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

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Glad you realize how stupid one would be to try to diagnose a transmission from 7,500 miles away.

Here's a little story for you, since you are clearly such a world class expert:

Student A starts a new term at our school, comes in the first day (masked) with a cough.
Few days later, she tests positive for covid.
Few days later, staff and 2 students (all vaccinated) test positive.
Then the student who sat next to Student A tests positive, then her whole family (whom I've never met/seen and who live about 45 minutes from our school) tests positive.
If my unvaxxt germs are enough to sicken a family I've never come into contact with, then maybe YOU are at risk too!!

Better get another booster to be sure.

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Glad you realize how stupid one would be to try to diagnose a transmission from 7,500 miles away.

Here's a little story for you, since you are clearly such a world class expert:

Student A starts a new term at our school, comes in the first day (masked) with a cough.
Few days later, she tests positive for covid.
Few days later, staff and 2 students (all vaccinated) test positive.
Then the student who sat next to Student A tests positive, then her whole family (whom I've never met/seen and who live about 45 minutes from our school) tests positive.
If my unvaxxt germs are enough to sicken a family I've never come into contact with, then maybe YOU are at risk too!!

Better get another booster to be sure.

You got this one right!

One more shot and you will be sure you won't get Covid-19 ever again. Given also there are no serious adverse effects from the vaccines then you have nothing to worry about.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

Please link my vaccine apologetics posts as proof or are you lying again because of your bias. I've never actually defended the vaccine in any post on ATS.
What I post about are members running round like headless chickens posting unverified and non-peer reviewed hogwash as facts and supporting crackpots and failed Doctors with their snake oil or book sales. Then there's also the people claiming every single death since the vaccine was created was caused by it or denying the peoples right to choose for themselves if they want it.
Or like this thread claiming it was definitely caused by the vaccine without any proof whatsoever other than he became ill around the same time, with other reasons being just as likely.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Glad you realize how stupid one would be to try to diagnose a transmission from 7,500 miles away.

Here's a little story for you, since you are clearly such a world class expert:

Student A starts a new term at our school, comes in the first day (masked) with a cough.
Few days later, she tests positive for covid.
Few days later, staff and 2 students (all vaccinated) test positive.
Then the student who sat next to Student A tests positive, then her whole family (whom I've never met/seen and who live about 45 minutes from our school) tests positive.
If my unvaxxt germs are enough to sicken a family I've never come into contact with, then maybe YOU are at risk too!!

Better get another booster to be sure.

I am fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19, but subsequent to that, I did have a mild case of COVID.

I am in an at risk group, being older, diabetic, overweight, and already having respiration issues. So it made eminent sense for me to be vaccinated ahead of getting a disease that is becoming endemic.

I do not need to be further boosted now because I have an immune response against the virus.

The idea that boosting somehow prevents the disease totally, is fantasy. The vaccines work to give an immune response. This immune response fades over time, but repeated exposure, or repeated boosting, does the same thing to promote a strong immune response.

My work requires that I test daily, and I have also had an infection of RSV (against which there is no vaccine) and I also continue to mask up, social distance, and use sanitizer, and isolate when necessary. It protects myself and others and is only onerous to the ignorant and the self-centered.

I will vaccinate and boost if the situation requires it. At present, I don't need to.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Glad you realize how stupid one would be to try to diagnose a transmission from 7,500 miles away.

Here's a little story for you, since you are clearly such a world class expert:

Student A starts a new term at our school, comes in the first day (masked) with a cough.
Few days later, she tests positive for covid.
Few days later, staff and 2 students (all vaccinated) test positive.
Then the student who sat next to Student A tests positive, then her whole family (whom I've never met/seen and who live about 45 minutes from our school) tests positive.
If my unvaxxt germs are enough to sicken a family I've never come into contact with, then maybe YOU are at risk too!!

Better get another booster to be sure.

I am fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19, but subsequent to that, I did have a mild case of COVID.

I am in an at risk group, being older, diabetic, overweight, and already having respiration issues. So it made eminent sense for me to be vaccinated ahead of getting a disease that is becoming endemic.

I do not need to be further boosted now because I have an immune response against the virus.

The idea that boosting somehow prevents the disease totally, is fantasy. The vaccines work to give an immune response. This immune response fades over time, but repeated exposure, or repeated boosting, does the same thing to promote a strong immune response.

