't explain.

Take a look at the dates. This was long before those efforts had been scaled back.

I've got 8 links covering the most common hot button issues, so they cover quite a lot.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Actually the links in the signature are self-refuting and not of a great help.

They're not self refuting, you asked for statistical data on the level of harm caused and I provided it.

The sentence that you're highlighting refers to the fact that more people will suffer from side effects than will have their lives saved. Which is correct. More people will suffer mild harm than will be protected from serious harm.

Of course, the purpose of vaxxing under 30s isn't to save their lives, as their lives aren't really in much danger. It's to gain herd immunity, so it's not really an argument against vaxxing.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Actually the links in the signature are self-refuting and not of a great help.

They're not self refuting, you asked for statistical data on the level of harm caused and I provided it.

The sentence that you're highlighting refers to the fact that more people will suffer from side effects than will have their lives saved. Which is correct. More people will suffer mild harm than will be protected from serious harm.

Of course, the purpose of vaxxing under 30s isn't to save their lives, as their lives aren't really in much danger. It's to gain herd immunity, so it's not really an argument against vaxxing.

Here it is

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

Link 8 of yours.

In addition when you post you should post the link and the specific paragraph you are referring to as nobody can read an entire paper to see where is it what you are trying to support.

Herd immunity cannot be gained with these vaccines. This has been shown long time ago. For herd immunity you need a vaccine to give you sterilising immunity and these products give you nothing remotely close to sterilising immunity. You can easily transmit and get infected.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I see you can't find a post of me talking about severity even though you claim I've gone on about it for 2 years. You post just one reference to my posts which is from about a week ago, not 2 years ago and that post was after you attacked me in the thread, a typical anti-vaxer, cherry picking their "data"!!
The NHS at the start of the pandemic was in chaos or are you trying to say thats untrue?

The Guardian

'Chaos and panic': Lancet editor says NHS was left unprepared for Covid-19
The NHS could have prevented “chaos and panic” had the system not been left wholly unprepared for the pandemic, the editor of a British medical journal has said.

Numerous warnings were issued but these were not heeded, Richard Horton wrote in the Lancet. He cited an example from his journal on 20 January, pointing to a global epidemic: “Preparedness plans should be readied for deployment at short notice, including securing supply chains of pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment, hospital supplies and the necessary human resources to deal with the consequences of a global outbreak of this magnitude.”

The Times

The number of patients referred by GPs to hospitals fell by more than half during the first wave of the coronavirus, according to a report that says extra funding is needed to clear the growing NHS backlog.

The Institute for Government (IfG) said that while the number of people on waiting lists has fallen during the pandemic, with 3.68 million patients waiting for elective surgery, waiting lists are “likely to increase rapidly” once GP referrals return closer to normal levels.

The Daily Mail

'It's chaos. We're simply lambs to the slaughter': As Government continues to come under fire for not ensuring medics are tested for coronavirus, one NHS doctor hits out at the 'shameful decision' that is keeping vital staff away from the front line

The guardian

The NHS is in the grips of a winter crisis like no other. Friday was the ninth day in a row in which the number of people being treated in hospital for Covid hit a new high, with 32,975 patients now on wards across England.

Seventeen NHS trusts are treating more coronavirus patients than non-Covid patients and six have more than 50% of beds taken up by Covid patients. One in five English trusts treated at least twice as many patients on at least one day last week as in their first-wave peak.

All this comes as the health service enters its busiest time of the year as seasonal flu and weather-related accidents peak. These charts outline the scale of the challenge facing the NHS England this winter.

Oh, but you know it all don't you....Yeah right!!!

Carry on believing the ant-vax propaganda and lies feed to you on a daily basis by the alt media. It seems that you think it's ok to post your opinion about the covid situation without posting any data or evidence but then moan because I posted my own personal opinion. How very American of you, with your "Freedom of Speech"....

The only one here puffed up on false confidence is you believing snake-oil sales men who claim to know the "Truth" with "anti-science" and opinion piece papers.
I don't have to write a page of attacks and "ranting" to prove my point, trying to shove my opinions down your throat. You should maybe think about that next time.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I see you can't even find a post of me talking about severity even though you claim I've gone on about it for 2 years.
The NHS at the start of the pandemic was in chaos or are you trying to say thats untrue?

The Guardian

'Chaos and panic': Lancet editor says NHS was left unprepared for Covid-19
The NHS could have prevented “chaos and panic” had the system not been left wholly unprepared for the pandemic, the editor of a British medical journal has said.

Numerous warnings were issued but these were not heeded, Richard Horton wrote in the Lancet. He cited an example from his journal on 20 January, pointing to a global epidemic: “Preparedness plans should be readied for deployment at short notice, including securing supply chains of pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment, hospital supplies and the necessary human resources to deal with the consequences of a global outbreak of this magnitude.”

The Times

The number of patients referred by GPs to hospitals fell by more than half during the first wave of the coronavirus, according to a report that says extra funding is needed to clear the growing NHS backlog.

The Institute for Government (IfG) said that while the number of people on waiting lists has fallen during the pandemic, with 3.68 million patients waiting for elective surgery, waiting lists are “likely to increase rapidly” once GP referrals return closer to normal levels.

The Daily Mail

'It's chaos. We're simply lambs to the slaughter': As Government continues to come under fire for not ensuring medics are tested for coronavirus, one NHS doctor hits out at the 'shameful decision' that is keeping vital staff away from the front line

The guardian

The NHS is in the grips of a winter crisis like no other. Friday was the ninth day in a row in which the number of people being treated in hospital for Covid hit a new high, with 32,975 patients now on wards across England.

