Scot left unable to stand after Covid vaccine reaction raising money for stem cell treatment

a reply to: Asmodeus3

My point was about cancer vaccines?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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

Ok, but that isn't what happened is it? This was all speculation, but yes I agree mandating in college was wrong. I had two boys ages 18 and 21 that had to get vaccinated to attend again, and I 100% disagreed with that.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
No it won't. That's not true.
These products should not have been released in the general population for the Covid-19 disease.

I disagree with that. They needed to be released, but not mandated at many levels, and now that we have further data people under 18 do not need it at all, and everyone else just a choice with those over 60 or high risk highly recommended.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
No it won't. That's not true.
These products should not have been released in the general population for the Covid-19 disease.

I disagree with that. They needed to be released, but not mandated at many levels, and now that we have further data people under 18 do not need it at all, and everyone else just a choice with those over 60 or high risk highly recommended.

.
Not released in the general population but could exclude the clinically vulnerable and the elderly. Which what I was always saying and of course not mandated which was wrong.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My point was about cancer vaccines?

I am not quite sure how vaccines can prevent cancer given that cancers are non communicable diseases and in vast majority of cases they are not caused by viruses with a possible exception of HPV which some strains supposedly cause cervical cancer.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My point was about cancer vaccines?

I am not quite sure how vaccines can prevent cancer given that cancers are non communicable diseases and in vast majority of cases they are not caused by viruses with a possible exception of HPV which some strains supposedly cause cervical cancer.

You do realise that the use of mRNA in cancer research is a thing?
mRNA cancer treatments

Adding messenger RNA, or mRNA therapy, improves the response to cancer immunotherapy in patients who weren’t responding to the treatment, Mayo Clinic research shows. Immunotherapy uses the body’s immune system to prevent, control and eliminate cancer. The study is published in Cancer Immunology Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My point was about cancer vaccines?

I am not quite sure how vaccines can prevent cancer given that cancers are non communicable diseases and in vast majority of cases they are not caused by viruses with a possible exception of HPV which some strains supposedly cause cervical cancer.

You do realise that the use of mRNA in cancer research is a thing?
mRNA cancer treatments

Adding messenger RNA, or mRNA therapy, improves the response to cancer immunotherapy in patients who weren’t responding to the treatment, Mayo Clinic research shows. Immunotherapy uses the body’s immune system to prevent, control and eliminate cancer. The study is published in Cancer Immunology Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Yes I do very well. It is a 'thing' as you called it..
But not what you probably think i.e using mRNA vaccines to cure cancer. They want to improve the response to the cancer immunotherapy for patients that are not responding well via an improvement of the T-cell response so the cancers won't spread to the rest of the body.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Then read my link, it explains it quite well.

"For more than a decade, cancer researchers have been developing a type of treatment known as a personalized cancer vaccine using various technologies, including mRNA and protein fragments, or peptides.

The investigational mRNA vaccines are manufactured for individuals based on the specific molecular features of their tumors. It takes 1 to 2 months to produce a personalized mRNA cancer vaccine after tissue samples have been collected from a patient.

“Speed is especially important for individualized cancer vaccination,” said Mathias Vormehr, Ph.D., codirector of Cancer Vaccines at BioNTech. “A highly individualized vaccine combination must be designed and produced within weeks of taking a tumor biopsy.”

With this approach, researchers try to elicit an immune response against abnormal proteins, or neoantigens, produced by cancer cells. Because these proteins are not found on normal cells, they are promising targets for vaccine-induced immune responses.

“Personalized cancer vaccines may teach the immune system how cancer cells are different from the rest of the body,” said Julie Bauman, M.D., deputy director of the University of Arizona Cancer Center.

Dr. Bauman is co-leading a clinical trial testing a personalized mRNA vaccine in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. The study initially included patients with colorectal cancer, but this group did not appear to benefit from the therapy.

For patients with head and neck cancer, however, the early results were positive. Among the first 10 participants, 2 patients had all signs of their tumors disappear following treatment, known as a complete response, and another 5 had their tumors shrink.

“We were surprised to see two complete and enduring responses in our first group of patients with head and neck cancers,” said Dr. Bauman, noting that the study has been expanded to include 40 patients with the disease.

“The number of patients treated is small, but we are cautiously optimistic,” she added. The study is sponsored by Moderna, which makes each personalized vaccine in about 6 weeks.