My work requires that I test daily, and I have also had an infection of RSV (against which there is no vaccine) and I also continue to mask up, social distance, and use sanitizer, and isolate when necessary. It protects myself and others and is only onerous to the ignorant and the self-centered.

I will vaccinate and boost if the situation requires it. At present, I don't need to.

You can just copy paste whatever the government or Pfizer says, no need to re-word it. I don't know any unvaccinated people who wish they were vaccinated. I do know a lot of vaccinated who are scared sh#less.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Of course you do, of course you do.

I know a lot of people, here, in the real World.

None of them feel like that.

None of them.

How is Pele?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

They failed to test pretty much for everything.

Pfizer even admitted moving at the speed of science and hence they missed on the testing for transmission. Major part of Phase 3 Clinical Trials.
Actually it is now admitted finally regardless of the deception and disinformation that the vaccines cannot prevent transmission and infection. Can't reduce them significantly either.

The idiotic lie of protecting granny was short-lived.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

You probably have to read the article above as John Watts was also keen in getting boosted and he ended up not being able to walk or even stand having a debilitating condition which nobody knows when it is going to improve. I hope he does get better though.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The first one.

No one has suggested the other three.

Oh, more sarcasm?

So much for serious debate.

Question . " Do you Like seeing Young Children Experimented on like " Lab Rats " > ? This is What is Happening RIGHT NOW !
Human Life is Precious whether or Not you Personally Believe that . NO MAN on this Earth has the Self Imposed RIGHT to Harm other Human Life for the Sake of Misguided Personal Beliefs . WTF !

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Glad you realize how stupid one would be to try to diagnose a transmission from 7,500 miles away.

Here's a little story for you, since you are clearly such a world class expert:

Student A starts a new term at our school, comes in the first day (masked) with a cough.
Few days later, she tests positive for covid.
Few days later, staff and 2 students (all vaccinated) test positive.
Then the student who sat next to Student A tests positive, then her whole family (whom I've never met/seen and who live about 45 minutes from our school) tests positive.
If my unvaxxt germs are enough to sicken a family I've never come into contact with, then maybe YOU are at risk too!!

Better get another booster to be sure.

I am fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19, but subsequent to that, I did have a mild case of COVID.

I am in an at risk group, being older, diabetic, overweight, and already having respiration issues. So it made eminent sense for me to be vaccinated ahead of getting a disease that is becoming endemic.

I do not need to be further boosted now because I have an immune response against the virus.

The idea that boosting somehow prevents the disease totally, is fantasy. The vaccines work to give an immune response. This immune response fades over time, but repeated exposure, or repeated boosting, does the same thing to promote a strong immune response.

My work requires that I test daily, and I have also had an infection of RSV (against which there is no vaccine) and I also continue to mask up, social distance, and use sanitizer, and isolate when necessary. It protects myself and others and is only onerous to the ignorant and the self-centered.

I will vaccinate and boost if the situation requires it. At present, I don't need to.

You can just copy paste whatever the government or Pfizer says, no need to re-word it.

So which is it? Did I 'copy-paste' or did I reword it?

Perhaps you could quote a Pfizer source that says exactly what I wrote, or something significantly similar, because that would really solidify your argument?

In your struggle to put together some sort of (negatively spun) response, you are now being self-contradictory.

I don't know any unvaccinated people who wish they were vaccinated. I do know a lot of vaccinated who are scared sh#less.

Hmm, do you think that the delicate psychological state of your alleged acquaintances is going to have any obvious effect upon the progression of an infectious disease?

I can assure you that those who are vaccinated have less to fear than those who are just unprotected, even if the vaccination is less than perfect in action, or has occasional adverse reactions.

And my entire family have been fully vaccinated and boosted, and are likely to get another booster if it is deemed worthwhile, to stave off the worst of the the infection (similar to what many, including my family, do with Flu and other vaccinations).

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The first one.

No one has suggested the other three.

Oh, more sarcasm?

So much for serious debate.

Question . " Do you Like seeing Young Children Experimented on like " Lab Rats " > ? This is What is Happening RIGHT NOW !

Weren't you just calling for research which would amount to challenge trials, suggesting that there was insufficient testing, and now you writing that the testing is going too far and is inappropriate?

