The vaccine is injected into muscle and causes a localized immune reaction. The protein doesn't really escape the muscle. So it might damage some muscle cells and capillaries, but those are stressed all the time anyway and will regenerate.
That was the expectation but we later found they travel around the body and particularly build up in bone marrow and your ovaries if you have them.
They also are technically "toxic" but you need to take that word with a grain of salt. The damage is still far less than what the virus will cause if you catch it without the vaccine.
Whats the point? You'll just debunk it with a bs "fact check"[1] article that links to outdated information or quotes people with outdated information and call it a day.
When the reality is:
- Spike proteins from the virus and the vaccine are in-arguably cytotoxic[2] (but the low load has not lead to any long term negative effects and you should still get vaxxed).
- Spike proteins do not stay near the injection site.[3][4] (only 20% of the dose is found to remain in the injection site after 48h)
The thing that fucks me off so much about this censorship from youtube is that it leads to the fact checkers becoming gospel, the same fact checkers that have been found to be paid shills of big pharma.[5] Even the fact check article I link to here links to a youtube clip where this is all discussed in detail, only it doesn't discuss it in detail be cause its only a clip. A clip that was created to avoid youtubes filters. The full video[6] covers all of this in detail.
> Whats the point? You'll just debunk it with a bs "fact check"
There's a PhD waiting for someone who can do an "influence analysis" of points and counter-points diffusing through articles, social media debates, fact-checkers, counter-articles, etc. Including methodologies to differentiate bots, paid PR firms, machine learning analysis/targeting, and organic participants being influenced by all of the above.
Those who have been involved in a few of these debates can almost predict the graph of responses, as you did with the fact-check lookahead parser :)
As a starting point, there's a social network analysis (100+ page PDF) of the "Covid Network Complex". One could work outwards from some of those nodes, to track lobbying and media influence. https://www.disclose.tv/the-covid-network-an-analysis/
Thank you for taking the time to put this all together and further your points. Jeez, the future looks dark when it comes to inquiry of truth. I've had discussions with other engineers who are supposed to be sufficiently trained about critical thinking and I see a very clear party-line ideologies getting mixed into their conscience.
It's partly due to underestimating the sophistication and incentives of the apparatus that has been constructed to influence organic humans, especially for the engineers who are essential to the construction of future digital societies.
Thanks for pointing all of this out. It's much better if we publicize the vaccine's potential risks in full context and alongside the much more significant benefits. If the anti-vaxxers are the only ones talking about inconvenient facts, a lot of people are going to go down a bad path.
> - Spike proteins from the virus and the vaccine are in-arguably cytotoxic[2] (but the low load has not lead to any long term negative effects and you should still get vaxxed).
ok sure but a high viral load is probably not comparable to the vaccine so we should use this information accordingly and be mindful of the dosages right? This doesn't seem very scary at all to me
>> "So far, there is no scientific evidence available that suggests that spike proteins created in our bodies from the COVID-19 vaccines are toxic or damaging our organs."
Is not the same as "...is not toxic and does not damage our organs."
In response you could look at this and decide maybe we're not getting the full story. Or you could look at the rampant censorship (the purpose of the OP) and decide that maybe we're not getting the whole story.
What the health care worker here is saying is that doctors are not reporting adverse effects like they should be.
Yes, Project Veritas makes their videos in hyper-over-produced fashion which seems ... weird, maybe a bit disingenuous. They cut and edit and potentially leave a lot of questions on the table with that. But when I go to comments sections on reposts of this video on various sites, there are numerous health care workers saying "This is how it is, this is what is happening where I am also." Is this foreign propaganda or some coordinated trolling? Maybe.
I watched the Project Veritas video too. I noticed that the featured health care worker did not say two things she definitely would have said if they were true:
1. She did not say that there was any coercion to avoid reporting adverse events. She just said it took too long to enter the data into VAERS (30 minutes) so people weren't reporting every event.
2. She didn't say the hospital was overflowing with people suffering from vaccine side effects, or that that number was remotely comparable to the number hospitalized with COVID.
So what's the likely truth?
1. Vaccine side effects are underreported, but mostly because people are not making much of an effort to report them, not for conspiratorial reasons. This is far from new - both underreporting of relevant events and overreporting of irrelevant events are common with every medical intervention.
2. The health burden of COVID still vastly outweighs anything happening with the vaccine.
It seems strange to be talking about whether the spike protein is harmful. Even IF it was, isn’t it better to experience a small amount via the vaccine instead of a large amount via the virus?
Whatever amount of spike protein you were exposed to by the virus was far worse for you than what the vaccine would have given you. Viruses reproduce themselves and cause uncontrolled, exponential production of spike protein. The mRNA vaccine provides a controlled dose and the lipid bubbles that deliver it don't reproduce.