The manufacturing process starts with the identification of genetic mutations in a patient’s tumor cells that could give rise to neoantigens. Computer algorithms then predict which neoantigens are most likely to bind to receptors on T cells and stimulate an immune response. The vaccine can include genetic sequences for up to 34 different neoantigens."

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yes I do very well. It is a 'thing' as you called it..
But not what you probably think i.e using mRNA vaccines to cure cancer. They want to improve the response to the cancer immunotherapy for patients that are not responding well via an improvement of the T-cell response so the cancers won't spread to the rest of the body.

I know how it's being used, thats why I posted the link...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yes I am aware how it works.
Already explained it in the reply above with a paragraph.

And I don't have any issues with this by the way.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Good.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But poor John Watts left unable to walk or even stand after receiving the very safe and effective Pfizer booster.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Off you go again.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But poor John Watts left unable to walk or even stand after receiving the very safe and effective Pfizer booster.

It couldn't be the booster, because even though we don't know what's in it or know what the side effects are, the people who stand to profit from it say 100% safe and effective! What more proof do you need?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But poor John Watts left unable to walk or even stand after receiving the very safe and effective Pfizer booster.

It couldn't be the booster, because even though we don't know what's in it or know what the side effects are, the people who stand to profit from it say 100% safe and effective! What more proof do you need?

The Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Pfizer!

It's the definition of testing! By the book as we say.
But they 'forgot' to test for transmission! As well as testing for everything else such as short, medium and long term effects.

Conclusions: The vaccines are safe and effective as they have passed all major checkpoints of testing that have established safety and effectiveness.

Only one objection. We know now what the short term adverse reactions are. There is a large list of serious and less serious conditions.

John Watts is probably a victim of bad science.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: chr0naut

LOL the way you people contort to make sense of the truth

Of course.

There is no way possible that you are an asymptomatic carrier and everyone around you is coming down with an infection.

How irrational of me.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But poor John Watts left unable to walk or even stand after receiving the very safe and effective Pfizer booster.

It couldn't be the booster, because even though we don't know what's in it or know what the side effects are, the people who stand to profit from it say 100% safe and effective! What more proof do you need?

The Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Pfizer!

It's the definition of testing! By the book as we say.
But they 'forgot' to test for transmission! As well as testing for everything else such as short, medium and long term effects.

Conclusions: The vaccines are safe and effective as they have passed all major checkpoints of testing that have established safety and effectiveness.

Only one objection. We know now what the short term adverse reactions are. There is a large list of serious and less serious conditions.

John Watts is probably a victim of bad science.

The problem with full testing for transmission, post-vaccination, is that it requires a human challenge trial.

Brief incubation, high viral shedding: COVID-19 human challenge trial results

One of the specifications of the UK challenge trial was that no participants were vaccinated. So you'd have to run a further challenge trial or trials.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Please post my defence of Pfizer from any thread? Or are you lying and making fraudulant claims to suit your bias again.
This thread is about a person suffering Postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS) and whether it is linked to his booster shot or not...

You are defending Pfizer by proxy. And you're stretching out towards infinity to deny that these experimental Covid drugs aren't the reason for massive debilitating side effects being reported on an unprecedented scale, which is also defending Pfizer and Moderna even if you didn't intend it that way, that is the bottom line.

None of these things have EVER been seen before on this scale, and it is all happening AFTER experimental Covid jab injections to people all over the damn planet.

The media is in total denial, but many know and go along anyways or lose their jobs and thus are also complicit in causing grave harm to the public all because of politics. It is ALL because of politics and it can't be more obvious even to the dumbest people on the planet, except they just gave up their own souls and go along with the devil's deception because he gave them a lot of company to share in the deception and make it all nice and comfortable if they keep up the lies and deceit, they get to keep their jobs and homes and income.

Isn't that lovely?


When the contract time is up it will not be lovely.

a reply to: chr0naut

One of the major problems in relation to testing for transmission is that they lied about the vaccines preventing transmission and infection. The entire campaign was based on the false premise of cutting transmission through vaccination with these products and save the granny.

As the matter of fact Pfizer even 'forgot' to test for transmission as they were moving at the speed of science.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


The member is well known for his vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality and truth, and defending of the vaccine campaign, regardless of how absurd this campaign is and its flaws.

Unable to accept that the most plausible scenario for what happened to John Watts is the booster Pfizer vaccine. Hence defending the Pfizer vaccine see either directly or by proxy.