In the last month....I know of 7 people who have been vaxxed and have gotten Covid (all were fine). A good friend of mine was double vaxxed, got Covid and we're pretty sure he gave me Covid over 2 weeks ago--I took Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc Sulfate, Barely had a fever for a couple of days and am 100% now.
I'm not anti-vax, I just did my research....Nobody could tell me the long term effects of this Vaccination, because NOBODY knows, it's too new. Make your own decisions.
If you did your research, can you name a single vaccine that is harmless within the first two months of injection and causes long-term effects? If you did your research, you know no such vaccine has ever existed.
Off the top of my head, and by no means am I an expert, here are some viruses that cause recurrences and major long-term effects in some people (good luck waiting to find out if COVID-19 will have long-term effects for you):
Human Papilloma Virus -> Certain cancers, recurrences
Epstein Barr Virus -> Certain cancers, certain autoimmune disorders
Human Immunodeficiency Virus -> AIDS if untreated (so much for “natural immunity”), certain cancers even if treated
Herpes -> Recurrences for life
Chickenpox -> Shingles for some later in life
Hepatitis C -> Liver cancer and other issues
Hepatitis B -> liver cancer and other issues
Certainly hope COVID-19 does not have long-term effects similar to the above viruses that emerged in nature (TBD on whether that virus you had emerged in nature), but not interested in personally finding out someday…
Yes, people should do their own research:
1) There is no such thing as a vaccine that causes long-term effects without short-term effects in the first two months following injectio.
2) Billions of doses of the vaccine for COVID-19 have been given with most everybody having no serious side effects in the first two months.
3) Nature is full of viruses that return with a vengeance later in life. Nobody knows if COVID-19 will one day join that list (and at this point, would it really surprise anybody if this was engineered in a lab and has some big surprises for people after an incubation period similar to HIV, which causes illness in the first two weeks of being infected before utterly wrecking havoc on your immune system years later?)
Get vaccinated ASAP, folks…this thing is no joke, the vaccines are harmless and minimize the likelihood of infection/spread, and if you think you’ve got “natural immunity” (whatever that means) to something that may have been developed in a lab in Wuhan and got out by accident (surprise-surprise: the last case of smallpox ever was a lab leak in England in the late 1970s), well, best of luck…or you can just get a harmless shot that minimizes the likelihood of the spike protein having its way with you…if everybody does it and R-naught falls below zero, this thing becomes a thing of the past in America…
While I would say a long term effect of the COVID vaccine that doesn’t show up immediately is the necessity to get another shot, I’ll also point out that not all immediate adverse effects are known immediately. For instance Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine was discovered to negatively effect insulin levels when administered to children after the age of 2. This is associated with higher risk of diabetes but might go on unlinked if not observed via study. It’s an example of long term risk that doesn’t necessarily show up immediately.
Ok, I don't know if you are aware of this or not but you just cited an extremely scientifically dubious claim that largely results from the research of JB Classen, a somewhat notorious anti-vaxxer.
In the late 90's Classen began pushing the claim that vaccines administered after the age of 2 months led to an increase in rates of diabetes in children (his research found that BEFORE 2 months vaccination that it lowered the rates of diabetes). He largely based this off three avenues of research. The first was studies done in mice using an anthrax vaccine, a vaccine that was rarely used in infants or children. The second was population level studies comparing the rates of diabetes between countries with different immunization schedule (ie countries that vaccinated earlier vs later). The third was a data analysis of a study in Finland of the Haemphlius influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine conducted over 100,000 children. In that study children were either assigned to receive 4 does of vaccine starting at 3 months or a single one at 24 months. He found a slightly larger number of children who received one dose developed diabetes than did the multiple dose group, which he interpreted as meaning children given the vaccine later developed diabetes at a higher rate.
So what's the issue here? All of these claims are extremely dubious for a variety of reasons. The animal research largely used a rarely used vaccine, and besides that animal research is just not directly translatable to human subjects. There's too big a biological difference between mice and people to draw firm conclusions from that alone. The population level studies meanwhile were largely criticized for his failure to consider alternate explanations for his conclusions, for example there can be a number of confounding factors (like rates of sugar consumption) that may influence a children's chance of developing diabetes in one country vs a child of the same age in another or because they looked at vaccines that were rarely used or have been discontinued in use. The Finland data analysis meanwhile didn't include the number of children in each group so there is no way of knowing whether his data was statistically significant.
Critically follow up studies have been unable to replicate his findings, and further study either between vaccines and diabetes in general or vaccines administered later and diabetes have found no evidence for a link. Here's one such study:
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/6/e112It is generally accepted scientific fact (by virtually every scientific group of import) that there is no evidence supporting JB Classen conclusions, although sadly his work is widely quoted in anti-vax circles.
So the two example you just cited of unforeseen vaccine side effects are 1) a widely criticized unsubstantiated claim from a well-known anti-vaxxer and 2) The idea that vaccines may need a booster, which while we did not 'know immediately" was certainly hypothesized to be possible even before the current vaccines were designed.
But your post does illustrate how hard is to combat vaccine information. Something confidently said that sounds scientific is unlikely to be challenged by the public at large who doesn't always understand the protocols in place used to determine the reliability of the underlying scientific information. That's why as much as people dislike it is better to trust the recommendations on scientists. Your personal research isn't going to reveal some trend they missed, its literally the job of scientists to take the whole collection of data, analyze its strength and weaknesses, and reach an informed conclusion.
Topic: Wiggins won't get vaccinated may be banned from playing home games (Read 21392 times)