Antibodies are produced by the immune system when needed, and the supply you have after an infection will wane over a couple months. What matters is whether your infection or vaccine trains your immune memory. With more training your body will have a better immune response, so you're better off vaccinated, whether or not you've had a prior infection.
You were lucky to have a mild case. That doesn't guarantee that you'll never have a severe case. The odds of having a severe case could be low for you, but the odds of a negative reaction to the vaccine are almost certainly far lower.
It's just a lot safer to expose yourself to a small piece of a virus than the virus itself. Just like it's a lot safer to wear a seatbelt in a car, even though tons of people have gone their whole lives not wearing seatbelts and never suffered for it. We're talking about the difference between two small risks here, but there's a clear, easy way for everyone to lower their risk (except those who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons).
Tons of people have avoided the vaccine because they're confident they'll never, ever have a bad case of COVID, only to get a very bad case of COVID and big regrets. Others are living with the agonizing regret of having advised family members not to get vaccinated, only for those family members to die of COVID. [1]
Fear mongering propaganda piece from a propaganda newspaper. I can't read it (not that I want to) because it's behind a paywall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr_y6qANhts
I'm lucky to be alive at all, the odds are basically 0% that we would be alive. My age, health practices, local demographic composition, the odds of having a bad case to begin with, and the fact that I've had it already basically guarantees that I'll never have a severe case.
You can buy the 'safe' story if you want, but for the same reason I wouldn't have sprayed my kids with DDT in the 70's, I won't be vaccinating today: intuition. I won't be voluntarily introducing this risk to myself out of fear. If you're sold on 'the staticstics', go for it. I'm going to rely on my intuition. I've been alive > 40 yrs and everywhere I turn the government and pharma companies constantly fuck everyone they can for a dime. There is too much that smells badly to put stock in this 'vaccine' for me.
Is it customary for you to dismiss reporting as propaganda without reading it? Understood about the paywall, and I don't always like NYT reporting either, but there are plenty of accounts of unvaccinated people getting COVID and regretting their decision out there. Often young and healthy.
News articles aside, state statistics of COVID hospitalization and death show a clear, dramatic correlation with % of the population unvaccinated. Is that all fake? Is there a conspiracy to fake all statistics that clash with your worldview? Wouldn't that be a bit too convenient of a way to dismiss anything that doesn't confirm your beliefs?
Do you ever wonder if the media people telling you about media deception should include themselves in the critique? There's no shortage of documented deception by Stossel and other Fox personalities. Who watches the watchmen? Can we dismiss some as propaganda without reading while blindly accepting others? Isn't that how progressives sometimes get in trouble, by summarily dismissing evidence that doesn't fit their beliefs? Does it make sense for non-progressives to do the same thing?
All vaccines are complex products of science and factory processes. Do you distrust all of them, or just the new one?
1. "Often" doesn't mean "the majority". About 12% of COVID deaths were under 50 in September, and 4% were under 40. COVID is one of the biggest causes of death in both age groups. You can verify all of this with a couple clicks on https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
2. Disingenuous doesn't mean "disagrees with me".
3. A problem with blindly trusting sources from only one side is not improved by indiscriminately citing many more sources from that same side. Especially when one of those sources claims that "post-vaccine" deaths vastly outnumber COVID deaths. If the author is convinced that "post-vaccine" deaths are due to the vaccine, he should sound the alarm on the number of old people that die "post-waking-up-in-the-morning". This is an actual example of disingenuity, by the way.
Or credulously citing a single Idaho doctor's anecdotal observation, while his state's hospitals deal with an unprecedented capacity crisis as the unvaccinated flood in. Will you hold yourself responsible for being so gullible when it turns out to be fraud, error, or a sensationalized coincidence unrelated to the vaccine? Or will you simply move on to the next batch of nonsense? Do you actually care if your beliefs have any connection to reality, or is blind trust in one side's propaganda sufficient to satisfy your intellectual curiosity?
Anyway, I see from your response that you're no longer listening to what I say. The sources you cite aren't really answering any of my questions or rebutting any of my claims. So I have nothing further to say beyond what I said in my last post. See you later and good luck out there.
Poking around suggests that neither side is giving the whole story, though. Both are in thrall to the ideology of their showrunners and audience, and both ignore and distort inconvenient facts for that ideology. That's sadly the norm these days, no matter what source you read.
I wouldn't blindly trust my safety and the safety of my kids to either side. They both have huge vested interests in promoting the stories they promote.
If you have such concerns, read this: https://health-desk.org/articles/what-do-we-know-about-the-t...
The vaccine is injected into muscle and causes a localized immune reaction. The protein doesn't really escape the muscle. So it might damage some muscle cells and capillaries, but those are stressed all the time anyway and will regenerate.