Human Life is Precious whether or Not you Personally Believe that . NO MAN on this Earth has the Self Imposed RIGHT to Harm other Human Life for the Sake of Misguided Personal Beliefs . WTF !

So, you are in favor of firearm bans?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

You probably have to read the article above as John Watts was also keen in getting boosted and he ended up not being able to walk or even stand having a debilitating condition which nobody knows when it is going to improve. I hope he does get better though.

At first I believed that the John Watt you were talking about was the famous footballer. But it appears to be someone else in the video, so I'll withdraw any comment on that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

You probably have to read the article above as John Watts was also keen in getting boosted and he ended up not being able to walk or even stand having a debilitating condition which nobody knows when it is going to improve. I hope he does get better though.

At first I believed that the John Watt you were talking about was the famous footballer. But it appears to be someone else in the video, so I'll withdraw any comment on that.

Yes, it's not someone famous or someone you know. It's just a young Scottish person who after taking his booster has developed debilitating conditions and he is now waiting for stem cell research and whatever else he might be available.

Safe and effective? Not really.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see you haven't yet shown my posts of support for Pfizer like you claim I have posted??

There's no proof yet that John Watts condition was caused by the vaccine other than your typical assumptions.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see you haven't yet shown my posts of support for Pfizer like you claim I have posted??

There's no proof yet that John Watts condition was caused by the vaccine other than your typical assumptions.

You are still engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality but that's what happens when you are emotionally invested in drugs, vaccines, and related ideologies. I understand your position and frustration.

I see you are raising the bar again talking about proof but that hasn't been discussed or claimed. It's the most likely scenario though. What walks like a duck, quacks like a duck , must be a duck.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

You probably have to read the article above as John Watts was also keen in getting boosted and he ended up not being able to walk or even stand having a debilitating condition which nobody knows when it is going to improve. I hope he does get better though.

At first I believed that the John Watt you were talking about was the famous footballer. But it appears to be someone else in the video, so I'll withdraw any comment on that.

Yes, it's not someone famous or someone you know. It's just a young Scottish person who after taking his booster has developed debilitating conditions and he is now waiting for stem cell research and whatever else he might be available.

Safe and effective? Not really.

A high number of patients with POTS have elevated levels of autoantibodies against the adrenergic alpha 1 receptor and against the muscarinic acetylcholine M4 receptor, neither of which relate at all to COVID-19 vaccines.

About 50% of cases of POTS are triggered by viral illness. There have been cases of POTS post COVID-19, although at present there is not enough to identify it as a definite cause.

However, to jump to the conclusion that it was the vaccine, when an infectious disease sometimes linked to the condition is raging around the sufferer, and when others are not getting the condition post vaccination, is a bit of a stretch.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

You probably have to read the article above as John Watts was also keen in getting boosted and he ended up not being able to walk or even stand having a debilitating condition which nobody knows when it is going to improve. I hope he does get better though.

At first I believed that the John Watt you were talking about was the famous footballer. But it appears to be someone else in the video, so I'll withdraw any comment on that.

Yes, it's not someone famous or someone you know. It's just a young Scottish person who after taking his booster has developed debilitating conditions and he is now waiting for stem cell research and whatever else he might be available.

Safe and effective? Not really.

A high number of patients with POTS have elevated levels of autoantibodies against the adrenergic alpha 1 receptor and against the muscarinic acetylcholine M4 receptor, neither of which relate at all to COVID-19 vaccines.

About 50% of cases of POTS are triggered by viral illness. There have been cases of POTS post COVID-19, although at present there is not enough to identify it as a definite cause.

However, to jump to the conclusion that it was the vaccine, when an infectious disease sometimes linked to the condition is raging around the sufferer, and when others are not getting the condition post vaccination, is a bit of a stretch.

It's the most plausible explanation as it can be caused by the mRNA vaccines and the debilitating condition occurred immediately after John Watts received his booster.

If you see the title of this thread is 'Scott left unable to stand after Covid vaccine reaction...'
It doesn't say Scott left unable to stand after SARS-CoV-2 infection and development of Covid-19 disease.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

You probably have to read the article above as John Watts was also keen in getting boosted and he ended up not being able to walk or even stand having a debilitating condition which nobody knows when it is going to improve. I hope he does get better though.

At first I believed that the John Watt you were talking about was the famous footballer. But it appears to be someone else in the video, so I'll withdraw any comment on that.

