Adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them

I am fascinated with learning about the process of deciding what topics are on the approved list for the discussion. Short 6 months ago, this is not something that people would be encouraged to discuss publicly. I am getting the sense that everybody is going by the main stream media rules. But how does the main stream media itself decide what is allowed at any given time? Does somebody actually calls around all the editors or is there some sort of social norm propagation because everybody knows everybody? Does anybody have insights into the actual process?

The picture it paints is, in fact, alarming. Unfortunately with vaccine studies you can't simply read the last sentences of the abstract and assume that what it says is correct. Vaccine studies simply don't get published if they don't recommend vaccination, which leads to the curious phenomenon of papers that contain data indicating serious problems yet which recommend more shots anyway. You have to discard their advice and just look at the data. This paper is a good case in point.

What does their data actually show? Look at figure 2. It shows smoothly and steadily declining effectiveness that drops below zero. There is no change in the trend near the 9 month mark. How far can effectiveness actually fall? This paper stops looking after 9 months, but we know from UK data that it can in fact keep falling for much longer than that. Before they stopped reporting the numbers measured effectiveness in the UK was around -300%:

https://dailysceptic.org/archive/vaccine-effectiveness-hits-...

Additionally case rates in the boosted were higher than in unvaccinated at that point, i.e. by March 2022 COVID had become a pandemic of the vaccinated. Boosting had helped for such a short period it hardly mattered and then the problem became even worse.

Note that you have to be careful with effectiveness figures reported by public health authorities. Starting with COVID many of them began reporting "adjusted" effectiveness in addition to or entirely instead of case rates, but their adjustment methodology isn't valid.

So this is not vaccine "fear mongering". It's what government's own data shows. That makes it a very real problem that needs serious and immediate research to figure out (a) why this is happening, (b) what if anything can be done about it. The vaccines appear to have backfired and we're very lucky that Omicron is so mild. Unfortunately this will not be admitted to in the media, by governments, and not openly by researchers.

Look at figure 2 in the Lancet study. Seems to be making that claim indeed.

As for immune function, the phrasing isn't as precise as it could be but he's paraphrasing a cited study so does it have to be? There's lots of fraud in science but that word should be reserved for things that justify it, like made up data, misrepresenting your own data, motivated reasoning etc. Assuming the reader will understand what's meant based on context, especially when the cited study can be easily loaded, doesn't rise to the level of fraud.

This is an article from the government, which deserves scrutiny. We are engineers who scrutinize documents all the time.

Have you heard of the Trusted News Initiative? [1] >Who is involved? >Core partners in the TNI are: AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post.

So that sounds nice from a project management perspective, but it's to ensure that only the same message is being disseminated, and "incorrect" messaging to be limited or stopped. And then you see one of Pfizer's directors [2] sits on the same board as Reuters, which is part of this program.

So there is a clear financial incentive there to either suppress or to limit/police information contrary to "vaccinate or die/you're a bad person". That's why so much research about ivermectin or vitamin D has been either suppressed or outright smeared. Like that week when every NBC or CNN or MSNBC channel ran the "Joe Rogan ate horse paste!" story. Well, no, actually a doctor in Texas prescribed him a WHO essential medicine that might have helped, but was safe to try. And the decision should be between him and his doctor. And then the CDC ran all these articles about "don't take horse medicine!" as a way to smear alternative medicine-interested as idiots with a deathwish. For shame that our government-funded agencies would do this.

Never before in the US have I seen such gaslighting, smearing, lies, corruption, mind control, and deprivation of rights (via vaccine passports in my county). All the Russians I know says this all reminds them deeply of the Soviet period. But Americans are so keen to trust authority, and not to know to be suspicious of it. We knew from January 2021 that the "vaccine" doesn't prevent infection, but it's still being treated as such. It is not a traditional vaccine; it is a prophylactic medication to limit risk of death for 6 or 7 months. Even calling this a "vaccine" is a linguistic trojan horse, because it's _not_; the CDC's very definition of "vaccine" was changed [3], just so they could shoehorn this product into that category and bring record profits to Moderna and Pfizer.

The next two or three years' of lawsuits are going to be _very_ interesting.

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative... [2]: https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/... [3]: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...