Seventeen NHS trusts are treating more coronavirus patients than non-Covid patients and six have more than 50% of beds taken up by Covid patients. One in five English trusts treated at least twice as many patients on at least one day last week as in their first-wave peak.

All this comes as the health service enters its busiest time of the year as seasonal flu and weather-related accidents peak. These charts outline the scale of the challenge facing the NHS England this winter.

Oh, but you know it all don't you....Yeah right!!!

Carry on believing the ant-vax propaganda and lies feed to you on a daily basis by the alt media. It seems that you think it's ok to post your opinion about the covid situation without posting any data or evidence but then moan because I posted my own personal opinion. How very American of you, with your "Freedom of Speech"....

The only one here puffed up on false confidence is you believing snake-oil sales men who claim to know the "Truth" with "anti-science" and opinion piece papers.
I don't have write a page of "ranting" to prove my point trying to shove my opinions down your throat. You should maybe think about that next time.

These are not very convincing arguments but rather than a range of desperate attempts to justify the harms from the vaccine or even to deny them.

And it has been shown several times that your opinions are unsubstantiated and blended with plenty of personal beliefs.

You are now calling scientists as snake-oil salesmen as their work and research papers don't verify your beliefs.

The reality is that sadly a young person has died as a result of the mRNA vaccine.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
This is from the same page which you lied and claimed I altered!

I meant to say 12.87 billion doses have been administered globally and 2.21 million are now administered each day not people. Nearly 70% of the worlds population have been vaccinated.
Thanks for pointing that out for me!
Approx' 6,000,000,000 people have had a "covid jab" so even if 0.001% of those people died from the jab, thats still 60,000 and to most people that would be frightening.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

These are not very convincing arguments but rather than a range of desperate attempts to justify the harms from the vaccine or even to deny them.

And it has been shown several times that your opinions are unsubstantiated and blended with plenty of personal beliefs.

You are now calling scientists as snake-oil salesmen as their work and research papers don't verify your beliefs.

The reality is that sadly a young person has died as a result of the mRNA vaccine.

Again, another anti-vaxer putting words in my mouth and claiming they know my opinion...
I've posted plenty of times about all medications and vaccines having side effects and that people seemed to have never read the information that come with said meds' till now.
I'm not the one posting papers from "wellness" scientists as proof here.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
This is from the same page which you lied and claimed I altered!

I meant to say 12.87 billion doses have been administered globally and 2.21 million are now administered each day not people. Nearly 70% of the worlds population have been vaccinated.
Thanks for pointing that out for me!
Approx' 6,000,000,000 people have had a "covid jab" so even if 0.001% of those people died from the jab, thats still 60,000 and to most people that would be frightening.

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 a repeat of this flawed argument by making calculations based on it

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.

No word here about the possible serious adverse reactions from the vaccines and a number of deaths of young and healthy people again from the same products.

A young woman has died because she was vaccinated with an untested and unsafe product that killed her. There is no need to vaccinate young and healthy people in my opinion and In the opinion of every reasonable person who knows even the basics about the virus and the disease it could cause.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again, you lied and stated I changed the post, and I didn't. I even thanked you for pointing out the mistake and posted a correct post after, but you forgot to post that, didn't you?? Just like the information in the opening post, you missed out the pertinant part, and like the other member, cause the thread to drift to stoke your ego.

A young woman has died because she was vaccinated with an untested and unsafe product that killed her. There is no need to vaccinate young and healthy people in my opinion and In the opinion of every reasonable person who knows even the basics about the virus and the disease it could cause.

Again, please post where I said all young people should be vaccinated, another of your lies. When you post your flawed come back, remember to post a link to that comment I made about vaccinating young people?????

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: AaarghZombies

I'm not sure that the gif means what you think it means.

originally posted by: loufo
a reply to: Soloprotocol
is there at least the possibility in your mind that it is you who has been brainwashed by the sources that informed you about the subject?

can you give me a reputable scientific source that shows that vaccination is potentially life-threatening for everyone?

Hilarious... you just proved the OPs entire point.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

That's great, except that you can't refute an argument that I didn't make. My argument was that side effects are typically mild in young people, which the link confirms.

I also said that the risk of death from covid for the young is low, which the link also confirms.

In addition when you post you should post the link and the specific paragraph you are referring to as nobody can read an entire paper to see where is it what you are trying to support.

I did, link 2, and link 8.

Herd immunity cannot be gained with these vaccines. This has been shown long time ago.

Link, please.

This has been shown long time ago. For herd immunity you need a vaccine to give you sterilising immunity and these products give you nothing remotely close to sterilising immunity.

Wouldn't that also apply to natural immunity, as it's functionally identical?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: loufo
a reply to: Soloprotocol
is there at least the possibility in your mind that it is you who has been brainwashed by the sources that informed you about the subject?

can you give me a reputable scientific source that shows that vaccination is potentially life-threatening for everyone?

Hilarious... you just proved the OPs entire point.

Links 2 and 8 in my signature show that it's potentially threatening to everyone.

That potential happens to be less than 0.002 percent, though.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Considering it's subjective i find it highly amusing you claim ownership of meaning. Then again it fits your modus operandi.

It's essentially my reaction every time i see you post.