Yes, it's not someone famous or someone you know. It's just a young Scottish person who after taking his booster has developed debilitating conditions and he is now waiting for stem cell research and whatever else he might be available.

Safe and effective? Not really.

A high number of patients with POTS have elevated levels of autoantibodies against the adrenergic alpha 1 receptor and against the muscarinic acetylcholine M4 receptor, neither of which relate at all to COVID-19 vaccines.

About 50% of cases of POTS are triggered by viral illness. There have been cases of POTS post COVID-19, although at present there is not enough to identify it as a definite cause.

However, to jump to the conclusion that it was the vaccine, when an infectious disease sometimes linked to the condition is raging around the sufferer, and when others are not getting the condition post vaccination, is a bit of a stretch.

It's the most plausible explanation as it can be caused by the mRNA vaccines and the debilitating condition occurred immediately after John Watts received his booster.

If you see the title of this thread is 'Scott left unable to stand after Covid vaccine reaction...'
It doesn't say Scott left unable to stand after SARS-CoV-2 infection and development of Covid-19 disease.

But the entire heading does not include the elipsis that you just ended your quote with. The whole title was "Scot left unable to stand after Covid vaccine reaction raising money for stem cell treatment" (emphasis mine).

Do you think stem cell treatment is applicable to a vaccine adverse reaction, or would it be more appropriate for fixing, say, a condition that is the result of an underlying congenital problem?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

They tested for reduction in viral loads and duration of infections. As I pointed out, proper testing for reduction in transmission requires a challenge trial.

What you are assuming is that there has been no reduction in transmission at all. Just because there still was some transmission, does not mean there has been no reduction in transmission.

You have to realize that just before the roll-out of the vaccines to the general public, the predominant strains became significantly more infectious and nearly all other mitigations against transmission (lock-downs, social distancing, sanitizing and masking) were dropped by the general public for political reasons. In situations such as that, a bloom in transmission events can completely mask a reduction in transmission.

The vaccines work by promoting an immune response in people who have not previously encountered the disease. They don't work to place a magic barrier to transmission. They reduce transmission as the number of hosts for the pathogen reduce and the duration of period of infectivity reduces. But instead of reducing the number of hosts, there were definite moves (mass protests, political rallies and other super-spreader events, and the dropping of transmission mitigations) to increase the spread of the pathogen. The idiocracy have clearly won that one.

You probably have to read the article above as John Watts was also keen in getting boosted and he ended up not being able to walk or even stand having a debilitating condition which nobody knows when it is going to improve. I hope he does get better though.

At first I believed that the John Watt you were talking about was the famous footballer. But it appears to be someone else in the video, so I'll withdraw any comment on that.

Yes, it's not someone famous or someone you know. It's just a young Scottish person who after taking his booster has developed debilitating conditions and he is now waiting for stem cell research and whatever else he might be available.

Safe and effective? Not really.

A high number of patients with POTS have elevated levels of autoantibodies against the adrenergic alpha 1 receptor and against the muscarinic acetylcholine M4 receptor, neither of which relate at all to COVID-19 vaccines.

About 50% of cases of POTS are triggered by viral illness. There have been cases of POTS post COVID-19, although at present there is not enough to identify it as a definite cause.

However, to jump to the conclusion that it was the vaccine, when an infectious disease sometimes linked to the condition is raging around the sufferer, and when others are not getting the condition post vaccination, is a bit of a stretch.

It's the most plausible explanation as it can be caused by the mRNA vaccines and the debilitating condition occurred immediately after John Watts received his booster.

If you see the title of this thread is 'Scott left unable to stand after Covid vaccine reaction...'
It doesn't say Scott left unable to stand after SARS-CoV-2 infection and development of Covid-19 disease.

But the entire heading does not include the elipsis that you just ended your quote with. The whole title was "Scot left unable to stand after Covid vaccine reaction raising money for stem cell treatment" (emphasis mine).

Do you think stem cell treatment is applicable to a vaccine adverse reaction, or would it be more appropriate for fixing, say, a condition that is the result of an underlying congenital problem?

I didn't comment on the heading regarding the stem cell research. Your second paragraph is deflection and an attempt at a strawman argument.

I will repeat the John Watts developed debilitating conditions immediately after getting vaccinated and not after getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 and developed Covid-19 disease. Nowhere ot says in the article that he suffered from a vital infection.